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

Aranna's page

2,465 posts. Alias of Min2007.


1 to 50 of 2,465 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Not burlap sacks, how about regular school sailor uniforms instead of sailor thongs?

SAMAS wrote:

A little fanservice is fine, and I really don't care all that much about average breast sizes (then again, I'm black and live in Texas. My idea of "average" is a little skewed).

What gets me is when a show drowns itself in fanservice. When you're too busy trying to ignore it (or stare at it) to actually enjoy the story.

I don't see why they seem to think we need that much. Yes, she has a cute ass. It was cute when you showed it to me thirty seconds ago. And the twelve times last episode (looking at you, Vividred Operation).

I know anime isn't movies... but they are similar, especially the animated ones. So I will just drop this here to get you guys thinking. Why because isn't this all about the stories we are teaching our kids?

TED video on hidden meanings in kids movies

Just something to think about when you watch fan service; what message is this sending to our sons and daughters? What are they learning from this and countless other media sources?

Still it gets me wondering about shows like Kill la Kill. It is a story about growing up and fitting in in a way and I liked the story even if I didn't like the fan service... in fact I had to be convinced by my boyfriend to watch because of that nasty in your face fan service had convinced me it would be horrible. Was the fan service necessary? Couldn't the story have stood on it's own? Ok... they painted clothing as the bad guy and good guy of the show. But aside from the weird nudists was any of the rest necessary? Could the outfits have been more modest without loosing the "power" of the clothes themselves? I think maybe they could have... just things to think about.

Actually it is known what Loki was using in his staff; the 'mind' infinity gem. Definitely not what took over Mac.

Typically no group names... but a few did pop up occasionally, usually chosen by one charismatic team member such that everyone just started using it...

- Mobile Justice! (clearly a fan of whatever this phrase came from)
- Altlan (this is what you get when you randomly select someone to name the group)
- Mourning's Dawn (our brief lived Eberron group made up of former Cyre military brigade members)

Any Ghost in the Shell, not just the movies.
Thor Dark World

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Good gosh no. Smart parents will limit their children exposure to bad influences... of ANY sort. And good people should call out harmful influences that others might be more wary of them.

...ok now I am starting to sound like my mother...

High School of the Dead is a good example of an anime that I have to actively ignore the mountain of objectification just to enjoy the fun story underneath. I love that the girls are bad ass and can hold their own... mostly. But that same fan service intended to sell tons of this to adolescent minded boys is sending the message to adolescent girls that in order to be attractive to boys you need big breasts and have to wear very little clothing. You have to appear vulnerable and needy to the boy is another thing they use... even in High School of the dead where the girls are kicking ass, you get moments were they break down emotionally and need big brave hero main character to save them. This plays into a bad mindset for both genders. look at the ten stupid things men and women do to mess up their lives; for men Stupid Chivalry and for women Stupid Helplessness. These don't lead to healthy relationships they lead to unhappy marriages.

Arnwyn wrote:
Tels wrote:
I don't mind fanservice in anime at all, but what does kill me, is when girls have, like, quintuple triple G breasts in them. For example, Highschool of the Dead, I think, would be a lot better show if all of the girls weren't so incredibly stacked.
If I'm going to get fanservice, this is the kind that I want.

Are you comfortable telling young girls that they should be nothing more than eye candy for guys? And that that in any way is healthy for them as individuals?

Oh my, The chainmail bikini one makes my head hurt.
Interesting comic.

I wouldn't say those teenage years were ugly. They came with a lot of amazing EU moments even if there were rough spots... like Jar-Jar.

And what daddy wouldn't want to see how his babies life turns out?

Fan service in most cases hurts a good show... or at least is a turn off that you have to consciously ignore to enjoy the show. Sexist scenes shouldn't be celebrated they should be discouraged.

~idly wonders what a cross universe movie would look like~
Two directors Joss Whedon and JJ Abrams team up for the ultimate show down as two universes collide; Star Trek and Star Wars together at last!

OK Whedon hasn't directed either but I think those two would make a great movie team up of directors.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm... you really want to mess with them and don't care about the forth wall? Put a poster from their favorite cancelled show in the dungeon with a bloody dagger planted in it, and the caption "We killed this one! Wait till you see our next victim."

PS: I actually liked all those shows... but not as much as Star Trek or Star Wars.

Sadly much to the utter dismay of the Fivers, Scapers, Browncoats, and Gaters those universes have ended. They only live on in reruns. While Star Trek and Star Wars are continuing settings with fresh new opportunities to be awed or enraged depending on the situation. Lets face it when a Federation Dreadnought faces off with an Imperial Star Destroyer in orbit they will be doing so over the lifeless ruins of Babylon 5, an old star gate, a crashed hulk of a Peacekeeper carrier, and some Reaver and Alliance wrecks.

Long Live Warsies! Long Live Trekers!

Alignment is the GMs prerogative. So this whole flame war is silly... depending on your individual GMs we are ALL wrong or (since everyone seems to have their own take on it) likely only right in one case only, much like a stopped clock.

I loved Voyager in spite of some really bad episodes.
What made Voyager better for the most part than Enterprise was the fact that the bad parts were short in length and could be forgotten... mostly. Whereas in Enterprise the worst bad part was the central plot line of the whole show revolving around a stupid time war. That and Voyager was far easier to watch with new episodes airing twice in the week in case you missed recording it. While I could only see Enterprise one time during the week on a station that frequently interrupted it. Meaning I didn't actually see all of it till years later on DVD.

If you stripped out the "time war" and restructured the shows seasons it would have been awesome... even despite the canon violations.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Guys Lucas IS from a much older generation that doesn't hang out online or follow twitter trends. He didn't grow up with computers or cell phone... his preferred entertainment may not include camping out online. In which case it is entirely believable that he may have missed the viral buzz about the new Star Wars trailer. Now it would surprise me if after being asked about it by a reporter he didn't go online to watch it later.

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
DS9 is where Star Trek fandom goes to die.

I thought it was after Enterprise was poorly received that producers thought Star Trek was dead? They even sold all the props and sets off.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Peter Green wrote:

So take the issue of torture or lying for instance? My question as DM is a simple one: Does the fact that the PC just tortured or lied increase or decrease the overall amount of evil in the world? If the answer is "decreases evil," then his action was good.

It's almost like that famous answer to "How do you know the difference between art & pornography?" "I may not know how to define it; but I know it when I see it."

Therefore, if the paladin tortures the half-demon in order to ascertain the location of a group of elf-children who are currently being sexually abused, then his actions were good. As DM, it seems pretty obvious to me.

This is why torture (for information not pleasure) and lying are Chaotic Aligned actions in my new definitions. They can be good... they can be evil... but they most definitely are dirty tactics. A single chaotic act from a paladin wouldn't cause his fall... but if he makes a pattern of torturing his enemies for information, then his alignment would start to move toward CG and away from LG causing a fall unless he alters his behavior.

This is where alignment gets [more] messy.

Torture is a violation of the victim's dignity, if not its life, which makes it definitionally Evil. (Both by my way of thinking and by the game's definition.) Even ignoring the utter lack of empathy that torture requires, which is easy to forget about or gloss over when it's your imaginary character doing the torturing rather than yourself in the real world, torture is inherently problematic. Because even innocents will eventually say anything to stop the pain, a torturer often has no way of knowing that her victim is even guilty.

That said, I don't believe in absolutes and I can certainly imagine plenty of corner cases where "Yeah, we have to torture this guy who we're absolutely sure is an evil cultist who knows where the evil sacrificial ritual is happening" is the Good decision. In the real world, the heat of...

This is why I slightly changed the book definitions, it makes things clear instead of murky. In the case of doing evil to evil doers this has been a thing in the game already a crusader hunts down and murders the bad guys; he doesn't bring them in for a trial unless the GM has them surrender... Torture to stop further crime is good in your own words, yet it makes no sense if we leave that type of torture as evil acts. Better to make that a Chaotic act and call it a Dirty Tactic that way Paladins would still avoid it but it leaves the CG guys free to pick up the knives while the paladin guards the perimeter as long as you are fine with the paladin being cross with you later. No ones alignments need to change this way and everyone has a clear vision about the alignment of their actions.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Kalshane wrote:
My basic opinion is it looks really cool,
This is Star Wars. The rest is unimportant.

No not quite correct; Better to say "This is JJ Abrams. The rest is unimportant." Remember JJ LOVES flashy effects and edge of your seat action scenes. He tosses canon out the window. Fortunately in Star Wars case I think Lucas did a horrible job recently. Maybe it will actually help Star Wars to have less canon and more flash and action. There are a LOT of Star Wars canon bits we could all sleep better forgetting; midi-chlorians for one. If he can change all that and make a great movie than I am more than willing to look the other way when he makes a less than optimal lightsaber design.

~raises a glass~
A toast to JJ Abrams and what could be the best Star Wars in a long while.

Peter Green wrote:

So take the issue of torture or lying for instance? My question as DM is a simple one: Does the fact that the PC just tortured or lied increase or decrease the overall amount of evil in the world? If the answer is "decreases evil," then his action was good.

It's almost like that famous answer to "How do you know the difference between art & pornography?" "I may not know how to define it; but I know it when I see it."

Therefore, if the paladin tortures the half-demon in order to ascertain the location of a group of elf-children who are currently being sexually abused, then his actions were good. As DM, it seems pretty obvious to me.

This is why torture (for information not pleasure) and lying are Chaotic Aligned actions in my new definitions. They can be good... they can be evil... but they most definitely are dirty tactics. A single chaotic act from a paladin wouldn't cause his fall... but if he makes a pattern of torturing his enemies for information, then his alignment would start to move toward CG and away from LG causing a fall unless he alters his behavior.

ElterAgo wrote:

I once had a GM who never liked non-standard races and classes. He often banned them. Or modified them until no one wanted to play them.

Then when he was player, he showed up with a half-drow, half-construct, samuri, psion kineticist. {Zero warning or discussion with the new GM.)

Then got mad at all of us when we couldn't stop laughing at him.

It is frequently true that the things we hate the most in others are the things we would do ourselves if given the chance. I mean there are notable exceptions but nine times out of ten if someone is hating on whatever, "power gamers" to pull a random example, then that is probably what they are when they are sitting in the other seat.

Usual Suspect wrote:
Can I use the memory space to bring books instead of movies? I could bring a s%%~ load of books for the memory space required for 10 movies.

And another one either misses the whole point or likes being a wiseguy.

The droid is fine... at this tech level you can have them look and move in any way the builder feels looks cool.

Actually a min/maxer is someone who takes the maximum amount of weaknesses he can have with the minimum impact on his character's power or survivability. The term was coined for point buy systems, but it has exploded in popularity and now is sometimes used synonymously with power gamer or optimizer.

Edit: A good example is dumping a stat you will not need to 7.

This looks awesome!

New Terminator

I have been too quick to reject player created material before I have even fully considered whether it would hurt the game or not.

I am also easily distracted by outside media... so don't leave a TV, radio, or video game on even in the next room or soon I will be helplessly drawn to listen to/watch it.

I have tried numerous alignment systems and the ONE system that persists decade after decade is D&D's nine point system. Is it really hard to comprehensively understand? Yes this IS why your GM is the final arbiter and NOT the game rules; because everyone seems to have their own take on what they mean. Is super simple to use? Absolutely, this is it's persistent charm.

I had a perfect alignment system with a 16 word set of descriptors that could describe ANY character... But EVERY player hated it with a passion. So it sits in a binder somewhere in a dusty box never to be used again. And I find that simply cleaning up the meaning of each axis transforms the D&D alignment system into one that is easy to understand as well. Good vs Evil is the willingness to do harm to innocents. (new)Law vs Chaos is the willingness to use dirty tactics to get to your goal... things like poison, traps, torture, curses, or even mind control fall under dirty tactics.

I say (new) because I used to have Law vs Chaos mean how strict a code you followed. BUT this tended to complicate alignment discussions with intent and patterns of behavior. I wanted something simpler that ANYONE could instantly grasp. Still the change does affect a few things in-game. For example the creation and use of unaligned undead becomes inherently Chaotic in my new system. The creation of Evil aligned undead is still an evil act in fact it becomes a chaotic evil act.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wraithstrike, nobody makes a deliberately gimped character that is pure straw man. Even in a recent 0 PB game the fighter had a 14 str 13 Con.

Thejeff has the right of it. You came across seeming to support over-optimized concepts, If that isn't the case then I mistook your comments. But keep in mind if the others at the table are resenting you as you say, then you are probably doing something wrong, something that is making the game unfun for them.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Hama wrote:
How can one experience sour you on the entire hobby?
It was a series of bad Dms. Not one after the other of course. It was nearly the final nail in the coffin for me. I'm the bad guy for not only doing my job at the table but doing it well.

False; It's not your job to smash encounters in one round.

It is your job to have fun and not ruin the fun of others.
Clearly you were failing at that second part of your job.

Calm down and simply have a good cry instead. Your wallet will thank you when you don't have to replace all those items you smashed.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

It isn't the "quickness" of the fights that creates ill feelings at the table though it can contribute... No; it is the time share that matters. If you have a mixed group and one guy single-rounds most of the encounters then all the other people at the table who are expecting some table time in combat are left with nothing. "Oh you go third? Sorry you get to do nothing this combat". BUT if the GM makes the baddies powerful enough to last to round two then suddenly it becomes apparent that a hack and slasher with a weaker build is simply going to die, NOT get more combat time. And this creates HUGE resentment toward the optimizer who spent months combing up every trick in the books or on the internet to master his build. Because now all those combat aficionados who didn't "eat, sleep, optimize" all that time have to suddenly catch up inside of a week. So most groups answer isn't to keep punishing all the lesser optimizers, NO most groups either kick out the "munchkin" or put house rules in place to keep the over-optimizer at the same power level as his friends. And so that over-optimizer comes crying on the internet that he plays with a tyrant GM who won't let him play anything cool.

Noteleks the parents probably already had their racials added in and those should be removed before averaging if you are doing it that way. Although I would recommend not doing it that way at all. Children are normally able to grow in ways their parents aren't.

The rule of thumb is that the child is always the same size catagory as its mother. Unless you are planning to have the baby kill her. And since there are no rules for 1/4 giants the baby is human for stat purposes, although having a giant blooded feat or trait is certainly a possibility.

As for actual stat generation just use the standard method your table uses for NPCs. Mine uses Elite array but there are many varied methods. The GM and player decide what class the child will grow into and assign stats based on that... Or you could place highest to lowest based on the child's parents and let fate/role play determin his/her later class.

I agree with Kthulhu, nearly every table handles magic differently... The best definitions you could probably have are; Low = any magic lower than what you expect; and High = any magic higher than you expect. In my low magic setting where you can have those cool murder mysteries and survival scenarios most non-combat magic is removed or restricted. BUT to the group that simply bans all full casters my low magic seems like high magic.

Ravingdork wrote:

Hours and hours and hours I put into the mere hope of getting into a PbP game! What a waste of my time! How can anyone stand for such a crummy format of recruitment? Begging for a spot while facing the cruel and public criticisms of other potential players trying to convince the GM of your concept's unworthiness? How awful! Being strung along for weeks, all for naught!

I was friendly, compromised my character concept left and right hoping to make it work, and I did absolutely everything I could to make it easier for the GM--linking all of my feats, magic items, spells, and other rule sources, and am I rewarded for all that effort? NO! Cast aside like unwanted garbage.

I was really looking forward to that game, and I'm wondering now if I even have the heart to start over again any time soon. Even if I did, I would likely just end up in yet another low-level game, or one that doesn't have nearly as good a premise. Even if I did get into a high-level game with a great premise, it will likely be dead inside of a month!

How do you do it? How do you possibly make PbP work on this site under such awful, cut-throat conditions?

Roleplaying should be easy and fun. Not this. Never this.

This is par for the course with PbP. Do what I used to do. Build good relations with as many GMs as you can. Give them helpful characters without using any crazy rule tricks, just standard characters. BUT feel free to make them memorable in role play... memorable in a good way. Be nice when you are not selected and helpful to others when you are. After a while those GMs will begin to request you in their games, thats right free pass to the front of the line. And they will be far kinder to unusual concepts you present, even far out ones. After all once they know you are a good player you will stand way out from the crowd of potential bad players.

I would want my ten to reflect different places I would want to remember;

1- Star Wars: A New Hope
2- Star Trek: Undiscovered Country
3- Serenity
4- Lord of the Rings
5- Jurassic Park
6- Matrix
7- Ghost in the Shell
8- Gundam: Chars Counterattack
9- Avatar
0- Pirates of the Carribean

This would be easier if you could cheat and bring whole series or movie sequels.

thejeff wrote:
Aranna wrote:

But of all the times he is involved in other titles Kthulhu, did they go into depth about Doom's background? Not that I am aware of. They kind of assume people already knew about him even if for nothing more than name recognition. In other words he became just another villain. How many times have titles of ANY sort explored Dr Dooms origins?

I'm not sure what you're looking for or why it's important. No, they don't give a full retelling of his origins and motivations every time he appears - even in the FF.

So what? It's still Doom. The personality is still there. The main beats of his story and traits are usually at least alluded to - Genius, arrogance, Latveria, twisted nobility and honor.

My point is that the hacktivist Doom can be arrogant and genius (those are normal from such hackers), and NOTHING is preventing him or her from having a twisted sense of nobility and honor, likewise Doom could still be from Latveria and it would lose nothing. So IF that is the core of Doom I fail to see why you would be upset by the new ideas?

I guess I should really ask you all. WHAT is it you think is being lost and WHY is that so important to you?

But of all the times he is involved in other titles Kthulhu, did they go into depth about Doom's background? Not that I am aware of. They kind of assume people already knew about him even if for nothing more than name recognition. In other words he became just another villain. How many times have titles of ANY sort explored Dr Dooms origins?

NWN multiplayer was a blast. But it was highly dependent on the Persistent World you were logging into or the module you were all playing. NOT all developers are created equal.

I am hoping for the best here but it is too early to get excited yet.

Perfect shapeshifting.
You know the power to actually become anything else.
I want to be a dragon... ~poof~ I am a real dragon complete with innate magic, a breath weapon, flight, and dragon armor. Want to try out being an elf ~poof~ play in the forest all day long. Want to earn some cash as a body double for some actress ~poof~ I am her.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:

I see this a lot; Someone wants advice on or is describing their house rules for a low magic campaign. In Pathfinder this is a daunting task and there is a ton of different advice on how to go about this, from not leveling past 6th level to banning all full casters. But my question is "Why?"

Basically if you are a person that desires low magic campaign, why do you want this? Especially in a magic-heavy system like Pathfinder?

To clarify I'm not saying "If you like low magic so much get your butt in a different system." I'm trying to understand why there are a lot of attempts at low magic. Is it an innate storytelling desire? Is magic just complicated and overpowered? Are you trying to mimic a book or movie's setting and heavy magic disrupts it? Are you tired of all caster parties?

I may be late to the thread but... I can answer why. Why go with low magic? Simple; to tell the stories that are impossible with a high magic setting. Survival against the elements or mother nature, murder mysteries, crime dramas, or any other sort of tale that can be solved by casting one spell. Some people miss that part of fantasy and want it back. So they take their favorite fantasy system and tweek it till it can allow such stories.

Grey Lensman wrote:
IIRC, the old movie version isn't the comic version either. Doom did not get powers from the same accident that created the Fantastic Four (nor does he really have any - it's the suit, the brains, and the sorcery he learned). He's pretty much a self-made monster.

Keep in mind that the movie version WAS FOX's attempt to stay true to Dr Doom's comic roots. I for one do not want more of THAT.

PS: I am betting that most of the team at FOX haven't read any old Dr Doom at all.

No thejeff.
Just look at the numbers. The people who were introduced to the comic version of Dr Doom were among the 300,000 readers in the 1960's... And very few of them stuck with the comic over the years. I mean they sell in the low tens of thousands now. These are a tiny number of people compared to the 10s of millions of people who watched the Fantastic Four movie just in it's opening night not to mention the huge numbers who have seen it on cable or DVD since. Very tiny indeed. NO the version of Dr Doom most of the world was introduced to was the movie version. BUT wait you exclaim! If not comics then surely games and other media is the true version people were introduced to! While there may be a bit of truth in this remember that these appearances in games and other media DO NOT include much if anything about Dr Doom's history or motivations beyond just being super villain of the week. Certainly not enough to cause any concern over what direction they decide to go with in the reboot.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:

Let's turn the question on its head.

Aranna, since you're the only one (at least vocally) defending this decision, WHY do you believe Doom needed a rewrite/reconceptualization?

I have already explained this. But I will try again.

The Old Dr Doom isn't the comic book version for most people, myself included. The Old Dr Doom is the original Fantastic Four movie version. And I have yet to hear ANY praise for THAT Dr Doom. He was lame and NEEDS a rewrite. I wasn't intending to specifically say that hacktivist Doom was the "way to go" or anything like that. But as far as fresh takes on a character go I could see it working out. The idea here isn't to appeal to the hundreds of thousands of rabid readers of comics featuring Dr Doom, but rather to appeal to the millions of movie fans many of whom never really got into comics themselves. In effect they are trying to recreate a franchise which is only "based on" the comics and subject it to a far bigger and often more critical audience.

I will admit their track record so far doesn't fill me with hope for the new version... but it is certainly worth a go see. If they get it right this time around it will become the new standard for what the Fantastic Four really IS. If it fails it will just become another forgotten movie used as space filler on cable TV.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Thanks everyone. You've confirmed that 15 point buy and 20 point buy don't make a difference and the +2 bonus is effectively just recreating 20 point buy.

So how about this as an alternate:
Your scores start at 8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 (arrange to suit) and you get 20 points to increase them up to a maximum of 16 (before racial modifiers are added). No buy downs are allowed.

It's not quite 20 point buy (effectively an 18 point buy) and it tones down Wizards/Sorcerers/Witches (who almost always min/max to get that 20 in their primary stat) without having a major impact on the vast majority of classes who typically cap themselves at 16 unless being run by a strong min/max enthusiast. MAD classes are hindered somewhat in that they can't buy down to 7 to help boost their other stats, but they shouldn't be too far behind the rest of the party given everyone has a cap of 16.

Do people think this would have the desired effect?

I realise ability scores are a minor element for creating particularly powerful characters, but it's a starting point. My goal is to reign in the worst character builds without stifling the creativity and enjoyment of my players. It's also not motivated by trying to limit the power of my player's characters, but instead provide an even baseline so that I can better gauge what effect combats will have (i.e. find the sweet spot between TPK and cakewalk).

Sounds good to me.

The reason higher point buys are seemingly much more powerful despite the numerical differences being so close is because of the "you must be this tall to ride" effect. Many feats have stat minimums. The more stat minimums you meet the wider your array of character options are. The more character options you have open the more you can optimize. The more you optimize the more powerful your character gets.

The way to limit the power of point buy is to remove or severely restrict buy downs. I have used 20 point buy with NO buy downs to very good effect. It seems to be a sweet spot at least the way my group plays. Although I have used 15 point buy with no buy downs before as it makes 20 stats impossible at first level.

I reviewed the issue and have come to the following conclusion:

No you can't set CL to 20th by adding +5 to the crafting DC. The FAQ sidebar is clear on this. In this case CL 20 is NOT a requirement to craft a staff with a level 1 spell on it.

Yes you can craft a staff for very little money by making the spell it holds cost more charges to use; 10 charges to activate a level 1 spell DOES reduce the cost of that spell by a factor of ten.

Oh and even with the feat you will have to wait till you are either 11th level or at least 9th level caster with a couple levels in something else using the feat.


Magic Item Creation wrote:
In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting its prerequisites.

So... you can't use the +5 crafting DC at all with staves which are spell trigger items. I am leaving this separate because I am sure this is an error in print and that it was probably was supposed to mean that you just need to be able to cast the spell in question.


So you could make the cheapest staff you can manage at 11th level which is a staff of cantrip (10 charges per single casting of that one cantrip) made at level 8 CL; the minimum. For (400x0.5x8)/10=160gp that would function as a +2 staff using these abilities.

1 to 50 of 2,465 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.