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

Arbane the Terrible's page

415 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 415 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I like to fool around with the names of (traditionally nameless) mooks, instead of, say, 'mook #1'.

Bob & Weave.

Ace, Deuce & Trey.

Cough & Drop.

Meaty, Beefy, Big & Bouncy.

If anyone's got any more ideas...? : )

Lily, Rose, Iris, and their brother, Herb.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:


I can't really think of any situation where I would list "Your players are enjoying themselves; this must be stopped" among a list of recommended techniques for running a game.

A horror game?


You might want to up the rating on Toppling Spell metamagic a bit - Spiritual Weapon and Spiritual Ally are both [force] spells, and if the GM will allow you to use Charisma instead of Wisdom (Seriously, why has this not been updated yet?) to hit with them, they could be quite nice with Toppling Spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For simplicity of math, maybe '3d20, drop highest and lowest'? That should make 1s and 20s much rarer.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
here are the list of problem abilities i have seen, whether they are spells or passive abilities or whatever, spells offer access more reliably to more people

Witness the TVTropes (WARNING: Do not follow link without lots of spare time) list of Story Breaker Powers. There's a spell for almost EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. (In D&D3.5, take out the 'almost'.)

In an actual story, if a wizard is a major character, there's usually SOME reason they can't just use their magic to solve every problem.


atheral wrote:


I watched the first episode of Cross Ange, I was expecting somthing more akin to Chika or scrapped princess....needless to say I wasn't prepared for that episode, especially the ending...still going to watch it though.

I watched a bunch of first episodes with a group. We managed to get about five minutes into that one, and unanimously decided "nah". So we watched something else.

I went back later and watched the rest, and in retrospect, I SHOULD'VE STUCK WITH "NAH".


Trigger Loaded wrote:

It's something to consider: Do adventurers exist as a concept in one's campaign world? And if so, how are they treated?

On RPGnet, Jurgen Hubert came up with a setting specifically to justify the small bands of wandering adventurers: Doomed Slayers. I think it's pretty good.

Trigger Loaded wrote:
Strangely, I don't recall a lot of setting where adventurers are treated like heroes and celebrities. I've seen quite a few where adventurers are treated like they're two steps removed from dirty criminals and tomb robbers. (Or treated like they are dirty criminals and tomb robbers.)

I guess your players like having their characters shat on from a great height at every opportunity?

Logically speaking, in a 'really' quasi-medieval world, anyone allowed to carry weapons and wear armor on a regular basis would either be nobility, or work for nobles. [sarcasm]And we all know how player-characters LOVE getting ordered around by their social superiors.[/sarcasm]


bookrat wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Sounds like "Why the hell is this a feat? Does that mean I can't get a circumstance bonus to an Intimidate check by breaking the wall with my fist? WTF?"
This is another feat I'm going to turn into a "don't need a feat to do it, auto applies to anyone who wants to use it."

[sarcasm]

Blasphemy. Don't you know the rules? ANYTHING cool a character wants to do must be either a feat, a skill-check, or a spell. NO EXCEPTIONS.
[/sarcasm]


Kthulhu wrote:
It might be amusing if the Paizo staff started applying the same logic to magic spells that they do to non-magical elements of the game. Save some page count too, when Jason Burlman took out all the spells that he's not able to cast in real life.

:D Hopefully, he'll follow the same methodology as this guy.

-----

As someone pointed out another time the Caster Supremacy Issue came up, another way fighters got screwed in the changeover from AD&D to 3rd ed was saving throws - at least in 1st ed, Fighters either had the best or second-best saves against _everything_. Since 1st ed just had straight save rolls for most things, this meant that high-level fighters might not cast spells, but they were very hard to affect with magic if they didn't want it. Not so in 3rd/PF....


Lucy_Valentine wrote:
But yes, having built a gonzo magic system, it really behooves the designers to build the society that exists in conjunction with it from the ground up. Which is going to be hard, considering. So, we totally agree. :-)

It should probably resemble Eberron more than Merrie Olde England, I think we can all agree...


Sean FitzSimon wrote:


Not sure anyone really even uses this anymore but I'm excited to be back on the project. Looking forward to responses from the community.

It's the only Oracle guide I'm aware of, so I'm happy to see you're updating it. Thanks!


Atarlost wrote:

Any real solution should be to reduce caster narrative power. Players with narrative power are incompatible with the AP model.

If you want real narrative power you don't want to be playing a RPG. You want a grand strategy game. If you want narrative power and power progression you want a 4X game.

I have to fervently disagree with this. The strength of RPGs over other pastimes is the degree to which the players get to change the shape of the story. If the PCs can't affect the narrative except by grinding along on the treadmill, I might as well go play Final Fantasy XXI or watch a movie instead.

APs are understandably somewhat on rails, but they're not the be-all and end-all of RPGs.

Atarlost wrote:


The last thing that should be considered acceptable is the GM trying to run strategy games for the rogue and fighter while the cleric and wizard complain that they aren't getting to play the game.

Best solution I've heard for this: Let the sidelined PCs' players take the parts of important NPCs.


Time to hit the comics shop, then!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM. wrote:
The problem with magic in PF is that spells are designed to be superior to the whatever other options. It is the way it was designed and the way is still done with every new book.

YES. I can think of no places in PF (except possibly straight weapon damage) where Muggles Do it Better. The devs seems to have thought that limited spell slots per day would be enough to reign in the spellcasters, and I see no evidence that that is the case.

Cerberus Seven wrote:
Eh, more like magic was designed to be balanced in the game but by different standards. It has its own unique set of restrictions and laws meant to curtail ridiculous power inflation.

What are those? Aside from 'Wizards can't heal', I'm having a hard time thinking of ANY limits to sufficiently high-level magic.


Think about how much damage a character takes on the way to 10th level.

If you WANT them all to look like Freddy Krueger, then scarring rules are a great idea.


sunshadow21 wrote:
There's a reason that Elminster rarely uses his magic directly; the raw power of higher level magic is just as likely to be turned against the caster as it is to solve the problem the way the caster expects, with a myriad of possible results in between those two extremes as well.

Actually, the REAL reason he rarely uses his magic directly is because if he did, the story would be over on page 3.

In another system you might be right, but D&D3.x/PF magic (aside from Wishes,) is usually VERY safe and controlled.

DrDeth wrote:

Nothing a fighter can do to render a entire adventure irrelevant? Ha. " while he's talking I fire an arrow at him. Hmm, natural 20, confirmed." BBEG is dead, one shot, one kill.

Adventure over.

That's what you get for making a BBEG with a Constitution penalty.

Kolokotroni wrote:
And you are completely mistaken. I just told you how to make martial characters and magic character have equal potential within the framework of dnd. Give the rogue a theives guild. Automatically. At x level, he gets the 'henchmen' ability. (SNIP)

Which isn't bad, but not every rogue player wants to be Don Corleone. Some would rather be Carmen Sandiego, and steal mountains, or the thoughts out of their opponents heads.

So there's also the 'crank a mundane ability to fairy-tale levels' approach, but that offends the people who want REALISM in their game about elves and fireball-flinging wizards.

Orfamay Quest wrote:


Quote:
Or, he may start the process, and deliberately drag it out or twist it to test the caster and the party.
That's an interesting interpretation of "lawful good" you have there.

Lawful Good people can use legalistic screwage if they think their target deserves it.

sunshadow21 wrote:
Right up until the DM throws you into a situation where highly specialized spells are required, and you don't have them.

If highly specialized spells are needed, odds are good that the non-casters are just as screwed as the sorcerers.


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
I'm kind of boggled at the thought that a character who makes a save on a 6 or higher is thought of by his player as being bad at making saving throws.

Eh, that's still a 25% chance of failing.

If an architect has 25% of their buildings fall down....


There's been more than one issue out? (I haven't been keeping up.) The first one was fun.


Bave wrote:
Arbane the Terrible wrote:

People have survived falls from miles in the air in real life.

Just throwing that out there.

As for the whole Caster Supremacy Argument, there are ways a fantasy RPG can rein in the spellcasters - the problem is that D&D 3.X used NONE of them except finite spell slots. D&D-style magic is, for the most part, fast, convenient, cheap, and safe. Heck, at least in AD&D, some spells could backfire badly. (Haste aged you, Polymorph could kill you, Teleport had a small risk of teleporting into solid rock...) So we're stuck with wizards with no limitations, and non-casters with no useful abilities because REEEEEAAAALISM.

So, if we actually want the snivelling peasants martial classes to stay relevant after level whatever, we have two unpalatable options:

1: Beat spellcasters with the nerfbat until they scream for mercy, then beat them some more.
2: Give up in the futile and wrongheaded pursuit of 'realism', and give martial classes the sort of abilities seen in Exalted, some of the whackier myths, or at least a high-budget kung-fu movie.

Ah yes, because those Paladins and Archers really seem to be struggling. I have seen more dragons and demons get one rounded by archers than I have by casters.... true story.

DPR is not the only measure of character ability. A halfway-smart caster can completely short-circuit a LOT of plots in a way that no mundane character ever could.

Murder plot? "Speak with dead" (And possibly Raise Dead, if anyone cares enough.)
Someone's poisoned, and we need the anti-"Neutralize Poison" oh, never mind.
You must cross the Desert of Woe and reach the Forbidden Temple of - "Teleport" DAMMIT, STOP IGNORING ALL MY ADVENTURES!


Consider a succubus. The save DC on their Dominate Person is 23. A 7th level fighter has a mighty +2 for their base will save. If they don't have sky-high wisdom, a good cloak of resistance AND some luck, the rest of the party now has TWO huge problems to deal with.

Zhayne wrote:

One single die roll should not have that great an effect on a character or a combat.

What's bizarre is that D&D Pathfinder otherwise knows this. We have hit points specifically so that it's much less likely for a big hero's career to get cut short by a single bad die-roll, but the designers are totally OK with a blown save meaning death.

And VampByDay: My sympathies. What kind of jackass GM lets someone makes up a character just to kill them, instead of just saying 'play something else'?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't make any plans that rely on an enemy NOT being one-shotted when the fight starts.


They've already got the NPC Codex. Some of the ones from that might be useful. (it has writeups for the main iconic characters at levels 1, 7, and 12.)


Elf Barbarian.
"It's not a 'berserk rage'. I enter a meditative trance that aids me in reacting quickly in battle."
"Last fight, you ripped off an orc's arm, and were beating him with it while screaming like a banshee."
"That was the optimal strategy at that point."

Human (or Halfling, maybe?) Druid
A young girl from farming country. Has her dog by her side, carries a shepherd's crook. If you menace her, she'll either fracture your skull with it, or turn into a wolf and rip your face off.
"Who's more in tune with nature than a farmer?"

Human Warlord (From Path of War) - just because it looks like fun.

Ninja social skillmonkey who wears bright colored clothes and works as a musician in their day-job. "I'm a bard."

Dwarf wizard who wants to make magic weaponry, and who wants to personally field-test their creations. (So they'd need armor proficiency)


Artanthos wrote:


No. The bluff skill does not negate intelligence, common sense or information obtained from other sources.

However, it can convince someone that they're actually a wallaby.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

People have survived falls from miles in the air in real life.
Just throwing that out there.

As for the whole Caster Supremacy Argument, there are ways a fantasy RPG can rein in the spellcasters - the problem is that D&D 3.X used NONE of them except finite spell slots. D&D-style magic is, for the most part, fast, convenient, cheap, and safe. Heck, at least in AD&D, some spells could backfire badly. (Haste aged you, Polymorph could kill you, Teleport had a small risk of teleporting into solid rock...) So we're stuck with wizards with no limitations, and non-casters with no useful abilities because REEEEEAAAALISM.

So, if we actually want the snivelling peasants martial classes to stay relevant after level whatever, we have two unpalatable options:

1: Beat spellcasters with the nerfbat until they scream for mercy, then beat them some more.
2: Give up in the futile and wrongheaded pursuit of 'realism', and give martial classes the sort of abilities seen in Exalted, some of the whackier myths, or at least a high-budget kung-fu movie.


If you go with summoner (I've seen them in play, they can be quite good), ask the GM if your summons can be 'toy' versions of the normal creatures, maybe? (Same stats, they just looks like dolls.)

A custom feat to give summons some construct-like immunities would be nice later on, but that might be pretty powerful.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I don't know many settings well enough to come up with a backstory that'll be easy to fit into the setting - and if it's a homebrew world, I won't know it at all. So I generally find it easier to come up with very broad strokes, and fill in details later.

Then my current GM dropped a five-page questionnaire of backstory & personality questions on me. Sheesh! So much filling-in I had to do... but it did give me some ideas to use later. Him too, I suspect...

Anyway, terrible backstory stories. I'm happy to say that this one isn't mine, and I never played with it:

soylent wrote:


Okay, this comes up once or twice a year on the pen-and-paper roleplaying websites I frequent. The topic of "What's the worst character concept you've ever seen?" is a well-loved one, ripe with humor potential. And I always submit the same contribution. The Invincible Hammer Wheel.

...

My "Worst Character Concept Ever", submitted to me by a prospective player in a Champions game was going to run (but never got off the ground):

The Superlative (Invincible, Indestructible, etc.) Hammer-Wheel.

The Invincible Hammer-Wheel's power is that he has hammers for hands and wheels for feet. Or it could have been wheels for hands and hammers for feet. The player himself wasn't sure, but my mental picture of the character is a man with monster-truck wheels plugged into where is arms should be, who drives up to villains and kicks them with his sledgehammer feet.

Here's basically how the conversation went:

Player: I hear you're running a superhero game. Can I play?
Me: Sure. Do you have a character concept in mind?
Player: The Invincible Hammer-Wheel!
Me: Uh... (keep in mind this was to be a "serious" supers game)
Player: He has hammers for hands and wheels for feet! Or, wheels for hands and hammers for feet. I haven't decided.
Me: And how did he come by these "powers?"
Player: He was born that way.
Me: Must have been rough on his folks...
Player: He was raised by farm implements.
Me: ...and his motivation for doing good?
Player: He lives in the woods.

So whenever people bring up their "worst concept" horror-stories, all I have to say is;

"The Invincible Hammer-Wheel.
He has wheels for hands and hammers for feet.
He was born that way.
He was raised by farm implements.
He lives in the woods."


Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Liranys wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Liranys wrote:
Why do men get a +2 int?

See above. Look at the % of top scientists, mathematicians, and chess players who are male, vs. female. Since we're told to ignore cultural reasons and just look at what's obviously "realistic"...

P.S. Needless to say, I don't think they should.

Our world is male dominated. If all things were equal and you were judged solely on performance and sex never came into it, there would most likely be equal numbers of top scientists, mathematicians and chess players who are female as well as those who are male.
Not necessarily. From what's been covered in Anthropology class, men and women have similar average intelligence, but women have a shallower deviation curve within this spectrum, meaning that men are more likely to be above or below average intelligence than women. So, it may be that there are more particularly intelligent men than women, but also more blockheadedly stupid men. This could make true equality of numbers in top fields unlikely.

Interestingly, there's been studies done on transgender people in academics.

I'll give you one guess what it shows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Hmm, I still always have one in my games...does that mean I am "Old-school" or a "crazy $#i7"? ;-)

That's not an 'or' question.

DrDeth wrote:


Graffiti.

A good bit of graffiti I heard of from an 1st ed AD&D game:

The walls in this corridor are covered in soot. Someone used their finger to write something in Common: "Adventurers who follow us, take heed: The room ahead is too small for a fireball."

RDM42 wrote:
A reversed potion of invisibility. Everything ELSE effectively becomes invisible to the imbiber.

I think that condition is commonly known as 'blindness'.

Chyrone wrote:


Animate dead on the roast turkey?

Bugs Bunny did that once.

There's a comic in one of the Exalted splatbooks where a necromancer is showing off by having a roast ox march around the dining room so that his guests can cut off their slices.


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:


Just a couple years ago I was volunteering at the high school and asked to grade some tests. They just had to write a single letter to indicate their choice. Almost 1/3 of the test had letters that I couldn't be sure what they were.

Ahh, that brings back happy memories of my elementary school days... trying to create the perfect letter for use in tests, halfway between a 'T' and an "F"....


LazarX wrote:
It's the same with the Paladin. A cleric who goes out of favor with his deity can ingratiate himself with a new one, and bang! He's good. The Paladin however has this big red self destruct button that turns him into a fighter without class features or feats, and there are those who want to know when that button can be pressed.

And some people just can't resist pushing the bright shiny, CANDY-LIKE BUTTON.


DominusMegadeus wrote:

Paladins have a tendency to focus on diplomacy, they have naturally good charisma scores and are sincerely good people who can prove it when asked to via magic powers they get from the universe for being so perfect.

They're like the safest choice a single NPC can make.

Plus, Immunity to disease. :D

OP: What did you EXPECT the Paladin to do about the goblin babies? That sounds suspiciously like a 'no win scenario' to me.


Similar to FATE, Legend of the Wulin (a game based on wuxia movies and stories) has Chi Conditions, which can represent curses, prophecies, military strategy, the effects of medical conditions, emotional manipulation, and even boring stuff like injuries. There's two types: Weaknesses penalize you when you act incompatibly with it (trying to move around with a broken leg, for example) by giving you dice penalties or weakening your Chi, and Hyperactivities, which reward you when you go along with it, via dice bonuses, faster Chi regaining, or even bonus XP.

I think it's very good for modelling social conflict, since the loser doesn't HAVE to act in accordance with it, it'll just make things harder if they don't.


I'd really like to run a game of Legends of the Wulin. Well, I'd like to PLAY it, but I'm the only one I know who has the book, and I've seen some accounts of an amazing gonzo-modern setting for the over-the-top kung-fu, and if running it is the only way to play, so be it....


WendyWitch wrote:
I second the motion of having the characters learning from each other and changing and growing in their viewpoints. Role play that out and form a cohesive group that can go forward.

Plan B: Have everyone die in horrible, pointless PVP. At least it'll be over.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Honestly, I really could see no sane DM making a Paladin fall for Feinting.

I think I found the problem....


If there's one thing players absolutely love, it's having to suck up to NPCs. :-P

Hm. The [SARCASM] tag doesn't work here.


Anyway, getting back to the Jumping Thing. Let's try to remember that Overland Flight exists. With ONE 5th-level spell, a caster gets to:

Ignore all Climb checks
Ignore all Jump checks
Ignore most Swim checks
Ignore most floor-based traps
Ignore difficult terrain
Ignore most non-flying enemies' melee attacks (unless in a room with a low ceiling)
Move faster than most characters

How many feats is that worth? Keep in mind that a 9th level caster probably has more than the one 5th-level spell slot, too.


From your original post, I'm not seeing ANY reason you should stay in that game unless you're being forced to play at gunpoint.

Walk out. Tell the other GM & players WHY you're walking out. If none of them follow, their loss.


MrSin wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
If the balor full attacks you, he's dead because you then can full attack.

A fight between two martials is truly an epic one that has to be seen to be believed. Many epic techniques, crafted, requiring deep thought, passed down through family for generations are used back and forth in a many round fight, leading to a climax and epic finale!

MrSin wrote:
"I full attack!" "Well I full attack!" "Well I full attack!" "you can't full attack!" "Why not?" "Cuz you dead!".

To be fair, sometimes fights between high level casters aren't any better.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
EvilPaladin wrote:
TheSideKick wrote:
When you don't focus on DPR you can do great things with a fighter

...and are incredibly taxed when trying to do so.

Seriously, want to do something thematically cool like manage to swing your sword in a circle and swipe at all the enemies around you Zelda style? Well, you need 5 feats[dodge, mobility, combat expertise, spring attack, whirlwind attack] for that, have 2 ability score prerequisites, have to spend your full turn doing that, and after all that, you still aren't doing something as good as a full attack[unless you can't full attack].

Heck even something as straightforward as hitting someone so hard that they're knocked over is an Ultra-Sekrit Special Technique that'll cost you a wad of feats.

Apparently, all those kids on schoolyards are secretly combat veterans.


Pan wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
So what I'm getting from this thread is that I'm completely justified in thinking Fumble decks/tables are basically the dumbest s%!& in existence.
Yeap these campaign/PC killing stories sound like buckets of fun.

Well, the purpose of RPGs is to turn die-rolls into interesting stories, and fumble tables certainly manage that.

Unfortunately, said stories usually end up being farces.


Eridan wrote:
Quote:
While the spell closes mortal wounds and repairs lethal damage of most kinds, the body of the creature to be raised must be whole.
A body cut into X pieces has X wounds that are all closed by the spell. So basically during the casting the body is put together and everything is fine as long as you have 100% of the body available. If something is missing it is still missing after the completion of the spell. That can be serious if it is essential for survival.

And because Reasons, it's harder to regrow a lost limb than it is to come back from the dead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Glad to hear he enjoyed his horrible demise. A lot of players (myself generally included, sorry to say) just hate 'losing', but it sounds like he took it well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

I don't use guides. I make my own soldiers.

I have yet to receive a complaint on their effectiveness (except this one guy in pfs who refuses to play with my barbar anymore due to the fact I usually do alot of the combat, the healing, and have good social skills)

How's a barbarian do healing?

Apropos to the thread, this comic seems relevant.


plaidwandering wrote:
unfortunately the ice tomb hex has no effect whatsoever on undead or constructs

It might do a little cold damage.

There's a spell called Icy Prison, but it's not on the witch list.

I wouldn't bother with the Charm hex - the duration on it is so short that it looks to be nearly useless.


15 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
I had a GM once who thought Critical Fumbles were a great idea. I took the tables, ran some descriptive stats on them, and it showed typical PCs would be permanently maimed, at a minimum, by the time they reached 3rd level.

Oh, you and your silly "statistics" and "common sense"... :D

Best test for fumble rules I've heard yet: "Run a combat of 10 level 1 Warriors against 10 straw dummies (Medium inanimate object, AC 5). For 2 minutes (20 rounds) each Warrior makes 1 attack per round against the dummies; the dummies do not attack back.
If (at the end of 20 rounds) any of the Warriors are dead or dying then the DM must butter his fumble rules and eat them." - hewhosaysfish, GitP forums


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, in 1st ed, 1GP = 1XP, and it cost a hefty sum to train up to next level. Although lots of people ignored those rules...

PCs were expected to sneak around, try to avoid fights as much as possible, and go for the big score when they had the chance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Petty Alchemy wrote:

I've encountered one tonight, from a game I just quit (partially to the below rulings, partially to the fact that I felt like I was babysitting one of the players rather than playing with him).

(SNIP)

There was no mention of using crit fumble rules in the game posting (I wouldn't have joined it in the first place).

If you're playing a witch, you can make fumble rules work for you: Just take Misfortune, and give your opponents something you can laugh at.

Personally, I dislike fumble rules in PF - partly because I signed on to play Prospero or Conan, not Laurel and Hardy, and partially because some critical tables will let characters screw themselves up in ways that an enemy battleaxe to the face couldn't do, which just seems _wrong_.


For the first one, I'd think the extra spells from the human favored class bonus would be more useful than the +1 HP/level, but then, I love spells.

1 to 50 of 415 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 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.