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

Arnwyn's page

1,888 posts. 3 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,888 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Vagabonds. wrote:
My question is, should DM's enforce the child ruleset on their players?

Yes.

Alternate answer: DMs are within their rights to do so. Find a different DM if you don't like it (or don't play children under that DM).

My players would find it ludicrous if it wasn't enforced. (Though, truthfully, such a character wouldn't even be allowed by anyone in the group, since none of us are cool with the whole 'children in peril' thing and/or are equal-to-adult-adventurers thing.)


I'm going to be sticking with themes, because music overall is just too much. (I'll arbitrarily choose 10, but I can't possibly number them...!)

- Inner Universe (GITS:SAC)
- Seventh Moon (Macross 7)
- Tank! (Cowboy Bebop)
- Yakusoku Wa Iranai (Escaflowne)
- Kiri (Ergo Proxy)
- Sea of Miracles (Lodoss)
- I'm a Pioneer (Tenchi Muyo)
- Cruel Angel's Thesis (Evangelion)
- Full of Memories (Ranma)
- Mad Machine (BGC)

Freehold DM wrote:
*Lynn Kaifun* that claims FIRE BOMBER!! is a rip off of their original music. If you know who that is, I'll give you a million internets.

You mean Minmay's cousin/erstwhile manager? Where's the hard question (unless I missed it)? ;) (Reading the liner notes in the various CDs are great fun, especially the Galaxy Network Charts.)


We're a group of long-time friends playing in a (very) long-running group.

For us, the DM expects the players to know the Player's Handbook (we play 3.x) and whatever abilities they're using if not from the PHB. Nothing more, but also nothing less. That doesn't mean full memorization (obviously), but it does mean that one needs to know the topics included in the PHB, and how to find it quite quickly. Players aren't expected to know anything else. We generally phrase it as "you're responsible for knowing the Player's Handbook and your character's abilities".

On the DM side, as above but also include the DMG and MM and whatever other rules they're using at the time. We also have an expectation that the DM owns whatever sources they're allowing in the game (so they don't slow the game down trying to figure out what the heck is going on and how to adjudicate things and can reference it at any time in order to stay on top of things).

Mikael Sebag wrote:
At what point does a player's lack of rules knowledge negatively impact (or become an impediment to) the fun of the other players at the table?

Immediately. We understand that new players will need some time to get up to speed, of course, but that doesn't stop the lack of knowledge from immediately negatively affecting everyone else's fun.

Quote:
Would you say that it's part of the social contract of a tabletop RPG that one ought to enter into a game/session with a certain degree of knowledge?

For us - not really. For a beginner (or even someone new to the group), we have virtually no expectations of proficiency at the beginning. (With that said, if we do invite someone into our group, we do have expectations that they will learn 'quickly' - i.e. one of the criteria (out of a bunch) is that they are, in general, quick learners. No, there is no specific definition of 'quick' for us. It will vary based on the personality of the new player and what else they are contributing to the game during the learning period.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lord Synos:

Spoiler:

Lord Synos wrote:
Charisma/Diplomacy is the only skill set where GM's punish you for not having those skills in real life. Of course no one is inclined to take them.
Arnwyn wrote:

Absolutely false.

Do you let players make decisions for their characters at the table? Oh, you do? Even if the player playing a fighter isn't a tactical genius/great warrior? Even if the player playing the wizard isn't a spell-casting genius who has never cast spells in combat or even chosen spells before? You let them make those decisions on their own?

Uh huh.

So you do allow real life Intelligence and Wisdom to play at least some role.

The suggestion that Charisma is somehow separate (and that making people at least say 'how' they're talking to someone else - just like making people say 'how' they're combating those monsters) is inconsistent laughable nonsense.

Lord Synos wrote:

I can't say what I let players do. (A) I wouldn't use the phrase "I let my players do this", because it speaks to a kind of condescending, arrogance that I dislike, and (B) I've GM'ed all of 2 times. I don't really consider myself as having "players". However, yes, a player's attributes do affect their characters to some extent, mainly their mental attributes. However, you're arguing the reverse of my position, which isn't the same as my position. A strawman, effectively.

I am saying, if a player is less skilled than their character, their character should still be able to use their skills. If a player can't cast Magic Missile, the appropriate character still can. If the player can't wield a Greataxe, the appropriate character still can. In this, we completely agree, it appears.

However, if a player isn't very Wise, I won't prevent them from playing a character with high Wisdom, or restrict their Cleric's spells because their real life Wisdom isn't that high. If a player isn't the brightest, I won't prevent them from playing a character with a high Int score, or limit their Wizard's spellcasting. This is a different point from the above. This is the point I am making about Charisma. If someone isn't a great talker, isn't particularly social, doesn't read social cues the best, I wouldn't punish their high Charisma, high Diplomacy character for that, because the character can still do those things, even if the player can't.

Thanks for arguing against a strawman and then calling my actually point inconsistent, laughable nonsense on that basis though. That was a very pleasant thing to do."

Since this topic is still being covered...

Sorry for coming off way too strong. Do you know how you mentioned how you have "frustration" with the above and that it "bothers you intensely"? Ditto on my side. I'm not a big fan of erroneously conflating and comparing physical actions and mental actions within a mental game. It doesn't make sense, and is unhelpful. No one explains climbing because that's a physical action - this isn't a LARP... it's sitting around a table playing a 'mental-based' game making 'mental' decisions. Anything physical is entirely and completely irrelevant. It should never even be brought up. If one allows players to make their own decisions (regardless of their actual real-life knowledge), then the line is already drawn.

With that said, I do understand your position of advocating for those who are new (an understandable situation) and those who aren't as eloquent as others. I can certainly see making some concessions for a new person (assuming they want to keep said player) and even on those who are less eloquent who might want to maybe try out a character with high diplomacy/charisma. It's definitely important to give those people a break.

But it is dependent on the group - I'm not sure I entirely appreciate the suggestion - or even faint implication - that those who expect a little bit more out of certain game interactions are somehow doing it wrong (rearing its head in the questionable comment [among others] "of course no one is inclined to take them" - Oh? No one? A strong statement indeed). It may not be a good fit for everyone, of course, but it is a good fit for certain groups who want to have fun a certain way. In those groups, a shy/non-eloquent person always playing a "face" and always saying "I diplomacize!" instead of any attempt at further interaction may wear thin somewhat quickly. In the end, some players are simply not a good fit for some groups.


LordSynos:

Spoiler:

LordSynos wrote:
Charisma/Diplomacy is the only skill set where GM's punish you for not having those skills in real life. Of course no one is inclined to take them.

Absolutely false.

Do you let players make decisions for their characters at the table? Oh, you do? Even if the player playing a fighter isn't a tactical genius/great warrior? Even if the player playing the wizard isn't a spell-casting genius who has never cast spells in combat or even chosen spells before? You let them make those decisions on their own?

Uh huh.

So you do allow real life Intelligence and Wisdom to play at least some role.

The suggestion that Charisma is somehow separate (and that making people at least say 'how' they're talking to someone else - just like making people say 'how' they're combating those monsters) is inconsistent laughable nonsense.


My players and I are 'fluent' in both measurements, so we're good.

However, Fahrenheit infuriates us. ;)


2e: Guy makes an Athasian halfling (with all the Dark Sun rules) to play in the Forgotten Realms.

"Here's my backstory: I wake up on the ground, and I'm wearing a helmet with the word 'spelljamming' inscribed on it."

/sigh/


Raltus wrote:
I want to use the "troop" subtype and I have read those links a few times now, just one questions. How do I go about it? It is so vague and I feel like I might make something too powerful. Any advice would be helpful.

That's just the thing - it's essentially just making up a brand new monster (and then giving it the (Troop) subtype at the end).

That's why I'd like to see a Troop template of some sort that makes this job a lot easier. A 'unit' of x number of yeti? Got you covered. A 'unit' of y number of 5th-7th level gunslingers? Get you covered there, too.

*sigh*


Quote:
but my concern is the description makes it seem like it relies heavily on dungeons, giant-themed dungeons ala Against the Giants, but dungeons none the less.

I suspect mostly dungeons (but that's a Paizo thing for the most part nowadays, anyways - I'm surprised at your concern).


Hama wrote:

You do know that you're not obligated to use EVERYTING a gaming company churns out?

There is no such thing as bloat. Just people who don't want to put their foot down.

I totally agree. And if your post was triggered by my post, I'll have you know - that's not exactly what I'm talking about.

(Hint: It's the comparison part that counts.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingmanHighborn wrote:
Some call this bloat, me I call it being realistic

Of course you do.

Quote:
Also Pathfinder has the ONLY cool monkey race in the Vanara.

Incorrect. Vanara was first in 3e's OA.

Thumbs down again.


KingmanHighborn wrote:
Archetypes again expand these base classes out even more. So is it bloat? Meh I don't think so.

Inexplicably.

Thumbs down from me.


Tangent101 wrote:
Piccolo, there is actually a mechanism by which you can do this that helps simplify things a bit. Use the Troop template that was created in "Rasputin Must Die" whereas 8-12 small- or larger-sized creatures are considered one uber-entity. Thus you can have 40-50 monsters... but they are treated as 3-4 monsters with higher hit points, armor class, and damage output.

Subtype, not template.

I really, really, really, really, REALLY want a troop template.

(Did I mention how much I'd like one? Very disappointing that there isn't one by this point. Even 3.5 did it better [again] by starting things off with the mob template...)


Gerald wrote:
I should have known not to freak out...it is Bill and the Frog Gods, so of course my books were waiting on me when I arrived home today. Pristine shape, as always.

Yes indeed - me too. Came home today and there was the big package in my mailbox. Woo!

(They sent me the S&W version of RA instead of PF, but oh well - still nice looking books!)

My players... less pleased at their future. ;)


Elorebaen wrote:
I agree with everything you said, except for the "No" part. The OP did say "flop" and Razor Coast is the opposite of that. Endzeitgeist's review is right on the money (as usual). RC is brilliant, albeit it does have its flaws.

Flaws that could be seen as deal-breakers for some (which would constitute a "flop" for those people). And whether you agree with the "no" or not - it is highly unlikely that said individual has an "exclusive on that opinion". In fact, that's factually false (even as hyperbole).

And... that's enough of Razor Coast when this is about Plunder & Peril!

I do find it interesting that the level range for this particular 64-page module is (seemingly) less than the previous modules of this size (it is ~3-4 levels like a few of the others, but in a lower level range - and nowhere close to Dragon's Demand range, which I didn't like at all).

I consider that a very good thing.


Zaister wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Awesome! After the disappointing flop of Razor Coast, I'm itching for a good pirate module.
I think you might have an exclusive on that opinion.

No... see some of the reviews floating around. They're actually pretty accurate (it just depends on how much certain things bother you).

For Plunder & Peril - I too was a bit surprised at the '3 adventures'... but that might not be a bad thing. I'd like to see how it turns out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

thecursor is quickly becoming my favorite waggish poster.


Huh. Interesting.

AFAIC, Cap 1 was the best MCU movie, followed by Cap 2, then Avengers.

(And I'm not a Captain America fan, or really familiar with comics...)


Arrrgh! Auxmalous must have gotten my shipment!

(I'm only half-kidding - I've heard nothing about getting any physical copies of my RA or CD sub...)

Can I expect to hear something soon... or something?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Absolutely, totally would play in a game that the OP suggests.

In fact, it would probably be one of my preferences. I have zero interest (less than zero interest) in Mos Eisely.


Just had a chance to see it. One of the creepiest movies I've ever seen.

What an awful, awful potential future - and I can totally see society going that way, if 'mass market' AIs came out that reacted the way these do.

The downfall of society... loss of human interaction on a massive scale, increased isolationism and introversion... *shudder*

Oh... and innumerable (overwhelming) tech support calls. My AI did this! And did that! And disappeared! Gimme my money back!


You waited too long to see it.

The internet moves fast. ;)


Yeah. Vudra and the Impossible Kingdoms. (Starts there, ends there. No travel.)


StrangePackage wrote:
How many of you as GMs allow evil characters in your standard non-evil campaign?

Almost never/never.

After a couple of attempts, it has been determined that my particular players can't really handle it and/or figure it out.


Well done, OP. Well done.

The balrog comment was gold.


Captain Beaky and his band wrote:

Mag (and others), if you did nothing other than give the mythic dudes x 5 hit points, what would that do, in your opinion, to the book as written?

I'm trying to gauge what effect that single change would make and how much more would need to work on.

NobodysHome covered this earlier in the thread already:

NobodysHome wrote:

Just upping hit points isn't a reasonable solution because it eliminates the effectiveness of the other party members (blaster caster, fighting/buffing cleric). Do I just tell them, "Sorry, but the fighter does so much damage I'm afraid I have to make you even more ineffective than you already feel."

It's far more complex than just hit points. I liked Eusteryiax because his incorporeality reduced the fighter's damage by half, but didn't affect the blaster's mythic magic missiles. It ended up being a balanced fight where party members did roughly equivalent damage.

That's the kind of solution I'm looking into; more of a, "How do I make sure everyone can contribute?", rather than, "How do I make monsters so tough the fighter can't one-shot 'em, and everyone else should be focusing on battlefield control 'cause they're not going to get in enough damage anyway..."


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Most of these items are not show stoppers that will make me quit a group.

Heh. Well, you're a better man than I! A few of those things would be show-stoppers for me (and for my friends).

And while there is certainly no "onetrueway" in an objective sense, there sure as hell is a onetrueway for our individual group. Conform, or GTFO. ;)

Damon Griffin wrote:
So I'm supposed to page through a dozen print sources to look up something he could pull up on his phone in a few seconds?

"No. Use your own device right in front of you (beside you) and look it up yourself." ;)

(My friends - and myself - would be pretty intolerant of this kind of thing. Such questions after a couple of times would be summarily ignored.)


Sprain Ogre wrote:

You know, I'd take Mags complaints more seriously if he'd stop trying to compare issues with Mythic and Wrath to car failures and errors in math and language books. It's a faulty comparison for product liability, as well as in scope of potential and real damages.

While I guess it does illicit an emotional response, I don't think it's the one that is intended...

You are free to peruse the myriad other lists of issues surrounding Mythic.

Pointing out one single post and then talking about not taking complaints seriously is pretty disingenuous.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
The thing is, I've only seen entitled DM behaviour in person, yet only hear about entitled player behaviour from others.

*shrug* Limited experience on your part then, I suppose?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Glad it's not as dire as the original report made it sound.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Michelle Yeoh.

(But really - Cynthia Rothrock won this thread already.) :D


Marc Radle wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
The writers of Lost did pretty much outright admit that they were making it up as they went, almost episode by episode with no plan.

That's actually not true.

The main writers, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse (along with JJ Abrams), had a definite plan for the major series arc as well as how the show would ultimately end.

They DID make things up as they went on smaller, episode to episode cases based on what worked, what didn't, fan comments etc (like any good write does). But they always had a master frame-work in mind which they stuck to.

The problem for the writers was that, until the network finally agreed to pick an end date for the series (instead of keep running the show year after year until some time in the future when rating eventually dropped) they were forced to improvise and add filler episodes. Otherwise they might have "run out of story" before they were ready.

Regardless, it was terrible.


We draw the battle-map as the players explore. We like doing it this way for a few reasons:

1) We have a massive gridded white-board that covers the entire tabletop that we play on - which happens to be a custom-built pool table cover. So we have lots of room available.

2) While the drawing occurs, the players have a chance to digest what they're seeing; further, at the same time, the DM describes the room at the same time he's drawing the features and the players can ask questions about what they're seeing right then. (This covers both the 'boxed text' section of an area description and all the players' questions at one time.)

We've discovered this method is (on average/overall) the most efficient and time-saving method of drawing maps.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Do Your Players Expect Treasure?

Well... yes. It's sort of one of the points of playing. ;)

But apparently, they don't "expect" it to the degree that your players do... Do they expect treasure? Yes. Do they expect it every encounter? No. Do they expect it every session? No, not even that.

As to your problem... you could talk to them about it. Explain - as specifically as possible - why you give out treasure they way you do, and why giving it out other way(s) will cause problems (and how it will cause problems). Again - specific.


Wait... what?

Are people saying that the full RA sub PDF is available? Like, the whole, complete, final thing?

/checks/

*sobs with joy* Sweet jeebus, it is! 165 pages of RA expansion. WOOO!


Picked it up day 1.

Just like Itchy, I didn't like Alpocalypse that much (but really liked Straight out of Lynnwood).

Mandatory Fun, however, is one of his best albums in years.


Tangent101 wrote:
Your complaint is basically saying "I don't like this book because it builds before introducing the villain instead of starting with the villain blowing up the building and revealing his presence. It's like saying "The start of "The Lord of the Rings" is boring because Tolkien didn't start with Galadriel narrating to everyone about the Last Alliance of Men and Elves and the Ring of Power."

Not really.

In any case, there is absolutely no question whatsoever that some APs/adventures provide better motivations than others. (And, IMO, the best APs are the ones that do this better than the others. The worst are the bait-and-switch adventures; i.e. the extreme end of providing poor motivation. See Second Darkness.)

AFAIC, Peter Stewart analyzed this AP (so far) perfectly. The motivation is poor and it didn't have to be.

Quote:
Likewise it makes SENSE for the first two tombs to NOT be directly related to the final plot because first you have 1st level adventurers who could die quite easily and thus negate any reason for the players to be involved, second you allow the players to build up treasure in preparation for future levels, and third the real world doesn't work like stories.

I reject these as nothing more than invalid excuses that the better APs avoid anyways. I understand YMMV.


Andrew Turner wrote:

At what age do you (Paizonians with children) plan to allow a computer in your child's room?

OWN computer? In their own room? Likely not until at least 16. Maybe later.

Not internet connected? Maybe earlier. But probably not. They don't need one of their very own - they can use one of the myriad available computers (in open and accessible areas) around the house.

(Or so I say now, when my little girl is just 2. My comment is subject to change based on constant evaluation.)


If you're going to turtle, you're going to get ignored.

And that's a good thing.

Squishies get hit first. As it should be.

(To answer the question: Doesn't the Antagonize feat do something along the lines of what the OP is hoping for?)


Azmyth wrote:
Whenever I talk to anyone about the game, I deliberately avoid calling it anything other than D&D. I believe that deploying that kind of language perpetuates the mentality of edition wars and community polarity around them.

Huh. That's quite the belief. Not sure if it's shared very widely.

I'll be sticking with 5e/Next, thanks. Differentiation provides clarity and clarity is good.

Quote:
(Yes, btw if you're interested, I am playing the new D&D)

I would never have guessed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
What purpose do the Iconics serve?

To get in the way of otherwise good art.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
How about banning a book, or possibly many books, based on not wanting to go through each book in a massive library (that you may not even own) and analyze each option in combination with every other possible option?

Exactly so.

I'm glad other people are made of time, I guess. *shrug*


James Jacobs wrote:
pres man wrote:
It is pretty unusual for a not fully calked window to endanger anyone's life.
Missing the point of my metaphor entirely, of course...

Maybe so, but it was a strange metaphor since nobody in this whole thread suggested that editing was comparable to putting someone's life in danger (well, other than possibly yourself).

The original comparison that was made was more than fair.


No, you're not wrong in noticing the pattern.

I don't care to speculate what Paizo's reasons are(if I did, it wouldn't be very flattering).

Yes, IMO the situations come up too often.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:

So what I really don't understand is why people wouldn't at least try the free rules? I mean I completely understand not putting money into another system that might be invalidated or preceded by another edition a few years down the road but from the looks of the way things are going, Basic is all free with options to play characters to 20th level with monsters and ways for people to make up their own adventures.

So there is not cost investment with the Basic rules, no subscription, or signing of forms, or any of that stuff. It's free and usable and a "complete" game from all portrayals. That way NONE of it interferes or supersedes someone's financial desires to continue to support Paizo. And, really, who can't decide to switch the game just once to give it a go from their normal Pathfinder campaigns? Even for a beer/soda and pretzels kind of game?

Time is an investment. My friends and I have precious little time as it is - we have it nicely set up to meet once every 2 weeks and play in our long-running campaign that we enjoy, using a system that fits this campaign perfectly - a system that we really like and know well.

And as others have said - to what end? We're not interested in learning a new system (in fact, that's the LAST thing any of us want to do, it's the antithesis of fun), we're already having loads of fun playing something that is suited very well for us... with a new system, could we have "more" fun? What is "more"? It is measurable, or even relevant or material? (Very likely not.)

Why not try it? Why would we even bother, given the above? Time is a real investment... and it's a HUGE one.

(I find your "don't really understand" pretty strange, when it's pretty obvious AFAIC - I don't think you've thought about it as hard as you should have.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Can't pick one. My favorites:

- Final Fantasy VI
- Chrono Trigger
- Final Fantasy VII
- Xenogears
- Final Fantasy Tactics


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sprain Ogre wrote:
Why wouldn't you modify the tactics for both to deal with your party?

Then why waste precious space in the adventure by including them at all?

Quote:
Mythic is EASY to deal with.

Yes, it's very easy to deal with thing by ignoring the rules.


KarlBob wrote:
I agree with tbug. Only one NPC has mythic abilities, the PCs aren't told that the NPC's abilities are mythic, and it's very easy to re-stat the NPC without the mythic abilities. I definitely wouldn't avoid this plug-in based on one easily-avoided use of the mythic rules.

Okay, that also is really good to know. These, especially:

- only one NPC has mythic abilities
- the PCs aren't told that the NPC's abilities are mythic

(and if mythic abilities are kept FAR AWAY from the PCs), then I can easily work with that.

Good thread - these are really helpful for me to make 3rd-party purchasing decisions (since the adventure-type plug-ins are what I'm interested in from Legendary Games... especially for Skull & Shackles - even if I think they've gone a little nutty with the mythic stuff, which I consider to be bad rules overall).


bugleyman wrote:
My point remains: Boycotting WotC over 4E (if that is in fact what is happening here) seems like boycotting Ford because you didn't like the 2008 F150. People certainly do that sort of thing -- I'm just not sure how rational it is.

If we're going to use silly analogies to try to declare things being irrational, let's at least attempt to get a little bit closer:

It would be more like "boycotting" Ford because you didn't like a single vehicle from the company between 2008 and 2013. The 2008 Ford F150 (the 2008 Monster Manual?) is just one drop in the bucket.

You may be surprised then, it seems, that people have dropped companies (including car manufacturers) for a lot less. I also doubt anyone here is in a position to determine if that's "rational" or not.


tbug wrote:

I'm really on the fence about offering up a mythic tier. I know that a lot of work has already been done with regards to making Skull & Shackles mythic, but I hadn't decided to go that route. This is just so cool, though.

What's everyone else doing?

Avoiding mythic like the plague, and now wondering if I should buy the plug-in (which I was otherwise interested in before).

1 to 50 of 1,888 << 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.