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

2,032 posts. 3 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.

1 to 50 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nice to see a mention of Cyclopean Deeps 2!

I ordered/paid for that one on FGG's subscription thingy ages ago...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
It's not an issue if you own everything from the beginning and keep on top of stuff,

Nah. I'm a big fan of the Realms (still run 2e-era Realms [in 3.x] to this day), owned/read everything, and it was still an issue. I like the Realms despite all that timeline-advancement nonsense, not because of it. The timeline advancement damaged the setting, no question.

Timeline/campaign advancement is the DM's job, not the setting's.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

But in any case, the dumb has been strong in this show for the last little while (well... stronger than usual).

Everything from the previously-mentioned-in-this-thread Arrow's return, to the hilarious comment from Slade (paraphrased) "You're growing apart from Thea - I can see it in your eyes". Ah, the most overused CW nonsensical quote, used yet again. Especially hilarious when it's abundantly clear in the show that - due to events/skills - Oliver has never been as close to Thea as he is right now. But... CW.

Oh, and the city seems to be filled - entirely - with the worst investigators the world has to offer. Ray: "Hood! Arrows! The Arrow must now be EVIL!" Right. Because no one else in the world can wear a hood and shoot arrows.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Big Lemon wrote:

- Is PC backstory sacred and purely the domain of the player? Does the GM have a right to decide what may or may not be in the PCs backstory?

For us - the GM absolutely has the right (though generally only in the "may not be in the backstory" direction). If the player creates a backstory for the PC in which they know, personally and friendly, every noble in the land... mehhhh. No.

Both the player and GM must agree.

I'm not sure about those other items - I'd probably need examples. (They seem a bit vague and undefined for me to say anything about them.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some of the best news I ever heard in quite a while. (But I don't truly understand the article heading "ignore Aliens 3 and Resurrection", because everyone knows there's only 2 Aliens movies.) ;)

And I'm further excited about Blomkamp, as I consider both District 9 and Elysium to be among the best movies I've ever seen.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Pa Kent was usually an amazing father, and it was something I looked up to. (NOTE: I have not seen the Smallville series past the first season, so, I dunno what he's like there.)

Just so you know: He was absolutely awesome, AFAIC.

Carry on!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
xavier c wrote: you think the subject of sexuality should be explored?

such as with a pathfinder Campaign Setting book?
Does sex ever come up in your games?
What do you want to see in the future related to sexuality?



(But then, that's just our group.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
spectrevk wrote:

"Sell me on X" isn't an insult to X; it's just a request. If I was trying to sell someone on Mummy's Mask, I wouldn't just tell them to get hyped about fighting mummies or GTFO (which appears to be the common response re: Giantslayer); I'd tell them /snip/

I'd tell them /snip/
I'd tell them /snip/

Would you have told them all that before the product was released?

(Heck, the updated AP descriptions for Giantslayer aren't even out yet.)

Your expectations are interesting... but premature.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Who thought that putting Ogres who are large sized creatures in a medium sized fort was a good idea.

Well, to be fair, it was a human fort that the ogres took over.

So... the idea was fine.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hate time travel in almost every possible way...

... and then somebody has to go and mention Chrono Trigger.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I first saw the movie, I made a guess that the Engineer on Earth was some rogue 'martyr' who decided to create life on his own, unauthorized. (So, when the other engineers found out, they got upset and wanted to 'get rid' of the potential(?) problem.)

Now... I don't care. I decided the movie wasn't good enough for me, personally, to analyze any further.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
chbgraphicarts wrote:
That being said, Paizo is still WAY behind WOTC in terms of big-book-bloat.

Separating out "big-books" is an artificial (and probably unhelpful) distinction, AFAIC.

and it's done more to create a dynamic game in 15 books than 3.5 did in 30.

Arguable. I, for one, don't think this is even remotely true.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread is already scaring me more than any horror book/movie has.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:
Dragon Knight wrote:

And the game emphasis roleplaying over roll playing.

How? Or more specifically, where?

I think he's sort of saying it in this statement:

Dragon Knight wrote:
If I want my character to wield his grandfather's warhammer, he can do so without worrying about being underpower and overwhelmed later is his career.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

There can never be enough! NEVER!

One person's bloat of class bloat threads is another person's increased options of class bloat threads!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Big Justin wrote:
I read something about this show to the effect of 'the cops think they're in nolan batman and the villains think they're in adam west batman' which I think is extremely on point

Yeah, actually I totally agree with this.

And I like it. (If it was all Nolan Batman, I'd probably drop Gotham. Boring and dreary. Bring on at least some camp, AFAIC.)

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
So play Call of Cthulhu. Why try to develop a set of house rules to make Pathfinder into CoC instead of just playing CoC in the first place?

Because some people might like the core 'chassis' underlying d20. d20 + modifiers vs. AC or a DC, cyclical initiative, move/standard/full-round actions, easy to use movement system, a class-based system, straightforward and easy to understand/implement multiclassing... that sort of stuff.

Some people (inexplicably) forget that the above stuff has value to some people. The ubiquitous magic doesn't have to go along with the rest of the basic mechanics of d20. Why learn a whole new action/resolution/movement/etc system when the basic core works exactly how you want it to... and when WotC did close to no analysis of the impacts of magic when they released the 3.0 PHB?

(With all that said - is there a CoC d20? I thought I heard that that might exist...? If that is a real thing, then yeah, I'm with Orfamay Quest - why not play CoC d20?)

6 people marked this as a favorite.
ElterAgo wrote:
Why do so many people

I think your beginning premise is false.

My group would consider all your examples to be asshat players.

Pirate captain in a dwarven underdark campaign? Bugbear thug in a human courtly intrigue campaign? C'mon.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

While I don't know about "don't like", those gamers who I don't like to play with is mostly:

- Those who will not conform to a particular group's dynamics.

... And that's about it (admittedly, the above covers a huge number of smaller items).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:
I mean, it's cool if you want your speculative fiction and games to be escapist fun. But if that escapism means erasing or ignoring the parts of history where white imperialism destroyed, exploited, and stole from other people around the world, then that's not something that I'm interested in.

*shrug* Everyone's entitled to their preferences.

I certainly don't share yours.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Dude. The show is for kids.

So was Gargoyles. Your statement is neither a reason nor an excuse.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
zylphryx wrote:
Actually, by taking the stance of "if an author does not finish a series that she no longer wishes to work on, folks should no longer purchase her work", you are in essence forcing the author to continue a path she does not want to follow or lose her source of income. It is not holding a physical gun to the head, but it still is a means of force. So, explicitly no one has said anything about forcing an author to do any such thing, but implicitly, yes, yes it was said.

And this is a very good thing. Nobody is entitled to money from the consumer market if consumers don't want to give it to them. Nobody.

And no, there is no "force". The author chose his/her vocation, and chose the consumer market. They will meet market needs, if they want money. No "force"... they can decide. But they're not entitled to money, or do 'what they want' and expect money.

(I have to say... your statement above sounds suspiciously like: "Oh no! I'm somewhat beholden to the people who give me money!" Uh huh... You don't say?)

Granted, people should vote with their wallets.

And there you go - you said it yourself. That's all that needs to be said.

Now, with all that said, I do think it is foolish for fans to 'demand' authors to finish what they started. It's closing the barn after the horses have fled. If authors not finishing stories becomes prevalent in the industry, fans should simply smarten up and quit purchasing series until they are complete... that'll smarten up the authors pretty fast once that happens even over a short term. Might properly shake up the industry a bit.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fantastic read, James. And absolutely correct. I found this statement particularly cogent:

James Sutter wrote:
If we as authors want to take a no-strings approach, then we can hardly turn around and beg readers to support the early books in our series. And if we instead want to ask people to be our patrons-to have the faith to invest both emotionally and financially in a series before it’s complete-then we need to keep our side of the bargain and do our damnedest to see things through.

Exactly so.

Now, I'm not sure I like the word "owe"... I don't think the author necessarily "owes" the consumer anything.

But then - does the author want to take consumers' money and make a living? Oh, he/she does? Well, then. I don't have to spend a red cent on anything the author releases until the entire series is out.

And good luck making a living, dear author, if a certain number of consumers begins to think that way.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.)

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Lord Synos:


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.

3 people marked this as a favorite.



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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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."


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

Of course you do.

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

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

Thumbs down again.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

thecursor is quickly becoming my favorite waggish poster.

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.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
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*

2 people 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?

Mythic is EASY to deal with.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
I've never understood the hate for the SW prequels.

Hey - it's great that you liked the prequels. I'm sure lots of people do.

But... are you really sure you don't 'understand' the hate/dislike of the prequels? Really? I find that somewhat hard to believe.

Because I'll be honest here - it's really not that hard to at least understand the dislike for the prequels, even if you don't share it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
roguerouge wrote:
Unfortunately, since Hollywood will never ever kill a kid in these kinds of movies, those scenes have no dramatic tension whatsoever.

Fortunately, of course. I'm good with no dramatic tension by not killing children.

I feel sorry for those who aren't.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
I find this an interesting comment. To me, you're essentially doing what you'd like them not to do: hold something hostage. Your statement seems to be "if you don't do it this way, then not only will I not buy it I'll actively try to get others not to as well."

Just as a brief aside:

In a consumption-based economy driven by consumers (which is what "we" are all in), the above statement is impossible (i.e. in such an economic system, consumers simply can't "hold something hostage". Alternately, if someone insists on defining such a thing in such a way, then doing so is right and proper. That's how consumers actually work, and how they should work).

Carry on.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
The simple fact is that only a portion of paizo's customer base will buy pure setting material. Most of those are GMs. Players (which in general outnumber gms) want things to use for their characters. Option books sell better. Period.

Turns out this is false. And this line of thinking is years out of date. (Yikes!)

The AP line is the flagship line at Paizo, and started ramping up even in the Dungeon magazine era.

Your post is old WotC thinking - long since debunked.

To answer the thread title:

Of course "bloat" is coming back. To snerk at 3.5 and then turn around and laud Pathfinder is inexplicable, delusional, and hypocritical, AFAIC.

(I make no comments on whether the "bloat" is good or bad - only on the comparative reaction between 3.5 and PF. I also make no comment on the issue of power creep.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It'll suffer the same fate as Almost Human.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've never heard of most of them...

And I consider that a good thing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm really glad you talked about the Tulita in your review, Endzeitgeist (and, unrelated, that you stated your biases up front). Only one other review did that, which pretty much made all those other reviews valueless (IMNSHO) - and possibly even misleading.

IMO, the Tulita (and, more accurately, how they were portrayed in the text) is the biggest issue surrounding this book - so much so that it could be a flat-out deal-breaker.

(It was pretty much a deal-breaker for me - getting through the Tulita sections was a struggle. It's still salvageable - if one is good enough to work around the complexities of Razor Coast, one is good enough to excise a lot of the Tulita portrayals.)

And also, you provided some of the absolute BEST advice possible when dealing with Razor Coast - IGNORE THE GIVEN PREMISES. Those things are the second-biggest issue with Razor Coast... they could potentially cripple the entire value of this book if followed or even given too much credence.

Great stuff, Endzeitgeist (even if I deeply disagree with your final star rating and 'seal'!).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:

GMs, how carefully do you screen players joining your group? Is there a pre-game interview? Are they on probation for a time after acceptance? Will you excise someone who's otherwise a great player and good person, but has a personality conflict with you or a long-standing player? Have you expelled someone from your game? If so, why?

Players, do you join any game with the idea that "it could be fun," or are you choosier, looking instead for a group and play style that meshes well with your own, and people that you like outside of the gaming environment? Do you pack it in for minor reasons, or would it take an act of God (or the DM) to get you out once you're in?

I only play with long-time, close friends.

"Guys night out", so to speak.

(So this would fall under picky to the extreme.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Manimal wrote:
If I used the term "Toon" rather than PC, what would you say?

"What the f~%! are you talking about?"

What arguments would you use for or against it?

Against. It would slow and/or inhibit communication for us - we, honestly, would have no idea what the person is talking about (I've only heard "toon"... here. Right now.) and we'd have to spend time and energy always figuring out and remembering what this now-becoming-annoying person was saying. It also detracts from the "feel" - and "feel" (as subjective as it is), is very important to the particular group I'm part of. We prefer appropriate terms for whatever setting we're in - and "toon" is not appropriate.

It'd be like Fran Drescher or Gilbert Gottfried in their always-most-over-the-top as members of our group. Wouldn't work for us. Annoying.


Thus far, one of the more convincing arguments I've heard is that using lingo from a different type of game (in this case, MMOs) could cause confusion; however, this particular word doesn't seem all that egregious—most people, even having not played an MMO, could pick up from the surrounding context that "Toon"=PC.


Context? Well, hell - one of my players could mime as his/her communication, and we'd figure out "from the surrounding context" what they were talking about.

"You're injured and need healing? Okay, we're coming!"

"Oh, you're stuck in a forcecage? Okay, we'll help you out!"

"Bob... why the hell are you always getting stuck in a forcecage?"

Context or not, still doesn't make it appropriate.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
I've read a number of comments, in various threads both here and in other fora, with a common theme, implying if not explicitly stating that a DM's responsibility is to facilitate fun for the players—even if such requires that he or she has little to none of his or her own.

A mystifying and inexplicable position indeed, though I can't say I've seen it all that explicitly (and only subtly hinted-at, I think).

Needless to say, I consider the above opinion, if truly held, to be the height of wrongness and stupidity.

I've always found the best method of deciding on a campaign is to present the players with a handful of possibilities—say, five or six, of which a couple they themselves contribute—and letting them narrow it down to a few, then making the final selection from those three. This way, everyone's involved with the decision-making process.

That's generally how we do it (mostly). The DM presents a few options of what he/she wants to run, and the players come to a consensus from the options presented.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
And why the hell were they barking at people in FR novels and games...

Because of this:

"and their language (which sounds like small dogs yapping),"

Set wrote:
3) An admission that one's own creations are somehow 'not good enough' to stand beside old classics.

Even if it might be true. (And is absolutely true, AFAIC.)

But then, I still play 3.5, so I still have all these monsters (and every one listed on this thread so far) in 3.5 format.

1 to 50 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.