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

Chobemaster's page

407 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 407 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Abraham spalding wrote:

It doesn't say, "Yes but only when it's beneficial to you." Levitate has an effect on weapons, rays count as weapons for the purposes of spells and effects that affect weapons -- therefore the spell levitate has an effect on rays.

Levitate's effect on weapons is indirect and incidental...they increase their altitude when held by the target of the spell. It strains credibility to interpret this as an example of the intended question in the FAQ.

SlimGauge wrote:

I'd (personally, not RAW) give any spell with a somatic component the penalty. Most spells don't have attack rolls, so there's (usually) no effect. Want to avoid the penalty ? Use the "still" metamagic.

If any somatic casting causes instability, that would be very important to mention in the description of an ARCANE spell, and it does have effect in increasing your instability wrt what you may do in future rounds.

What other actions involve at least as much movement as somatic casting? drinking a potion?

StreamOfTheSky wrote:
Magic Missile flies unerringly to its target, like a homing missile. It is not the same as shooting any other sort of ranged weapon.

Agree it is not like shooting a bow or throwing a knife. I have no way to know if the physics of casting MM are or are not similar to the physics of firing a magic ray at someone, though my inclination is that they are similar.

I could actually see a table for this...grappled, pinned, prone, helpless all seem like POSSIBLE conditions, depending on the nature of the structure and dumb luck.

David knott 242 wrote:

If you are up for a radical experiment, you could also try a variant of the Grim Tales approach -- limit level in any spellcasting class to no more than half of character level. That means that 1st level characters must begin play as non-casters, and pure non-casters become proportionately more powerful because only they can advance every level in their primary class.

Presumably Rangers and Paladins are "non-casters" in this approach. What about Bards?

I would not count it. The presumed concept behind attacking causing physical instability is that the large movements that are part-and-parcel with almost all physical attacks when there's nothing to brace against cause the "equal and opposite reaction" to cause movement of the PC. Like zero-g astronauts throwing objects.

The mass of a magic ray is (presumably) zero or near zero, so it seems illogical to me that a ray would impart any movement to the caster.

It seems like a rules kludge to argue about whether or not a ray is a weapon per se for this purpose.

Someone else will now tell me PF is a consistent ruleset and that I shouldn't be overruling what the RAW says is the answer because of thinking or "fluff" and that you can't use thought/logic to resolve a question in a game that includes magic and dragons, so if you like, consider that I've saved you the trouble. ;)

dag, ninjaed. Stupid lunch.

Distant Scholar wrote:
Chobemaster wrote:
Distant Scholar wrote:
You might want to be careful with your assumptions about older editions and speed in leveling. I remember one campaign I was in (1st ed. AD&D); my fighter was 6th level, and the magic-user was 5th. By the time the magic-user got to 8th level, my fighter was ... 7th.
1st? How did that come about?
By the rules. Fighters needed 125,001 xp to get to 8th level. Magic-users only needed 90,001. It was rather frustrating to me to see the magic-user get 3 levels when I just got 1. Fighters eventually caught up at 14th level (1,500,001 xp for both), then advanced more quickly after that.

Ahh, I interpreted your point to mean there was a disparity in XP earned. My bad. thanks.

TOZ wrote:

So you want to say a level X fighter is balanced again a level Y wizard?

Seems unintuitive.

Yeah, that can't be done, in general terms.

Distant Scholar wrote:
You might want to be careful with your assumptions about older editions and speed in leveling. I remember one campaign I was in (1st ed. AD&D); my fighter was 6th level, and the magic-user was 5th. By the time the magic-user got to 8th level, my fighter was ... 7th.

1st? How did that come about?

Callum wrote:
Yes, simply saying that fighters use the fast track while wizards use the slow track (or whatever) almost certainly wouldn't work. I was just wondering if anyone had tried something like this. You would probably have to end up with a different XP advancement table for each class (like AD&D had).

even if you do create custom tables for each (and I'm not sure how that's better than just using fast/slow), what do you do with multiclassing? The wizard has enough XP to "buy" a level of fighter, but not a level of wizard...say he then buys a level of fighter...what does the next level of wizard "cost"?

Lab_Rat wrote:

What you will end up with is a nightmare trying to balance the encounters (from a GM perspective). The fighter will have a higher To Hit and Damage but the spellcasters will have a harder time landing spells with saves do to lower DC's. Choosing the right CR will be difficult, with one character feeling its a cake walk while the other is struggling to be useful. Back in the days the classes were balanced by the difference in level progression. Now, the classes are balanced based on same level progression.

The linear vs quadratic has nothing to do with what level these respective classes are at. It has to do with the respective mechanics for each class. Fighters must take down HP to win. Extra levels will not change that. Though extra levels will make it easier and speed it up a bit. Spellcasters can end the combat in 1 round with the correct use of spells. Slower progression will not change that, though it may cause frustration in the fact that the spellcaster must utilize more of their daily arsenal per combat.

Your case is overstated, IMO. Slowing progression of wizards WOULD reduce the delta between the wizard's power curve and the fighter's at time T for all times beyond where the wizard passes the fighter. It might not do so in a way that you find palatable, but it WILL do it.

A fighter 10 is less outshone by a wizard 8 (or whatever the difference ends up to be, specifically, that's not the point) than by a wizard 10.

Interesting thought. I would certainly let everyone know that before character creation, and I would get buy-in, rather than impose it unilaterally.

I would consider some kind of short-run consideration for the wizard. When the wizard is still 1st level and everyone else is 3rd, he is even MORE gimped. Maybe the party finds an "extra" wand of magic missile w/ 15 charges left,

Malag wrote:

The problem is, it's not a monster the PCs don't have a clue about. The PCs recognize it. They invested in skills specifically to know about it.

Yeah I know. I just wanna keep those knowledge checks at bay in surprise rounds.

Why? Whether or not they know to use fire, if they are surprised, they don't GET to use fire.

I would call it fair that in a true "ambush" situation, where the 1st hint of the presence of the troll is someone eating a claw/claw/bite/rend, that the knowledge check itself shouldn't be rolled, yet. The PC's haven't seen what it is.

If it's important to you that they have not adequately observed or processed what they have observed during a surprise round, don't allow the check (or more accurately, don't tell them the outcome of the check) until the end of the surprise round.

I would NOT get hung up on making them wait until it is "their turn" to throw the knowledge check. They aren't consulting the adventurer's guide to monsters flipping pages(presumably). Once they see what it is, they know (or still don't know) what it is. PC's don't have their eyes actually CLOSED until they are un-flat-footed.

thejeff wrote:
Malag wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Well, if the troll gets surprise, they might be yelling, but still can't actually take any action before its attack.

If one knows it's a troll and how to hurt it, why shouldn't they be able to respond right away? Would it be okay if one of them had fought trolls before? Is it really any different if they've only studied them?

Which I agree totally but it just stinks when in heap of moment they tend to roll knowledge checks and yell about it before their turn which they can. If anything is more fun, then it's GM monster which PCs don't have a clue about!

The problem is, it's not a monster the PCs don't have a clue about. The PCs recognize it. They invested in skills specifically to know about it.

Exactly. Either the PC or PCs have, or have not, heard of a Troll.

If the DM wants an unusual monster, use one. Put negative modifiers on their checks..."oh, this is a Barn Troll, you can tell the difference by its straw-like hair, that's much less common, good thing you've got Daeron the Magnificent, Bard extraordinare, here to help you, my fine fellows."

Or rule that it's completely unique, it's never existed before, and therefore, the DC is infinite. That should be a very limited situation in a "standard" campaign. "Good fellows, I've never heard tell of a Troll comprised of what appears to be tapioca pudding before."

Zootcat wrote:

Passive = Spot

Active = Search

That's 3.5

I like passive perception rolls as a take-10. Adventurers in a dungeon (etc) are going to be taking ordinary care, looking around as they explore.

I don't object at all to a DM saying "The door creaks inward, revealing a vaulted hall. You appear to be centered at the foot of the hall, which appears to be about 50' wide and 100' long. Smoke-stained oak beams support a ceiling that reaches about 50' in the center. Fizziwithinigrath and Derobas, you notice there are a lot of bats roosting on these beams" [i.e. the named PCs have enough perception on take-10 to see the bats, the others do not.]

It's on the PC's to point out the bats, that can normally be handled by one of them saying IC "Guys, I see several bats on the rafters" OOC "GM, how many?"

If taking 10 doesn't see the bats, then the party doesn't know about the bats until someone says they scan the ceiling, likely after the DM continues the description including the guano on the floor if not before.

Are you awarding this XP only to the characters conscious at the end of the fight, driving up their share?

Either way, it doesn't make much sense to hose the PC's just because you had a long session/didn't take a break to allow mid-session levelup.

If I were going to enforce at "you can't gain 2 levels at once" rule, I would feel obligated to let the PC's level up in the middle of the session.

I think it's great, and I think adding it as a feat was a GREAT design move vs. AD&D where is was an automatic class feature if you built a castle. If you want to enjoy that class feature, great, take the feat. If you don't, or if your particular campaign doesn't lend itself, take something else and you're not getting hosed.

You can still hire people as needed as the GM allows, with or without Leadership existing in the game or with or without having taken it.

To distinguish, IMO a true cohort should be valuable enough to the PC to justify not taking some other feat, I think this is often best accomplished by letting the player have input in the NPC's build and letting him run the cohort in combat.

Haladir wrote:
Grick wrote:
This is all correct, except taking a 5' step is not a move action.

Huh. I stand corrected. Thanks, Grick!

I was thinking that this was a PF change, but I just checked the 3.5 and 3.0 SRDs, and it's been pretty much the same since the first OGL came out. Looks like we've been playing the 5-foot step wrong for more than a decade!

4.0 calling it a "shift" is IMO a much better term, makes it less likely to confuse w/ a move action, and opens up the possibility of allowing greater than 5' shifts w. feats, size, whatever you might deem appropriate.

Jiggy wrote:

As for the two-handed weapon thing, ask your GM if you don't already know him fairly well. Nothing should prevent the scenario you suggest, but there's a vocal minority of grognard GMs who get really butthurt about that topic for some reason.

What's the point of the derogatory language toward those who disagree with how many hands it takes to cast a magic spell, when there can't possibly be a correct answer per se?

Gandal wrote:
Bobert Rolliolis wrote:

I don't like the idea of taking their money arbitrarily from the getgo just to construct a minor plot device, what if they limited spending on initial gear because they were planning on buying a mount/wagon or something at the next session? If I knew my money was going to disappear two minutes from now, I may have splurged on another weapon, or something. Just my opinion from across the screen.

I wouldn't like it too,but i'm not taking their stuff and abandoning them.

They have still a lot of gear to buy, and they will soon find enough loot.
If i go for the "captured and forced in a slaves carrying wagon" intro scenery it wouldn't make sense they are permitted to keep gear,equip and money anyway.

No, but I'd recommend they recover their stuff very quickly.

WRoy wrote:

Punishing Kick activates on a successful attack that deals damage, not on a sunder combat maneuver (which is one of the only two ways to damage an object). RAW the feat is a Fortitude-save-based ability that doesn't work on objects, so constructs would be immune to it.

So he can kick over a treant, but not a chair?

Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:

To avoid much of this silliness, for my games my house rule is that magic makes change. Let's say your wizard has his 25,000 GP diamond for a wish. The cleric grabs it and uses it to raise dead instead. Rather than the universe taking the extra and letting out a cosmic giggle, I simply have the stone crack or cloud or shrink or some combination thereof which reduces it to a 20,000 GP stone. Similarly, less greedy wishes will get a discount. And if you start with a 29,343 GP gem and cast a full price wish, you have a 4343 diamond remaining.

That's the opposite of this silliness. Can a cleric use 100 50gp diamonds?

If so, that at least helps restore the continuum of diamond prices.

Aside from the question, that seems like a very odd feat for a Night's Watch ranger. The whole principle of the Night's Watch is that of being a member of a sworn brotherhood that lives on the edge of nowhere.

What does having a cohort actually MEAN in that context? Some other-class character that's not a member of the Night's Watch isn't going to be allowed to go around on rangings with him, and some other member of the Night's Watch should be loyal to the order, not the PC.

Of course the GM can fix the problem. That's true of every problem, real or imagined. The question is not about whether or not a DM can fix it. Nor is it about whether or not Punishing Kick is overall balanced against Stunning Fist.

It's about whether the rules for Punishing Kick are written to prevent an obvious absurdity. They are not.

beej67 wrote:

It's just a wording nuance.

The wording for the spell should say:

"Material Components: A diamond of certain qualities easily identifiable by the caster, which typically costs 5000 gp in markets appropriate for purchase."

..but that's too long, and they figured the GM wouldn't try to screw you on it or rules lawyer it to death. Alas, for some GMs, they were wrong.

Agree that was the initial intent. That doesn't change the point of the OP, though, really. Especially in high magic worlds, with that reading, diamonds meeting the needed threshhold will cost a lot more than ones just slightly below.

According to James Jacobs, that is no longer the intent, and the wording should be "sacrifice materials with a value of 5000 gp." To whom they are sacrificed is at least obvious with clerical casting.

Gandal wrote:

The most i could come up with was: they are in the outskirts of the major port city,probably just arrived and controls at gates won't yet let them in.They search a low life tavern and during the evening there is an attack by (thieves,slavers,kobolds,arabian [only for cultural referement,hope am not offending anyone] soldiers in disguise, whatever).

The correct codeword you're looking for is "desert nomads" I believe. ;)

Since they are all chaotics, consider putting them in a situation where they are all oppressed...captured by slavers, sealed inside a town under siege, etc. From a RP perspective, escaping excessive Law should unite them until (presumably) bonds of friendship form.

One approach that I really like (that will work less well with inexperienced players in a homebrew) is to ask THEM to come up with the backstory. "OK, guys, talk out of character for a minute about what your characters are and where they are from. Brainstorm together a consistent story that ties together your individual origins and brings them to [DM provided jumping off point]"

Even if it's still slavers or trapped in a city, let THEM figure out how they came to be captured by slavers or trapped in a city.

It's definitely a case of 5 heads are better than 1, AND you will get additional adventure hooks out of it from listening, AND they will each get good bearings for how to RP their characters.

You will need to answer world specific questions, though. They will need to ask things like "to where would I have been travelling, starting in the Elf home forest, that I crossed paths with slavers that would have brought me to X?"

This gives them some grounding in your world, so that helps also.

Yep, unless you divorce the magic from the mystic or sympathetic properties of the components per se, as the James Jacob quote does, in a world where Raise Dead is common enough to impact prices, there is a huge premium on diamonds good enough for Raise Dead. Or (earlier versions) a pearl good enough for Identify, or any non-trivial component.

I'm reminded of a wizard PC who walked into a jeweler and asked for a 100gp pearl....several were offered @ that price....

The "it's just the sacrifice" angle is harder to push for arcane spells, IMO. It's another "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" situation that is substantially exacerbated by high magic assumptions.

Grick wrote:

Combat chapter, Standard Actions, Cast a Spell:

Concentration: "If you start casting a spell but something interferes with your concentration, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell."

Attacks of Opportunity: "Generally, if you cast a spell, you provoke attacks of opportunity from threatening enemies. If you take damage from an attack of opportunity, you must make a concentration check (DC 10 + points of damage taken + the spell's level) or lose the spell."

and under Full Round Actions, Cast a Spell:

"You only provoke attacks of opportunity when you begin casting a spell, even though you might continue casting for at least 1 full round. While casting a spell, you don't threaten any squares around you.

This action is otherwise identical to the cast a spell action described under Standard Actions."

Since the part about not threatening squares is under full round actions, it could be said that it doesn't apply to standard action spells.

That seems like a bit of a leap to me...relies on a level of textual consistency not otherwise observed, let's say. I guess it could be chalked up to the "turn" system...hard to say when you do or do not threaten while casting for less than a full round, so they handwave the problem.

Also strange that in round 2 of casting, you don't provoke again.

Odd that if someone attacks me when I start to begin to commence to cast under an AoO and damages me, I need to make a concentration check (i.e. I'm committed to the casting) (and presumably same if I'm attacked via a readied action, but the quote is silent on that, see textual consistency point), but if I'm tripped, I can choose not to cast.

Also strange that taking damage potentially ruins the spell, but swinging my own weapon does not...a conundrum they somewhat APPEAR to be attempting to resolve w/ the "not threatening while casting."

blahpers wrote:

You can still cast spells while grappled, provided you make your concentration check (you're presumed to have one hand free). You can't cast spells if you're the one doing the grappling, though. (Still Spell notwithstanding.)

Good clarification, but a Ranger's concentration check may not be super...suppose he just CHOOSES not to attempt the spell with an Ogre sitting on him. ;)

It seems like more of an acquired template than a class. Peter Parker is a low-level commoner or MAYBE Expert 1 that reflects his science education. And of course the webslingers are just an item.

Other than some pretty basic experimentation with how to USE his powers, they are basically a freebie that he can just DO, not something that he earned like class abilities.

Grick, following on, then, if the Ogre's AoO was instead a grab (w/o Improved Grab) and predictably ends in the ranger being grappled, but he hasn't ACTUALLY started casting yet (a necessary conclusion if he can take some other action), is the spell still "burned"?

What if the Ogre's trip attempt triggers an AoO and the ranger attacks with it, crits and kills the Ogre and then no longer wants to cast his spell, presumably he can decide not to cast it.

which means it's not CASTING that draws, it's starting to begin to commence casting that draws.

Can the ranger PRETEND to start to begin to commence casting, if he wanted to?

I think he did understand you correctly. The answer is "it depends what the Ogre does with his AoO."

Grick, does the Ranger have to cease casting to take advantage of his opportunity to take an AoO? seems like he should.

It works out that about 7% of the population has a 7 cha, using the bell curve of 3d6.

If you graduated w/ 100 people in your class, 7 of them had 7 cha. 16 of them had 7 or lower, presuming low cha scores are not a predictor of HS graduation.

It's not an unplayably low stat...those 16 people are doing it every day.

Seems like good trap the limited scenario where you want a hallway in your place that blows up indiscriminately. the time you're eating fireball traps, have a rogue w/ evasion who can go ahead of the party, trigger the trap, and survive.

Cathedralsquares wrote:
I imagine a CHA of 7-9 being a lot like Stannis Baratheon. Nobody likes him because he's very emotionless and doesn't seem to care about people so much as the ideals society is built around like honor and justice.

Stannis is probably in that is Joffrey, who is completely different. Sam Tarley is probably in that range too, and he's totally unlike either of the others.

blahpers wrote:
Jeraa wrote:
I find it much more reasonable to not count the value of the special materials when determining the crafting time. A suit of chainmail takes the same amount of time to make out of mithral or adamantine as it does out of steel.

Nah, I disagree.

"The tricky thing about [strike]adamantium[/strike] adamantine is, that if you ever manage to process its raw, liquid form, you got to keep it that way, keep it hot. Because once the metal cools, it's indestructible. But you already know that."

; )

:) Which sure tells me the adamantine armorer MUST NOT BE taking extra time...he's got to be about it once he starts. It makes even less sense for adamantine to take longer in that context. ;)

Peter Stewart wrote:
What the hell? Lack of line of sight is not the same as invisibility. That's absolutely wrong.

For this purpose, I think it's correct. that which you cannot see, regardless of why, means your perception relates to your other senses.

I presume the +2 stealth is looked up and includes all relevant otyugh-specific modifiers.

Only other things to consider that come to mind are other ambient sounds, possibly some penalty for the acoustics between monster and PC, and possibly the surface the otyugh is walking on.

Is the target compelled to jump, or is he pushed? What's the range?

If the effect is save or fall, let's say, 10 or 20' per caster level, that's really not all that powerful. I suppose you end prone at the end of the time.

What if there's no open space for the window in the AoE...stuck in the Ethereal, or no effect?

This is sort of like a hostile blink spell.

Consider throwable melee weapons, if you're going Dwarf, handaxe leaps to the fore... You are probably going to do a lot of readied actions to attack if the target caster appears to be casting, and you might need to do that before you can close the distance, and you don't want to be unable to take AoO while closing the distance.

Or, conversely, be a ranged specialist...don't TRY to close the distance. You'd better hit hard, though, more dmg = more spell disruption.

It's a mechanic. Especially now that there's no factor for Average Party Level (inclusion of the cohort reduced the APL and increased the XP value of the monster), adding a cohort "robs" the whole party of XP if you just include them in the denominator. To avoid that, this is a tacked-on mechanic to serve the designers' overall aims:

1. Don't rob the other PC's of XP when a PC takes leadership (a rule REQUIRING a cohort to get an even share of loot would also be a problem, and of course make no sense because loot is in-game)

2. Give cohorts some way to earn XP to advance, otherwise they become completely useless.

Keep in mind, though, that XP is just a mechanic anyway. PC's don't have to rush in and gather up the leaking XP particles after a kill. ;) So don't get wrapped up in where the XP "came from." It's not a mass-energy item that has to be conserved in the universe.

Diego Rossi wrote:

If that is the sentiment at your table the cohort should not heal, buff or help anyone beside his leader as he is a feat of the leader, not a person.

"He is right here, in my equipment."

Well said...and even then, it's IMPOSSIBLE to completely segregate the benefit the cohort provides to the leader from the benefit provided to the whole party. If the cohort does damage, he helped bring down the monster sooner, avoiding additional attacks against a party member. Buffing or healing the leader makes him more effective/keeps him in the fight...again killing the monster sooner and/or staying standing to draw attacks, helping the whole party.

Actions are very valuable, a cohort essentially ALWAYS adds extra actions (or at least drew fire for a debilitating effect before he lost his actions) and has a wide range of available actions. Many feats add extra actions SOMETIMES...and those actions are generally limited in what can be done.

Even just another set of eyes looking for the secret door, pushing on the big rock, or keeping watch can be valuable to a party, especially a small one. A cohort is probably better at SOMETHING than the 2nd best PC is at it.

Kalshane wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:
Henry VIII had two suits of full plate armor specifically designed for fighting on foot. Video.

That first set had quite the codpiece on it.

The most interesting part for me was that the armor stood 6'1" tall. Granted, Henry himself was probably a little bit shorter since there had to be some difference between the top of his head and the top of the helm, but it belies the whole people were universally shorter than they are now thing.

Not necessarily...maybe he "would have been" 6'5".

loaba wrote:
Chobemaster wrote:
I'm curious as to what way you think I'm suggesting it be handled, such that your statement above is true.

You said...

Chobemaster wrote:
If the Superfriends were an adventuring party, should Robin get a share, or is he paid out of Batman share? The party as a whole is better off with Robin there. In theory, at least.

That's a question, not a suggestion. And you said Robin's not a cohort anyway.

Plague zombies' victims that were infected w/ zombie rot rise as plague zombies.

which is the general trope.

any why it's not called "annoyingly but ultimately not all that seriously contagious" zombie.

loaba wrote:

If Leadership is treated the way Chob and others suggest, then the rest of the Party pays for one PC's feat choice whether they want to or not.

I'm curious as to what way you think I'm suggesting it be handled, such that your statement above is true.

Starbuck_II wrote:
DeathMetal4tw wrote:
Historically, I don't know if full plate wearers ever fought off horse back. That's why recently the thought of a warrior waddling around all turtles up in his armor has been making less and less sense to me. Is anyone else bothered by the lack of "realism" in walking around covered in full plate?

You are confusing Jousting Armor and Full plate. They are 100% different.

Jousting armor is what everyone confuses with full plate and when knocked on your back treats you like a Turtle.

Full plate is very maneuverable and people can tumble in it in real life.

In fact most people selling you full plate in real life and tricking you and substituting Jousting Armor.

And even that is probably a subset of the armor worn for jousting, since many lists didn't necessarily end w/ an unhorsing.

loaba wrote:

Cohorts aren't Adventurers, so they shouldn't get a cut. They should get a portion of their Leader's cut.

The barkeep is going to be quite confused when the cohort walks in with the rest of the party, then doesn't leave when the barkeep points out the "No Adventurers" sign.

1 to 50 of 407 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.