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

CrankyRWMage's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 97 posts. 1 review. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Admiral Ackbar has a couple of words of advice in this situation...

Grand Lodge

Okay, Looks like I need to talk to that guy about selling my soul. >sigh<

Grand Lodge

Trinite wrote:

Man, I wonder how to stat up Radovan's ...

** spoiler omitted **

Synthesist.

Grand Lodge

rocket surgeon, this thread brings up why I may not be using mythic in my game at all. Agreed, lots of shiny! very Awesome! is it mythic? Not really.

Now granted I think part of that can be handled by a good GM skinning things the right way, but honestly, I feel like it just adds a bit of power creep for the mini-maxers and lacks some of the true innovation I was looking for.

Best way I can describe it: "I thought I was going to see an "Inception/matrix marathon", and I actually saw "sucker punch" 5 times in a row instead."

Grand Lodge

mdt wrote:

@CrankyRWMage

Sounds like Shadowrun initiative sequences. Slowest to fastest declare, fastest to slowest resolve.

Really? I actually got that from Champions. Shadowrun does that now too. My how time's change. lol.

Grand Lodge

Interesting.

Here's my house rule on initiative:

Like you I think more experience would mean better reaction time, but also classes that are combat driven should still be better off than non-combat focused classes. To that end I follow the normal formula + BAB.

the next thing I do is after initiative is determined we go in reverse order and announce our actions. NO ONE GOES YET. your just declaring the actions. this means if the Goblin rolled crappy and is on the bottom of the order, he announces his action first, then the people who rolled better can choose to react to that specific action.

This takes into account that everyone is trying to act at the same time, so the "slower" people don't necessarily know that they are slower until the other person parries their sword and disarms them, then headbutts them. lol.

it works well in that it allows the swifter characters to really shine. It does make saved actions a bit difficult and in some cases makes them obsolete.

Grand Lodge

Rogue goes inviso and disarms head bandit, while this is going on melee types close, cleric holds action to cast highest power cure on hostage if head bandit gets lucky vs. disarm, wiz does what he can focusing on getting hostage out of danger.

Grand Lodge

Read the emerald tablet. This is a person who is so in tune with there "isness" that they call into manifestation that which is in in harmony with their own world view.

Grand Lodge

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
One six in 18 rolls? Wow.

Obviously someone needs dice shaving lessons. LOL

Grand Lodge

Monk/Magus is fine. The Monk states "A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons." So unarmed can be your weapon of choice.

Only problem is you can not flurry and cast because while the Magus allows you to treat a spell as a second weapon, that weapon(spell) is not a "Special monk weapon" thus not eligible for TWF. is okay, though because you can use your arcane pool to buff the crap out of your fists, and when you get Ki you can add that too. It's nice to have the option to sling a spell from time to time too, great opener followed by flurry.

Go monk of empty hand, it lets you inflict any type of damage (blunt, slash, etc) you want later on and with a little tooling you can go Quiggong with it. Magus wise I'd go Kensai.

that's just me, YMMV

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Old school here from when the class list looked like this:

CHARACTERS:
There are three (3) main classes of characters:
Fighting-Men
Magic-Users
Clerics

and the races were human, dwarf, elf, halfling.

this is how it was done for stats:

DETERMINATION OF ABILITIES:
Prior to the character selection by players it is necessary for the referee to roll three six-sided dice in order to rate each as to various abilities, and thus aid them in selecting a role. Categories of ability are: Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Constitution, Dexterity, and Charisma. Each player notes his appropriate scores, obtains a similar roll of three dice to determine the number of Gold Pieces (Dice score x 10) he starts with, and then opts for a role.

NOTE: the the REFEREE rolled your stats! lol.

Anyone seen my glasses and my teeth? I left 'em round heres somwhur...

Grand Lodge

HUmmmmnnnn... Not sure a Holy gun could or would MURDER anything. Read the alignment notes under the Assassin class for better reasoning, but in short murder is the purview of evil, thus not holy.

Grand Lodge

Actually playing a Kensai Magus/Monk of the empty hand atm. It rocks!

Grand Lodge

Let's see... STR: 18 He's strong, likely always has been, so would be used to people asking him to help them move, or pick up heavy things.

Dex: 13 well, he's also graceful. maybe he took some tao-bo from billy blanks, or some yoga-bootie ballet.

Con: 15 he's very healthy, likely only gets sick when everyone has the flu. maybe he's a health food nut? You could play him like one of those narcissistic lunk heads at the gym, but his CHA is too high to be the annoying sort.

INT: 9 Okay, so he's a little slow, but not bad. Kind of like the trucker you meet at the truck stop who wants to complain about gas prices, but if you try to explain the economics of it to him he gets lost pretty quick.

WIS: 13 Okay now he's looking like a country bumpkin sort. not so educated, but lots of good common sense. maybe he'll put out bits of wisdom like "a fish in the net is better than two in the river."

CHR: 17 Very likable. okay, I'm thinking Jethro from the original beverly hillbilly's now. except he's not a klutz.

Grand Lodge

I'm thinking monk of the empty hand, Magus Kensai, Inquisitor could be Anger Inquisition I'm thinking.

Grand Lodge

Tirq wrote:

I like how it sounds. 5 in each would be a slow... slow climb to power.

I think, though, that I would rather go Duelist for the last 5 instead of MT. It just would make a better melee/support character. If you take Boar Style, you can get piercing damage for your unarmed strike. which means that INT+WIS+DEX=AC... Sounds like fun.

have you ever looked at a magus/cleric/mt build? same Idea, but stacked with the Monk. Horribly slow going, but definitely looks like one of those "wait for it..." kind of things.

Duelist also focuses on sword play, and I want to focus on the Monk instead. Magus stacks with monk, but duelist would detract.

Grand Lodge

Drothmal wrote:

not sure if the magus arcana can be applied to unarmed attacks....

I could see it being a fun build, though highly unoptimal

"A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

Grand Lodge

MAD wise it adds INT to the needed mix for Monk. Inquisitor and monk are mostly the same in stat needs.

Magus weapon will be unarmed attack. between the weapon buffs from Magus and KI he should be able to mess someone up.

Inquisitors are Wisdom heavy, so they'll mix well I think. they have their judgments, which I'll likely be using Healing judgment a lot.

yeah BaB is always a problem for monks, magus might offset that a little.

Grand Lodge

Had a crazy idea the other night, and it won't get out of my head now.

A Monk, Magus,Inquisitor build. Focus mainly on the monk, with the other two mixed in for flavor and crazy ability stuff.

Tempted to even drop in some Mystic theurge in there too, but wow ...

anyway, any advice? think it will blend? Not looking so much to optimize (although if it can be, that would be awesome too), so much as will it even survive at higher levels being that it is so split up.

Help? tips? advice?

Grand Lodge

Kosh!

Grand Lodge

How enterprising of him

Grand Lodge

LHC! Small Hadrons need not apply!

Grand Lodge

Think Data from star trek NG, but without the Pinocchio syndrome. imagine in a flat dead pan voice and no body language going... "i'm going to kill you." nobody would take it seriously. then you do it.... Situation bonus on the next guy you say it to, if he saw you kill the first one. Also, You can express emotion, but it's over the top, or way understated. usually not connected to what your saying. This may actually limit your ability to use rage properly.

Happler has the skills mostly right. Animals find you odd/creepy/scary and you can't know which way to act regarding them (or people for that matter). As for disguise, Disguise is also a matter of acting like the person your supposed to be. If your supposed to fit in great, except now you have no ability to relate to what "fits in." So your not believable. pretty much means you stick out as a huge sore thumb in any crowd.

rain man is a good start, but honestly, people took him for normal until they interacted a little with him. pretty much Cha: 7 IS rain man. keep that in mind next time you think of Charisma as a dump stat. (and INT: 7 is about a 70 IQ BTW, which is about 10 points inside the mentally challenged range.)

Grand Lodge

>cuts mooring line to pirate ship and slinks away trying to look like an innocent troll<

Grand Lodge

Cause no one understands me Dj. >sob!<

Grand Lodge

If I don't win the terrorists do!

<this message brought to you by Faux news!>

Grand Lodge

Gives Theos the sign Spanky gave me.

I wish everyone would realize that per RAW there is no such thing as RAW.

Grand Lodge

Winning!

Grand Lodge

Where?

Grand Lodge

Was at Epikos today and talked to the owner. He says he had a Pathfinder group (not PFS) that played on Tuesday nights, but they haven't been playing because of some scheduling conflicts some of them have. the Slot is open from 6-9.

Those who could still make it might enjoy playing eh? So, I told him I'd pass the word along.

Epikos is not that far from Chattanooga really, I live in the Bonny oaks area and it's about 8 minutes away. It takes me 20 minutes to get downtown... So about 30 minutes from downtown Chattanooga?

Hope that helps.

Grand Lodge

Who?

Grand Lodge

Trolls!

Grand Lodge

sparky, how's it going?

Grand Lodge

Martin Shelby wrote:

I was trying to research what stores are around Chattanooga--I've seen a couple of links mentioning store closings, but Joseph is right. Finding a store and meeting some peeps face to face is a great way to go, even if they're not playing Pathfinder currently. I see there are two groups on Meetup.com: http://www.meetup.com/Chattanooga-D-D with 40 members and http://www.meetup.com/ebrainerd-dnd with 19 members. Both should be good ways to contact people if you're not already a member. I'll be swinging down to Atlanta for three days in April (16-18) so wouldn't mind dropping by to meet you. Ever any questions feel free to ask, and if I don't know, well, then I direct you to Mike. Or just make something up.

Cheers!

So far as I know there are no stores in Chattanooga proper anymore. There is Comic hound in E. Ridge, Epicos in Collagedale, Dicehead in Cleveland, and B&M in Harrison.

'd be interested in checking out a game, but it would have to be in the evening.

Grand Lodge

Vargis wrote:
We are set for our first Society play meet on the 24th of this month. We have a place to meet which is familiar with gamers in the area, and I hope to expand as it grows. Any helpful advice at this point will be much. Please write if you are in the area and let me know if you would like to play.

I'd be interested in checking it out.

Grand Lodge

DJ-Bogie wrote:

Play nice you two, you know you are made for each other.

trollin' for victory!

Grand Lodge

Zylphryx is banned for reminding me of that creepy .Gif of the dead squid that dances when you pour soy sauce on it. blech.

Grand Lodge

ShadowcatX wrote:

Congratulations you're now a one dimensional comic book character. On the bright side, you never have to worry about being tied up.

I wish for the midas touch in my left hand.

Granted, the rest of your body turns to gold, starting at the left wrist and moving up...

I wish for this wish not to be granted

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarantula wrote:
You are the only one disagreeing with RAW and stating that a character would be subject to an AoO when the creature making the AoO does not threaten his square.

No, he's not the only one.

I'll just leave this here:
Ten commandments of practical Optimization by Caelic

1. Not everything needs to be stated explicitly in the rules; some things just are. 
A human doesn't have a hundred and fifty-seven arms, even though the rules don't explicitly say that he doesn't. A character doesn't continue running around after he dies, even though the rules don't explicitly list any negative effects for death. If the designers spelled out every single thing explicitly...even the glaringly obvious...the core rulebooks would be larger than the Encyclopedia Brittannica, and would likely cost as much as a Ferrari.
2. "The rules don't say I can't!" is not practical optimization. 
The second commandment is like unto the first. There are many things that the rules don't explicitly say you can't do. The rules don't explicitly say you can't do the "I'm a Little Teapot" dance and instantly heal back to full starting hit points as a result. The rules don't explicitly say your first level character can't have a titanium-reinforced skeleton and cybernetic weaponry.
This is because the rules are structured in such a way as to tell you what you can do--not what you can't. An underlying assumption is that, apart from common-sense actions which anyone can perform, the system will tell you if a given character has a given ability.
3. RAW is a myth. 
This is one of the dirty little secrets of the board. The Most Holy RAW is invoked continuously by those who want to give their arguments the veneer of officiality. The problem is, RAW is generally applied not as "The Rules as Written," but rather as "The Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, Nyeah." The RAITAYCPIWN. Not quite as catchy an acronym, granted, but that's what it boils down to.
This game cannot be played without interpretation and the judicious application of common sense. Try to play the game strictly and exclusively by the rules as written, and you have an unplayable game.
Using "RAW" as a defense is similarly meaningless--particularly when your defense rests on interpretation. If you're going to claim that your build is RAW, you'd better be able to make sure that the rules specifically uphold your claim...not simply that they're sort of vague and COULD be interpreted in such a way as to not FORBID your claim.
This becomes particularly important when your claim is especially controversial.
Yes, builds should adhere to the rules as written. Yes, any exceptions to that should be noted. But the RAW as some sort of entity unto itself, capable of rendering a build immune to criticism, is not a useful construction, and causes more problems than it solves.
4. Common sense is not a bad thing. 
The rules were designed to be read with common sense. Yes, common sense will vary from person to person, but there has to be some basic level at which we agree on core assumptions, or the game is meaningless.
If we have one interpretation of the rules where two levels of a prestige class give you infinite caster level, and another interpretation where two levels of that same prestige class give you two caster levels, then common sense tells us that the latter interpretation is the correct one. If a character reaches negative ten hit points and dies, common sense tells us that he doesn't spring back to his feet and continue fighting unimpeded.
5. Intent matters. 
I know, I know..."Blasphemy! No man may know the intent of the Most Holy Designers!"
Except that, in some cases, we can. In some cases, the intent is glaringly, painfully obvious. In other cases, the intent has been clarified by various WotC sources, such as CustServ.
It makes sense to take these sources at their word, people. They work with the folks who design the game, they have access to them. If a conflict comes up, then it can be resolved, but I can't help but notice that for all the talk about how CustServ never gives the same answer twice, they've been remarkably consistent of late.
It's one thing to say "This rule is vaguely worded, and we don't know the intent." It's another thing to say, "The rule is vaguely worded, and therefore I can ignore the intent."
The first is sensible caution; the second is rules lawyering. When an ambiguity has been clarified, that should be the end of it.
6. Mistakes happen. 
Everybody's human. You're human; I'm human; the folks at WotC are human. Sometimes, humans make mistakes.
That shouldn't be seen as an opportunity to break the game.
Take the Vigilante from Complete Adventurer, for instance. Anyone out there seriously believe that his rather abrupt jump from 1 third level spell at level 6 to 20 at level 7 is NOT a mistake?
There are two ways to deal with a mistake like this: a sensible way, and a silly way.
The sensible way: "Hmm. There's a column for fourth level spells with no numbers in it, and a column for third level with numbers that can't be right in it. Clearly, this was a typesetting error, and the second digit in the third level spells column is supposed to be in the fourth level spells column."
The silly way: "Rules are rules! The rulebook says 20 third level spells at seventh level! If you do it any other way, you're houseruling! I'm gonna make some GREAT builds based on this rule!"
Basing a build on an obvious mistake isn't optimizing; it's silly.
7. Simple Is Good.
There are a LOT of WotC sourcebooks out there. I did a rough estimate on the value of my collection just of hardcover rulebooks; it cost more than my car.
Not everyone has that kind of cash to spend on this hobby. Not only that--a lot of people simply don't have the time to commit several thousand pages of rules, hundreds upon hundreds of prestige classes, and thousands of feats to memory.
So: builds which are simple are good. There's nothing WRONG with a build that incorporates eight different prestige classes from seven different sources, and then tosses in feats from five more...but that build is going to be useful only to the people who have those sources, whereas the Druid 20 build that doesn't go outside of Core is useful to everybody.
Sometimes, simplicity is worth more than raw power.
8. Tricking the DM is Bad. 
We see a lot of "Help me trick my DM!" or "Help me make my DM cry!" requests on these boards. We see builds that are designed to look innocuous while at the same time being devastating to campaign balance. The idea is to lull the DM into allowing the character, then unleash its full power.
Bad idea. Bad, BAD idea.
At all times, two things should be borne in mind about the DM. One: he's in charge. If you try to trick him, he's totally within his rights to toss your character or YOU out of the game. Two: he's your friend. Trying to deceive your friends is bad.
Be honest with your DM about what you want to do. If he says "No," deal with it. That's part of a DM's job. If you don't think he's going to say "Yes" to something, then trying to sneak it into the game on the sly is a sure way to make him mad.
9. Respect the parameters of the request. 
This used to be a given, but people have been backsliding a lot lately. Someone comes on and says, "Hey, I'd like to play a Bard 4/Cleric 4. Can anyone help me optimize this? He immediately gets responses which boil down to, "Only an idiot would play that! You should be playing Pun-Pun, he's MUCH more powerful!" Sometimes they're more nicely phrased than this, other times they're not.
The point is: people aren't offering him suggestions on how to make his character of choice better. They're telling him that he's "wrong" for playing that character, and that he should be playing a different character.
The same goes for threads in which the poster explains the DM's house rules and restrictions at the beginning of the thread. More often than not, if these restrictions amount to more than "No infinite power at first level," someone will respond with the oh-so-helpful suggestion "Your DM sucks. Quit his game and never talk to him again."
I only wish that were hyperbole. It's word-for-word from a thread a while back.
Optimization is about working within the rules to greatest effect. ANYONE can optimize in an environment with no restrictions. It takes skill to optimize where options are limited.
Threads like these should be seen as an opportunity to demonstrate that skill...not belittle the poster or the DM.
10. If something seems too good to be true, it probably is. 
I remember bounding onto the boards many moons ago, shortly after the first release of the Persistent Spell feat, to declare that I had discovered (ta da!) the UNBEATABLE COMBO. Since Time Stop was a Personal effect spell, it could be Persisted!
(Oooh, aaah!)
I couldn't imagine why nobody had thought of this before. Of course, as it turned out, LOTS of people had thought of this before. Within about five minutes, I was directed to a ruling that said, "You can't do it."
I was disappointed, sure...but I accepted it and moved on.
There are a LOT of folks here with a lot of knowledge of the rules. Some of 'em are a little scary. They love nothing better than to go over a new rulebook with a fine-toothed comb looking for hidden gems.
Sometimes, a genuinely overlooked concept will turn up. The recent builds using Sanctum Spell are a good example. The feat's been around for a while, but nobody really looked at what could be done with it.
More often, though, if a seeming "rules loophole" is being ignored by the boards, it's because it's been hashed out in the past and found not to work. Perhaps there's something elsewhere in the rules that nullifies it; perhaps there was a clarification. Very occasionally, there's simply a board-wide agreement that the rule is wrong...as with the recent FAQ claiming that Polymorph allowed the use of templated forms.
If it turns out that your discovery falls into this category, the best thing to do is accept it and move on. Maybe the next one won't.
So: there they are. Make of them what you will.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Well, it could be made with a PVP on/off switch. if you want to PVP turn it on, otherwise don't. Additionally if threats are scaled like in other games (color coded) then it should be possible to have players outside of a certain "threat range" to be marked as "invalid for targeting."

Grand Lodge

why is everyone whispering?:
Well, I'd think in public they might roll them, but not strip them.

as to the map, Nothing says they have to return it, and the Society can verify that they do have permission to explore. this simply means they have to explore from square one, rather than having the mapping done for them. Perhaps reward them, but make it a reduced reward?

Grand Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
This is a textbook example of a post that adds nothing to the discussion and only exists to antagonize other posters.

Agree and disagree.

It doesn't add to the discussion proper. Given.

not my intent to antagonize however. I do however admit to being cranky upfront. ; ) I bring up the fighting because I'm Ex-military and have a wee bit of experience in the matter. and from that experience It colours my interpretation of the rules.

It does have merit,however, in that it would be nice if people who only wanted a RAW discussion would say so up front.

that said, I'll drop it. and go to bed.

Grand Lodge

jreyst wrote:
CrankyRWMage wrote:
Well, that's the difference I like a realistic game, and in my game, if you could reasonably stab the tail of the dragon as it passed by, then I'd let it be.
And some people like rules to be consistent. Meaning, if you decide at this weekends session that I can do X but then 2 months from now you forgot you said I could do X and decide I CAN'T do X I'll just say wtf? Either I can or I can't, please be consistent. When you codify some of this stuff up front it saves debates, arguments, and inconsistency later.

here is a little problem with that. Your assuming i'll be inconsistent. have a been so far? Nope. you have trust issues with the DM you might want to look into a game like monopoly or something, and definitely avoid poker. they flat out lie in poker. lol.

Grand Lodge

Stynkk wrote:


According to what you (and others) are stating, any time a creature's limbs or weapons pass through your threatened area, you get an AoO. Because "SOME PART OF [their] BODY [moved through] that square".

Is that what you're saying? Because you can't have it both ways.

Then why are there AoO's vs. unarmed strikes?

This whole thread makes me wonder how many of you people have ever been in a real fight with someone actually trained to fight.

perhaps in the future it would be helpful if you noted in your question something such as RAW ONLY... REAL WORLD EXAMPLES UNWELCOME. lol.

Grand Lodge

jreyst wrote:
Some of us are asserting that even though in the real world of course, some part of you is entering that square, this isn't the real world and in the game rules, you never change location.

Since it's not the real world, why do we have rules simulating the real world? why not just make it up as you go.

this sort of silly RAW behaviour is why most RAW types die in my games. I find a nice RAW way to kill them and then say "You know in the real world, you could have actually survived that by doing {x,y,z}.

So if you want to argue RAW says.. go right ahead.

Now I'm off to do a RAI vs. Raw parody in the flavor of Mac Vs. PC.

Grand Lodge

Stynkk wrote:

We know this is the case because if it was not, you could simply Ready an Attack or take your AoO vs a piece of the Dragon that entered your threatened area. Currently the only way to do even one of these options is with Strike Back.

It may not be "realistic" to require the Strike Back feat to do this, but that's how it goes in the mechanical PF universe. And by this I mean, hit a piece of a creature rather than the space(s) it is actually in, whether it be with an AoO or Readied Attack.

Well, that's the difference I like a realistic game, and in my game, if you could reasonably stab the tail of the dragon as it passed by, then I'd let it be.

we must remember the mechanics are there to help prevent "I shot you... no you didn't... did too.. nah uh..." kind of arguments.

they are not there to take away your ability to actually play and enjoy the game. So I guess I'm RAI not RAW, but I'm good with that. : )

Grand Lodge

Does drinking a potion provide an attack of opportunity? casting a spell? using a scroll? etc...

yes? then if it is done in a threatened square it provokes an AoO. if the Ogres hand is in the square provoking an AoO then hand, forearm etc. is a valid target.

Strike back feat is a different thing than an AoO.

Grand Lodge

Okay, I only read the first and last page, so I may have missed someone else mentioning this, but...

I see a lot of "can I reach into a square or do I have to enter it..." But I don't see a lot of people talking about "the square is threatened."

here's how I see it... if you reach into the square, your in the square, or at least your "reacher" is. the square is threatened. Hence, the bit of you in the square is in the threatened square performing an action, which means AoO is triggered baring other AoO debuffs. that simple.

does it matter if it's just your arm or if it's all of you? Nope. Honey Badger Orc don't give a @%4#!

the whole thing hinges on a pesky two letter word. "In." INto as in "reach IN-to a square" means you (unless you want to say your arm,prehensile tail/tongue/hair, etc. isn't you) are IN the square.

Only way around this is TK, mage hand, or someone else's hand. or similar effect. maybe gust of wind to blow it to you? Animate Bob's corpse to hand it to you, whatever. But if you reach IN your IN.

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 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.