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

Darksol the Painbringer's page

2,522 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,522 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

Greater Bleed

School: Necromancy
Cleric/Oracle 2, Inquisitor 2, Wizard/Sorcerer 2, Witch 2
Casting Time: 1 Standard Action
Components: V, S
Target: One Creature
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 caster levels)
Duration: Instantaneous
Save: Fortitude negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

Your target begins to bleed uncontrollably from multiple orifices. It must make a fortitude save or take bleed damage equal to your caster level (maximum 10). A successful save negates this effect. The bleeding persists and cannot be stopped by natural means, such as from the heal skill or an extraordinary ability, but can be stopped by magical and supernatural sources, such as cure light wounds or channel energy. A creature that does not have blood is immune to this effect.

Quote:

Entrapment

School: Evocation [Force]
Wizard/Sorcerer 3
Casting Time: 1 Standard Action
Components: Verbal, Somatic
Area: 20 ft. radius
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Duration: 1 minute/level
Save: Reflex partial
Spell Resistance: Yes

You weave a ward of pure force that encircles a target area. Any creature that walks out of the affected area triggers the ward and suffers 1d4 force damage for every 2 caster levels you possess.

Creatures that fly over, burrow under, are incorporeal, or teleport out of the target area are not affected by this spell. You may have only 3 Entrapment spells up at any one time.

Quote:

Crippling Disfiguration

School: Transmutation (Polymorph)
Wizard/Sorcerer 4, Witch 4
Casting Time: 1 Standard Action
Components: Verbal, Somatic
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target: One creature
Duration: 1 round/level.
Save: Fortitude Negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

Through harsh magics, you temporarily alter the physiology of a creature to reduce its mobility. Target creature must make a fortitude save or lose all movement speeds and abilities other than the standard movement speed. If the target does not have a standard movement speed, they are unable to move from their position (though another creature may bull rush, drag, or reposition it as normal), but are given a new saving throw each round to end the effect.

Creatures that are flying that are affected by this spell begin to plummet to the ground. Creatures with a climb speed affected by this spell must make a climb check equal to the save DC or lose their grip and fall to the ground; they may climb using a skill check, but do not receive any benefits from otherwise having a climb speed. Creatures using earth glide that are affected by this spell must immediately move to the nearest open space outside of the earth they currently inhabit.

I made some changes to them; let me know what you think.


Renegadeshepherd wrote:
Dex based builds mostly work in skill monkeys that are suffering from MAd issues or urban barbarians (which are weaker than normal ones).

Precisely the argument I make for stating Dex to Attack and Damage isn't gamebreaking; it is limited by other aspects of the game, and most people don't see it until it actually affects them.

And you are correct on the Urban Barbarian aspect; although their ability score adjustments are more flexible and provide better defensive capabilities (not limited in skills, no AC penalty, but at the cost of the Will Save increase normally associated), the net amount is significantly reduced; where a normal Barbarian would get +4 to Strength and Constitution, an Urban Barbarian would be at +2 each if using direct comparison, though also has the option of applying it to Dexterity as well, and that scale is only going to get worse when you throw in TWF feat taxes to maximize the application of your static bonuses (the only source of solid damage you can apply, by the way), the scaling differences when Greater and Mighty Rage come into play, etc.

@ Nicos: I can't speak for them, but my GM has allowed our group to combine magic items into a slot. I believe he limited it to one combination per slot (that is, you can only combine two items for a given slot to comprise the single item to take up the slot), so as to keep things simple, but don't quote me on that. I just might test it to see if I can get Boots of the Battle Herald + Boots of Speed (@ CL 20) + Feather Step Slippers combined into a mega pair of sabatons, but that won't be until much later.


The first one should have a CL cap at, say, CL 10. Remember that those same spells can be used by a BBEG of the same class, and it's pretty brutal to hit a group with a high-end bleed effect.

The second one should have Sonic instead of Force; Force itself is really powerful and basically can't be reduced in any way. Either that or remove the option for the other elements and stick a [Force] descriptor on the spell.

The third one is definitely strong. It's basically a super-powered version of Dimensional Anchor. Removing the teleportation, etc. clause would keep it in line for its level. You'd also need to input a clause determining what happens when you cast this spell on a creature who's climbing or earthgliding or flying, etc. because this can definitely cause instakills in the right circumstances (Flyer going over a cliff to get away from the party, climber forever stuck on a wall with no means to move except to drop down, etc). You also might want to make up a better name, since this spell includes so much more than reducing a creature's ability to fly.


Diminuendo wrote:
Eldritch Heritage (Arcane) can give a bonded item to a Divine Caster: you can cast spells as if your hand was empty.

Minor quote edit, spelling corrections.

That is a feature specific to the Arcane Duelist bard archetype. Here's the full entry for Arcane Bond on the PRD:

Arcane Bond (Wizard) wrote:

At 1st level, wizards form a powerful bond with an object or a creature. This bond can take one of two forms: a familiar or a bonded object. A familiar is a magical pet that enhances the wizard's skills and senses and can aid him in magic, while a bonded object is an item a wizard can use to cast additional spells or to serve as a magical item. Once a wizard makes this choice, it is permanent and cannot be changed. Rules for bonded items are given below, while rules for familiars are at the end of this section.

Wizards who select a bonded object begin play with one at no cost. Objects that are the subject of an arcane bond must fall into one of the following categories: amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon. These objects are always masterwork quality. Weapons acquired at 1st level are not made of any special material. If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be held in one hand. If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand, he must make a concentration check or lose the spell. The DC for this check is equal to 20 + the spell's level. If the object is a ring or amulet, it occupies the ring or neck slot accordingly.

A bonded object can be used once per day to cast any one spell that the wizard has in his spellbook and is capable of casting, even if the spell is not prepared. This spell is treated like any other spell cast by the wizard, including casting time, duration, and other effects dependent on the wizard's level. This spell cannot be modified by metamagic feats or other abilities. The bonded object cannot be used to cast spells from the wizard's opposition schools (see arcane school).

A wizard can add additional magic abilities to his bonded object as if he has the required item creation feats and if he meets the level prerequisites of the feat. For example, a wizard with a bonded dagger must be at least 5th level to add magic abilities to the dagger (see the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat in Feats). If the bonded object is a wand, it loses its wand abilities when its last charge is consumed, but it is not destroyed and it retains all of its bonded object properties and can be used to craft a new wand. The magic properties of a bonded object, including any magic abilities added to the object, only function for the wizard who owns it. If a bonded object's owner dies, or the item is replaced, the object reverts to being an ordinary masterwork item of the appropriate type.

If a bonded object is damaged, it is restored to full hit points the next time the wizard prepares his spells. If the object of an arcane bond is lost or destroyed, it can be replaced after 1 week in a special ritual that costs 200 gp per wizard level plus the cost of the masterwork item. This ritual takes 8 hours to complete. Items replaced in this way do not possess any of the additional enchantments of the previous bonded item. A wizard can designate an existing magic item as his bonded item. This functions in the same way as replacing a lost or destroyed item except that the new magic item retains its abilities while gaining the benefits and drawbacks of becoming a bonded item.

Nowhere in the text does it mention being able to use the same hand a weapon, staff, or wand is being held for fulfilling somatic components. Whereas the Arcane Duelist Bard archetype has this text for their Arcane Bond feature:

Arcane Bond (Arcane Duelist Bard) wrote:
At 5th level, an arcane duelist gains the arcane bond ability as a wizard, using a weapon as his bonded item, allowing him to cast any one addition spell that he knows once per day. He may not choose a familiar or other type of bonded item. He may use the hand holding his bonded weapon for somatic components. This ability replaces lore master.

If the same Arcane Duelist bard tried to TWF with a second bonded weapon (via Eldritch Heritage [Arcane]), that second bonded weapon wouldn't be applicable for fulfilling somatic components.

That's one peg down for the many Wizards who are overpowered as heck. Just a million more to go...


@ Peet:

For the record, here's the directory regarding reliquary items.

It says you can count the item (in this case, the shield) as a holy symbol for your deity (in the cases of channeling energy) and a divine focus (in the cases of casting spells), so it follows the standard rules regarding that. So we'll need to pull up the relevant rules for casting spells, specifically components.

Let's bring up the Focus entry and compare to the Divine Focus entry:

Focus wrote:
A focus component is a prop of some sort. Unlike a material component, a focus is not consumed when the spell is cast and can be reused. As with material components, the cost for a focus is negligible unless a price is given. Assume that focus components of negligible cost are in your spell component pouch.
Divine Focus wrote:
A divine focus component is an item of spiritual significance. The divine focus for a cleric or a paladin is a holy symbol appropriate to the character's faith. The divine focus for a druid or a ranger is a sprig of holly, or some other sacred plant.

By RAW, you're required to draw out a (Divine) Focus, which is an item, to cast the spell. Items needed to be drawn out for use takes up a hand (or a foot if you're really skilled like that, but the RAW wouldn't allow it) and you're needed to have a free hand to gesture with, requiring two hands total. Some spells require both a focus and material components, meaning unless you have 3 hands (or 2 limbs that can hold items and a free hand to gesture), by RAW you can't cast the spell at all, since you lack the amount of hands needed to hold the items and make the gestures.

So, as Diego Rossi pointed out, the RAW actually screws you up very badly in this regard, since it's not quite specific. Because of that, RAW can really be thrown out the window, and we're forced to rely on RAI, which is a lot more reasonable.

As the forumites state regarding the RAI for casting spells, having a free hand and having a divine focus, both needed to cast a divine spell, are completely separate subjects and requirements; what's handwaved is the need to have separate hands for each component requirement. RAW, they're even defined as separate things in the components section, and the RAI doesn't circumvent that. Meaning for example, I can have a Reliquary Heavy Shield be a Divine Focus for a spell, but when both hands are occupied (one with the shield, the other with a weapon), I can't cast that spell because I can't make the proper hand gestures needed. I can drop the Heavy Shield to fulfill the free hand pre-requisite, but then I am lacking the Divine Focus component needed. Since both are needed, you can't cast the spell without possessing all of the required components; it just simply fails.

Because of this, compare the Heavy and Light Shield entries:

Light Shield wrote:
You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield's weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.
Heavy Shield wrote:
You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A heavy shield is so heavy that you can't use your shield hand for anything else.

A Light Shield can carry and use items (bar weapons) in the same hand. (Some argue you can use the same hand for gesturing and the like, but since you're required to hold it in your hand, it won't work; if you want that, use a Buckler.) A Heavy Shield can't carry or use anything in the same hand it's used.

So with a Reliquary Light Shield, by RAW you can have your Divine Focus component in the shield hand (as well as any material component possibly, though you'll want it open for holding your weapon), and when you switch your weapon to your shield hand (a Free Action to do that and vice-versa in the same round), you'll have a free hand for gesturing.


To add to the damage aspect disparity: Strength builds aren't limited to what they can use for weapons, leaving them open to several different sets of builds, such as high damage dice weapons for Vital Strike builds, high multipliers for critical fishing, special properties for combat maneuvers, or a combination of those. It can also be used straight away, not having to jump through hoops or needing to expend resources, meaning any resources they are left with can be used for other, more important aspects, or to improve an already base aspect, resulting in an overall net gain when comparing total benefits.

Dexterity is severely limited; having significantly reduced damage dice is a real killer in the early game, because such options are the only ones available for Dexterity, in addition to being forced to rely on Strength, as it takes time and resources for Dexterity to come online, and by the time it reaches late game, they can only be reliant on static bonuses, since the design choices revolving around an increased Dexterity aren't supported with increased damage dice or the like. It also won't have as much static bonuses due to the restricting options for Dexterity, such as Enlarge/Reduce Person. Their ability to be good with maneuvers also requires even more investment with feats or abilities, hurting their net damage dealt further. Did I mention their extra investments generally have fairly extensive pre-requisites?


I have just one piece of advice if you're going to try this.

No, talking.


I finally managed to get a look over some of the ACG's contents, and there was a subject I found that seems to be too good to be true; I just want to be sure that I am understanding the mechanics correctly.

There is a 2nd level evocation spell on both the Bard and Sorcerer/Wizard spell lists called "Contingent Action." Here's what it says in the spell description:

Contingent Action wrote:
The target gains an extra action that becomes available when a condition which you dictate is met. At the time of casting, you dictate the condition, and the target specifies a readied action that occurs when triggered by this condition. The condition needed to trigger the readied action must be clear, although it can be general. If a complicated or convoluted condition is prescribed, the whole combination might fail when triggered. For example, suppose the trigger and the action are stated as "If the target is attacked while he is not holding a weapon, he draws a weapon." If the target has no weapon to draw when the trigger occurs, the action fails. If the trigger and the action are "If an ally within 20 feet falls unconscious, the target moves to a space adjacent to that ally" but the target is chained to a wall when the trigger occurs and can't reach the unconscious ally, the action fails. The readied action must be a standard, move, or swift action-it cannot be used to cast a spell or use a supernatural ability. This action counts as a readied action and doesn't count toward the number of actions the creature can take in a round. When the condition occurs, the target can decide not to use the readied action. Once the condition is triggered, the spell is discharged-whether or not the target uses the readied action or the action is successful. This spell counts as a contingency spell for the purpose of having multiple contingent effects on a creature at the same time.

So if I'm correct, in addition to a target's full round's worth of actions, he also gets the ability to ready an action in response to a condition which is set by the caster of this spell; it lasts a minute per caster level and discharges once the readied action is taken.

Although you can't use it to cast spells (or use a Supernatural ability), this seems to be a pretty powerful and unique spell, especially when it's only 2nd level; I'm not sure if that's right, though. This does raise some other questions.

For example, it says it can't be used to cast spells or Supernatural Abilities, would this not circumvent Spell-Like Abilities from being used with this spell, or would it fall under the concept of casting spells?

Additionally, would this readied action work in attempts to counterspelling, for example? Some insight would be appreciated...


Yo Dawg, I heard you like feats, so we made a feat that can make feats. We also threw in some socks


Sorry for not being able to contribute my findings, I have been busy with other things. That being said, I'll start with the comparison and contrast of Yeti1069's post.

yeti1069 wrote:
Dex-focused gives you 1 stat for AC, Reflex saves, Initiative, ranged attack, melee attack, melee damage (and possibly ranged), and some valuable skills (Acrobatics, Escape Artist, Stealth).

In comparison to a Str-focused character, the difference in AC is minimal, if actually existing. Assuming a +8 Dexterity Modifier by 10th level, you would be forced to wear lighter armor to get usage out of your modifier, as your bonus to armor is limited by your Maximum Dexterity bonus. For example, Darkleaf Cloth Leather Armor would be the most optimal Dexterity to Armor Bonus ratio, given it matches your +8 Dexterity Modifier, it comes with a mere +2 Armor Bonus. Most Strength builds take a Full Plate armor with having only 12 Dexterity, having only a +1 Dexterity Modifier, the cap for Full Plate, it still comes with a +9 AC, equating the grand total of the lighter-armor, Dexterity-focused character, which is +10 AC (before enhancements and such). This can change with other subjects, such as Shields, but aren't really exclusive to both build types.

As attempts to remedy the situation, not many subjects can increase the amount of Maximum Dexterity Bonus that is on armor, and if they do, it increases it across all armors, not just lighter ones, meaning the net scale difference resulting from Dexterity-focused to Strength-focused remains unchanged. Another alternative is to equip Bracers of Armor for +8 AC, though you may miss out on some of the more decent properties, like Deathless, or possibly some neat wrist slot items.

Regarding Reflex Saves, most characters just run with a Cloak of Resistance of the appropriate scale to counteract effects that rely on that statistic. Most Dex-focused classes will have fewer hit points than those who are not, so the success to fail ratio on Dexterity builds may marginally higher or lower, depending on how invested they are. Of course, this only applies to subjects which rely on such, and aren't too plentiful in circumstance.

Initiative can be a big difference, though there are several means around this, such as class features, a feat/trait, etc. that make the Strength-focused guy keep up. At the very least, it makes a Dexterity-focused character not have to invest in it, though they will end up doing so anyway, given the concept of rocket tag by the endgame.

yeti1069 wrote:
Str-focused gives you 1 stat for melee attack, melee damage, ranged damage (and possibly attack with throwing weapons), some mediocre (but occasionally important) skills (Climb, Swim), carrying capacity, and checks to break things.

Strength for Attack Rolls with Throwing Weapons I believe requires either a feat or a specific magic item. In either case, it does require other extensive investment in compromise for either feats or prized slot items, and it runs into similar problems with cases such as TWF, and those two build types are rarely considered, much less created to be of any use.

Climb and Swim have some uses in the low levels. They lose their value at about 6th or 7th level when everyone can fly, teleport, walk over water, etc. Unless of course, you're stuck in an AMF or you're playing an underwater campaign. But the former doesn't happen until the endgame, and you'll be prepared for it; the latter comes few and far between, and if it does, you'll know what you're in for, and plan accordingly.

Carrying Capacity is the biggest issue for Dexterity-focused builds. Although they won't be carrying as heavy of stuff, if they dump their Strength below 10 (some builds could afford to do this if they build a certain way), they run into encumberance issues, defeating the entire purpose of building Dexterity, and serves as a proper lower level balancer, especially for those levels where one does not have Dexterity to Attack and Damage online, or special materials like Mithril or Darkleaf Cloth.

I understand that I didn't say anything about the damage aspect, and that's because it deserves its own post; it will take me a bit to double-check the numbers to make sure they come out correctly.


Many users on this forum (including myself) have argued the importance of the two statistics that are Strength and Dexterity, and the roles they play (or can play). This is especially true in the cases of combat, when you have melee-oriented characters trying to find methods to get more out of their Dexterity while reducing their need for Strength.

Some players are convinced that allowing, for example, Dexterity to Attack and Damage rolls is overpowering, removing the need for having a Strength score, and upsetting the balance against characters who don't attempt such concepts. Others believe that the implementation of such options is not only a common sense subject, but also still falls under the realms of inoptimization.

As such, this thread has been created to discuss the concept of contrast between both Strength to Attack/Damage and Dexterity to Attack/Damage.


TheJayde wrote:

I haven't seen any numbers yet. I'm not through the entire conversation, but you would think somebody that has done the numbers would present them. If you have run the numbers, I would like to see the results. I do customer service, and though this is anecdotal at best, 99% of customers in my experience don't know the subject matter so thuroughly that they can argue with me. It is my job to know the subject that I serve. Just like its Pathfinders job to do so. You may well have run the numbers, but I havent been presented with them.

Adding damage to Dex in the format may cause issues for them later down the line. Yes, they should always be working on better things, and evolving thier company, but needs to be careful to make the right moves. This may not be the right move. I just have a little trust in them to operate thier game and understand thier job.

Just so I am clear, when I mentioned run the numbers, simulations, aftershocks, etc. I am mostly talking about the game mechanics.

I'll create a separate thread about the subject, as it will bog down this thread considerably with what I am probably sure shall amount to a wall of text; it will take me some time to gather the data to post, but I'll definitely have it up.


TheJayde wrote:
Tels wrote:
The black raven wrote:
That said, the Devs are the Devs (and do an awesome job BTW) and we, the customers, will make do with what they give us ;-)

NO! That is absolutely a horrible view point to take on the merchant/customer relationship!

I'm not saying Paizo makes bad products, I don't think that, but I need to expand upon this line here.

A customer is not a slave with no voice with which to express his or her displeasure. If we want changes in the wares of a merchant, we have to speak up and voice our displeasure or nothing will happen.

If customers only had to sit back and voicelessly accept any and all wares that came our way, then business wouldn't make better and better products. There would never need to be a patch for an iPhone to fix an issue, because Apple could just ignore us.

If a business wants to stay in business, then they need to listen to the feedback of it's consumers and adapt to meet demands.

I REFUSE to make do with a faulty product. I can, and have, and will, return a product to a company that does not work like it is supposed to and demand either my money back, or a replacement.

I have never had to do so with Paizo, and I don't suspect I will in the future. But to think that a customer is just supposed to lay back and take it when they get a product is undeniably wrong.

I disagree. If you were so smart, you could make your own game. Your opinion and view is shallow but the company has a much broader view of things. They get more feedback and information, and actually do testing with numbers and comparatives. You wanting this ability does not entitle you to the ability. The customer is not always right. The customer is usually too uninformed to know what they trully want.

You can voice your opinion and make posts like these, and surely Paizo appreciates your request, but do not make the mistake that they are better equipped to make the decision.

The product is not faulty because you say it is....

Comparing one person's viewpoints to the viewpoint of a conglomerate board collective, which is "the authority" of this game (and "the authority" isn't always right or proper, either), is like having one apple to having an assorted fruit basket. The amount, variety, and sheer volume that accompanies the latter would outweigh the value of the former because physics. It's not exactly a fair comparison, nor should it be one you make, because even if the Devs are the Devs, they are still human beings like us, not some "Holier Than Thou" ascendant like you make them out to be.

Although the customer isn't always right, nothing is. But not all customers are uninformed or don't know their way around subjects. However, that's a two-way street, and the only way to know for sure which is the case, is to run the numbers, the simulations, the aftershocks, etc. Which I've done myself, and quite frankly it doesn't support their decision to exclude Dexterity to Damage as a feat. Others have ran it, or viewed my input, and they've come to (or agreed with) the same conclusions I have.

Pure intellect doesn't make a company, much less a game that can thrive off of its consumers; it's needed, and is a key aspect, but is not the only subject of importance. One needs social skills, publicity outlets, resource management, etc. Not all of that can be covered with being Mr. Smarty Pants, and the Devs know that.

Even so, Tels makes a great point, one that matches the laws of Nature itself. Being complacent in your abilities only leaves room for others to one-up your regime. If Paizo didn't pay attention to the customers, or make the game constantly growing and evolving like it is, they wouldn't make it as a company, because it would be one-upped by a company who does, and ends up making a significantly better product because of it.


Artanthos wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
So in the case of, say, the Wish spell, drawing out the 25,000 gold Diamond would most likely take a Move Action. It's not really concrete as to what constitutes components that subvert the general, but some GMs would rule that drawing out a vital Focus component for a spell (unless such is already drawn) would take a Move Action.

Elaborate =/= expensive.

A single small rock is a very simple thing, regardless of price tag.

And yet it's quite undefined rules-wise as to what constitutes being elaborate or not, meaning it's subject to GM interpretation. I'd rule that a material component like a Diamond for the Wish spell would constitute a Move Action to be drawn, since I find it to be, in fact, an elaborate component, whereas you would not.


Not exactly convinced.

That Warpriest is super MAD to be doing any actual good. Needing Charisma, Wisdom, AND Strength to be any use is a real killer; it's one of the reasons why it got removed in the playtest. The only other method I can think of to make it work is to simply dump Strength, get a Guided weapon, and go to town.

Fervor to use for both swift spells and pseudo-LoH is going to burn through that resource fast; it will last for 2 combats tops, which, unless you only amount to having a 15 minute work day, becomes silly after a while. A shame there was no Extra Fervor feat, as this build would really need it.

Deadly Stroke only works on Stunned or Flat-Footed enemies, and if you wanted to specialize in Critical Fishing, it won't stack with your weapon's critical multipliers. Additionally, unless you have a reliable means to Stun an enemy or you're building for Feint specialization, Deadly Stroke won't be usable. My guess is you thought an enemy who's Shaken or whatever would be affected; sadly, they are not. Also, Deadly Stroke only works as a specific Standard Action, granting a single attack. Although Warpriest has 3/4 BAB, with buffs they're at about unbuffed Fighter level, so you should still be hitting with your two attacks at that level.

Honestly, playing a classic Paladin, or even a slightly archetyped one, would be better than this, and a lot simpler too.


Peet wrote:

Hi, Darksol. Thanks for trying to answer this. However, it seems like you contradict yourself here.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
1. I believe in cases where you need to provide a divine focus, does the shield fulfill. It does not cover the somatic component (which is the gesturing), meaning you would have to still need the free hand.

OK, so here you say you need a separate hand.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The divine focus would have to be brought out (if it has a high enough gold cost, a move action may be required) in order to be utilized for a given spell, but it can be held in the same free hand and still be used to cast spells.

Now here you say you can use the same hand that holds a divine focus to perform the gesturing for a spell.

If the shield counts as a divine focus, then why can't it be used this way? Is there anything in the description of the item (or elsewhere) that clarifies this?

Note that a divine focus tattoo costs only 100 gp and gets someone around the problem of having to "pull out" one's divine focus. So there is a non-magical way to get around the action economy issue of having to draw a divine focus. So I have a hard time understanding what the benefit of having a shield classified as a divine focus is, if not for the purpose of allowing it to be used to make gestures for spells.

BTW what does the gold cost of a divine focus have to do with how it is used? I really don't understand that.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
2. I would assume so, since for spells that use normal foci and/or materials, the single hand is all that's needed, subtracting the divine focus on-hand doesn't change the factor that you need to have a free hand to gesture with, which can be that free hand that otherwise possessed a divine focus.

I'm not sure you understand my question.

If the spell does not require a divine focus as a component, and I "choose" to add that component to the spell if I am a divine caster? If the answer is no then I...

I think you're a bit confused as to what a Divine Focus is and what its relationship is with somatic components. The two aren't mutually exclusive; that is, if you have one, you don't need the other, which you seem to think is the case. All I'm saying is that the reliquary shield only serves as a Holy Symbol for the purposes of Channeling and the Divine Focus required for casting a spell; it still restricts your ability to use that hand for other purposes, such as fulfilling somatic components. Additionally, having a Divine Focus in your hand alone doesn't fulfill your somatic components, you need to have the hand free (barring the Divine Focus needed for the spell being cast) to fulfill the somatic components. You could still hold a Divine Focus and fulfill somatic components in the same hand; it's not possible if you have a Heavy or Tower Shield equipped. I said that you can, provided that it is a Light Shield. You would be SOL otherwise.

In other words, a Heavy Shield won't work for what you're trying to do; get a Light Shield and it solves your problems.

If it doesn't require a Divine Focus, adding it to casting that spell won't change anything about the spell, assuming that adding those subjects to a spell is possible, which many would say is not, and even if it is, it does nothing.

**EDIT**

As for the whole "gold cost" for a Divine Focus, I reference this text:

Casting a Spell wrote:
To cast a spell with a material (M), focus (F), or divine focus (DF) component, you have to have the proper materials, as described by the spell. Unless these components are elaborate, preparing them is a free action.

So in the case of, say, the Wish spell, drawing out the 25,000 gold Diamond would most likely take a Move Action. It's not really concrete as to what constitutes components that subvert the general, but some GMs would rule that drawing out a vital Focus component for a spell (unless such is already drawn) would take a Move Action.


RumpinRufus wrote:

In response to the last two posts:

Firstly, you cannot riposte an attack from 15 feet away, even WITH Improved Snap Shot. It says:

Opportune Parry and Riposte wrote:
Upon performing a successful parry and if she has at least 1 panache point, the swashbuckler can as an immediate action make an attack against the creature whose attack she parried, provided that creature is within her reach.

Even if you threaten 15 feet, that monster is still not within your reach (unless you are a high level aberrant sorcerer or something.)

Secondly, remember that the opponent is making a melee attack against you, so you don't need to parry (or riposte) at range. They are coming to you. You slap away their limb with your gun (or bow) and then fire a shot at them in return.

Still no ammunition needed for the parry.

Pretty much this.

So when you parry an attack made against you, you can make a ranged attack against that enemy with a bow or gun.

As a personal note, I'd allow characters to be able to deflect oncoming ranged attacks by firing their ranged weapon, though they'd be their own separate deeds...


Yes, that's how it would work. It says in order for you to use your own rage powers in conjunction with the Inspired Rage, you must use your own rage.


Alexander Augunas wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Honestly, defending people when they are most certainly capable of defending themselves calls into question whether the intent of those "defending" isn't really just playing a game of teacher's pet.

"You disagree with my practices, so therefore you must be a suck up" is your best retort?

My "motivation" for defending Paizo is quite simple: I liked when James Jacobs felt like he could be forthright with answering rules questions, but that was ruined. I liked when Jason freely posted on the boards and chatted about game design. Now I can only ever hear his discussions alongside dozens of others at convention seminars.

You can say that the line between being bluntly honest and rude is fine if you'd like, but both responses have the same effect: pivotal community members disengage from the community. If you want to continue to drive people away, by all means do so.

It's not really a bad one, given the track record of their publishing, this is just one of the many common problems brought up in this game, especially one that's rife with power creep and bloat like the ACG is, arguably about as much bloat and power creep as the optional Mythic Adventures book. You can't skip over a single page of threads on this forum without running into a Paladin Alignment discussion or a Caster/Martial Disparity thread, much less all the "Rogues Suck/Fighters Suck" content that's been thrown across this forum repeatedly, or any other sorts of shenanigans that players can cheese, and it leads to a serious case of questioning whether you must absolutely claim Paizo does everything right, and that they can't ever be wrong or even misguided in several areas, clinging blindly to something that has several obvious, gameshifting flaws, because it has "Pathfinder" scrawled on its cover.

Now, has Paizo spoken up about those subjects? Either directly or indirectly, but they have; look at what it's done, and the problems they end up creating again with their apparent solutions. They've stated before that the Fighter and Rogue classes are working as they intended them to, which tells us that they essentially mean "Well, they're weak classes, but that's okay, that's what we wanted them to be." In regards to the Caster/Martial disparity, it tells us they're okay with that sort of thing too, assisted by the content which appears in each splatbook they publish; others might be okay with Casters being stronger than Martials all around, but if balance was really a key factor in their design principles, they would have made more of an effort to close the gap they originally created with the splatbooks, including this one, instead of widening it with each publishing.

Even in this very situation, they decided to dodge the issue of Dex to Damage with making a Rapier-specific feat, which actually never changes the problem that was originally presented, something that should be trivial for a company like Paizo to accomplish, especially when I find that several forum users have proposed acceptable alternatives that actually fix the problem in the first place.

With that said, it's much easier and more plausible to assume the "They don't care" and the "It's not in their design values" arguments because that's the only logical conclusion we can derive from the courses of action they have decided to take in regards to the issues we've pointed out so far.

If, in some way, we were to be convinced otherwise of some other more sensible reason for their choices, then maybe we would be more respectable of, or even in agreement with their design values. Unfortunately, that has yet to happen, and until that happens, we're stuck with the impasse which presents itself.

Of course, some people aren't prone or accepting of logic, and a lot of those people are the ones who throw out hateful insults, threats, etc. But I'm not certainly one of those people, especially when I have been convinced out of my original viewpoints, or at the very least understanding the other side before, and that hasn't changed. It's just that the argument which would convince me (or even make me understand) hasn't been thrown out there yet. And until it does, I find my viewpoint to be fairly valid, and a commonly-shared one as well.


Yes. You get Rage Powers as a class feature at 3rd level, so you can take your Extra Rage Power feat at 3rd level.

Of course, if you take an archetype which replaces the 3rd level Rage Power, you wouldn't be able to take the feat as you otherwise do not possess the Rage Power class feature (unless you retrain at the level where you get them).


Alexander Augunas wrote:
zapbib wrote:
It would have been a perfectly correct thing to say. But the swashbuckler preview mention dex to damage. Where do we stop giving them excuse and just admit that something went wrong in the whole make a new book process? If it was only that, but there's a huge list of errors and balancing problem that just hint that there was poor editing and poor vision on this project.

I can't speak for the design team, but I can tell you this. Good designers hear and react upon criticism, such as this:

"It doesn't same appropriate that the swashbuckler can use her Dexterity modifier on damage rolls with weapons that she can't normally finesse, but she can't use her Dexterity modifier on damage rolls with weapons that she can normally finesse."

But when even the best designers receive insults like this:

"Where do we stop giving them excuses and just admit something went wrong in the whole 'make a book process'?"

Or this:

"There's a huge list of errors and balancing problems that just hint that there was poor editing and poor vision on this project."

Then two things occur. First, the designers don't feel the need to respond to your criticism because they rightfully assume that they're wasting their breath on such irrationally negative people and that their time is better spent working on new projects. Second, the designers become less willing to share their ideas and thoughts and previews with the public, because they determine that giving the public anything to mentally digest will set their expectations off in ways they can't predict, and therefore will generate a backlash of broken promises and expectations from the people that they wanted to excite with the product that they've been slaving over for anywhere from three to six months.

It's also a fine line between being rude and being bluntly honest about the subject. These supposed "insults" aren't simply spouted once or twice by people who don't know what they're talking about half the time, or being purposefully hateful on the subject.

I too share those sentiments, as do several other regular, respectable users on the forums, not to mention those who aren't on these boards who might feel the same way. And quite frankly, the results don't lie or conflict with what's being said. There are several glaring issues that have been presented to the Dev team profusely that nearly every board user can agree on being present, and quite frankly they either dodge it by making up some subject that doesn't fix the issue at all, or do nothing, leaving the fate of the problem to those who play the game to deal with.

Take Divine Protection feat for Oracles as a prime example of something that nearly everybody would claim is broken; that feat has one of the Paladin's most powerful and iconic class features, also one of the sole reasons people would dip Paladin levels, and now all it just costs is a feature that Oracles automatically have, skill ranks which every Oracle should possess no matter what, and some delayed access to similar effects (to getting it in compared to dipping, but for maintaining full spell progression and not having to sacrifice capstones, it's well worth it).

Such a powerful feat got through the Devs and got published; an eyesore to say the least. Their best "fix" was something like "If you already have a source that provides your Charisma modifier to Saves, this feat instead provides +1 to all saving throws." You're kidding, right? So they just openly admitted to allowing the power creep by editing it for a secondary effect, and not doing anything to tone down the overpowering effect. So they dodged it, leaving the consumer to deal with the problem.

PFS already decided to ban the feat days after it was revealed on the forums. Almost every home game that isn't power-creep oriented (90% of them) probably won't allow it, and it just ends up wasting valuable text and publishing space for a feat that could've been really cool, unique, and different.

Honestly, defending people when they are most certainly capable of defending themselves calls into question whether the intent of those "defending" isn't really just playing a game of teacher's pet. Quite frankly, it's much easier to say "Paizo doesn't really care," and probably the most likely answer in comparison to a conglomerate company whose complaining fanbase only equates to ~10% of their overall sales who would rather please the 90% of the people who don't speak out/remain active in the forums, but still buy the products because it's Pathfinder.


I'll second Armor Training being gone as a good thing in comparison to Mutagen increases, as well as the discovery things. Armor Mastery as a capstone sucks, and any Fighter who wants to maximize their damage is going to be having Greater Penetrating Strike by 16th level, countering any other Fighter who has it, and any Barbarian who has DR/- will be treated as having 5 less.

I wonder if you could take Extra Discovery as a feat with the Mutation Warrior archetype so you can nab the Greater and Grand Mutagen discoveries 2 levels sooner.

Having Wings is either really good, or really bad; it depends on how it scales, since it says it functions as the Fly spell. Of course, being able to fly equal to your level in 1 minute increments is plenty powerful a combat feature in and of itself, and can't be dispelled.


I'm sorry, how is this a thread again?

Warpriest is out because 3/4 BAB with 6th level spellcasting just doesn't cut it, especially by the endgame, since Warpriests have no really powerful mechanics to keep them in line with other similarly designed martials (Magi + Inquisitors). Also, 90% of blessings are crap anyway. Fervor is only good in combat when you need to both buff and attack at the same time, and if you're in situations like that, you're caught with your pants down and screwed anyway. Sacred Weapon and Sacred Armor become useless by the endgame, and by the early and mid game, they're still behind a Cleric because by the time they can buff with spells like Bull's Strength, for example, Cleric is already throwing out Blessing of Fervor.

Clerics are more powerful because 9th level spellcasting. Channel Energy and their increased spells per day and progression make them vastly superior to Warpriests. Who needs Sacred Weapon or Fervor when your increased spell progression can accomplish so much more than just hitting things with a stick?

Oracles have more skill points and arguably better features via Revelations and their Mystery, which can and usually are more suited to combat than the generic subject that is a Cleric. They also have access to some Oracle-only spells (some of which are really powerful), as well as the entire Cleric spell list. The only killer is the lowered spell progression and inability to have all spells known, but a lot like Schrodinger's Wizard, you memorize the spells you use frequently, and for those you need for emergency, you put in a Scroll. Not to mention there are items that provide you spells (such as Page of Spell Knowledge) for spontaneous casters. Outside that, you actually cast more spells if I remember right...

TL/DR; Oracles > Clerics > Warpriests.


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Don't go with option 3 above, that's being a passive-aggressive dip.

I'm not sure what the problem is. To be honest, it's a lot better option than option 1, I find, assuming he still wishes to play with the group he's currently GMing for.

It really boils down to if the OP is willing to tolerate boring games for the PCs because they think being the Ultimate Lifeform is fun.

As it is with Schrodinger's Wizard by the endgame, when you're the best, and there's nothing that can stop you except maybe another you (and even that's a close gamble), there's no fun or point to it after a while. The conflicts that arise become child's play and the PCs have nothing important to fight for, because what they're fighting for is so damn insignificant.

A lot of times, players don't see things until they actually happen in a game, and the GM showing that to the whining players via example is probably the smartest thing he can do; especially if he wants to continue playing with this group. (It's actually worked for the group that I'm currently playing with, so it's not like it's an absolutely horrid option that ends with nothing but bad and hurt feelings.)


Agreed. The ARG is not designed for players to handmake their own race. With the options presented, and with no guidelines other than "Make a race," the characters in question would be way overpowered in comparison to what the game is originally designed for.

You have several options to combat this, and whether you choose to either heed them or use your own option is up to you.

The first is quite simple: Lay down the hammer. Tell the PCs you don't get to make any races. You select from the pre-set races that are already devised, such as the Aasimar, Changeling, etc. And you can even limit that list down to being Core + Featured only, or ban some races because they either don't fit the setting or they fall under the realm of "OP"ness. And that you won't run a game with them playing with OP cheese; it's either they play with your rules, or they can find a different table that appreciates their minmaxing playstyle. (For the record, they probably won't get too far on this, since almost everyone on these boards will tell you they don't allow PCs to make their own race.)

The second is a bit more complex, and one that the players would probably like a bit more: Allow them to conjure up some of their own races, but they must adhere to certain guidelines. You've said it yourself, you don't want to run a campaign with characters who have 500 sets of legs, 200 sets of arms, etc. Say "Look, I'll let you guys make your own races, but to keep the game interesting and fair, I'm going to restrict some of your power. You get X amount of race points to spend to create your races, you can't take Y, Z, and Q kinds of traits, and you can't take traits that are on tables N or M. Once you follow those guidelines, bring them to me, and I'll give them one last look-over." After that, you can then say "To make this book relevant throughout the game, I'll also grant everyone a race point to spend for each character level they get after 1st level, which can be stored up for some of the more expensive traits."

The third is to simply allow it, run the module as-is, and show them by example how lame it is to give them all this power and for them to cakewalk the adventure. When they complain about how easy it is, you tell them "Hey, this is the kind of game you wanted; I guess there's just no pleasing you, is there?"

For the record, our group had a similar issue when it came to this (that is, that we actually wanted to make use of the book instead of it being stupid GM-only fluff), and we went with option 2; we eventually stopped issuing race points by the time we had 20 race points, but that's primarily because the GM in our game can have difficulties keeping track of everybody's statistics, since we also run some 3.X content, like Weapons of Legacy (modified, of course). Both parties were happy with the result, so I recommend that option. It is ultimately your call, though.


Mystically Inclined wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The other guy has easier means to get abilities like Pounce, or something similar, and he gets them automatically without any investment (that's more important, anyway)...

Huh?? How do you get pounce with no investment? The only things I can think of are a fighter archetype, a catfolk racial feat, and a specific line of barbarian rage powers. Of those, the fighter archetype is probably the smallest investment as the pounce-like ability is a class feature, but it's still an investment.

There's druids of course. I guess they'd involve the least investment. Still, 'strength based melee druid' is at least a somewhat narrower focus than just 'fighter type.' Were Druids what you were referring to?

My argument behind that is that they will generally have an easier, more reliable means to get full attacks compared to the other guy, and their full attacks deal more damage anyway. Throwing in Charge bonuses only helps secure their already superior hits, meaning stronger, more consistent damage than the other guy.

Additionally, what I mean by "no investment" is that they don't really have to sacrifice anything to get their benefits. Fighters lose armor training that they don't even really need. (I should know, I'm playing that archetype in a campaign right now.) Barbarians get their Pounce, being that's the de facto Rage Powers to take outside of Superstition/Spell Sunder and the like. The other Rage Powers are mostly garbage and a half, and are stupid to invest in at all. The Racial Feat doesn't really count as that's about as limiting and restrictive as a given TWF build. Druids do basically get it automatically via Wildshape, and can summon things that get it with their spells (though they aren't particularly strong).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Threeshades wrote:
As marshmallow pointed out, DEX in pathfinder is a heavily loaded stat already: AC, Reflex, Ranged to hit, initiative and 7 skills, while Strength governs melee to hit, melee damage, thrown and composite bow damage, carry capacity and 2 skills. If you could just get dex to hit and damage with your melee weapons you basically don't need strength any more because you get a perfectly capable fighter without it, actually a MORE capable fighter because you don't even need to split your attention between STR and DEX at all. Okay, your damage dice are slightly lower but everything else is higher.

You're kidding, right?

Dexterity to damage never gets 1.5x multipliers for two-handing, nor does it get that for feats like Power Attack, much less be able to have effects like Impact. It's extremely restricting in its choice of weaponry (the only surefire way I know of to be any good at TWF with pure Dexterity is with Light Shields and the Shield Master feat), and actually requires sinking feats with extensive pre-requisites and magic enhancements in order for it to be possible. For it to be optimal, it'd have to match Strength's parameters, which it never will since it's always lagging behind, and has much fewer options to work with, if any. Additionally, you'd have to cripple yourself in the early game in hopes of actually being able to utilize your effects to their strongest when they actually come online. And even when they do, you have to shoehorn yourself to be a Crit Fisher to actually pump out comparable damage, since going any other route screws you over on damage hardcore. The sad part is the other guy can probably do it just as often and for even higher benefits than you.

That's not including Max Dexterity Bonuses from armor; pumping Dexterity out to be super high really defeats the purpose of actually buying armor or having it to begin with, even when utilized to their maximum, only equate to a difference of Touch AC v.s. Flat-Footed AC in comparison to the two build types.

Reflex Saves would be considerably higher, but the character who has minor Dexterity modifiers would already have his saves shored up to make any further increase negligible or invaluable. The Dexterity-focused character would have his Reflex Save bumped up for hardly any good reason, unless he's fighting things way above his paygrade.

Skills might have value, specifically Escape Artist and Acrobatics, since creatures with super-crazy CMD (AKA, all of them which are large or higher in size) will actually be possible to tumble away/escape from, in comparison to the other guy. However, the other guy doesn't have to do any of that, because with everything going the overgrown punk should be 1-rounded. Not the case for Mr. Agile over here, with his piddly damage dice and incomparable modifier multipliers and such, he'll be lucky to kill it in 2-3 rounds. As for the other skills, I believe those too are limited by MDB, as well as ACP if you have any.

Initiative? Sure, you can go first, but then what? You probably don't have Pounce or any reliable means to initiate a full attack, and if you're Dexterity-based, unless you have buffs to use on yourself, you're stuck with a thumb in the bum. The other guy has easier means to get abilities like Pounce, or something similar, and he gets them automatically without any investment (that's more important, anyway)...

Needless to say, I don't think it's really a fair comparison when we're talking strict damage, nor is it worthwhile since the differences you claim to exist are simply separate levels of semantics.


Gnomezrule wrote:
The Developers who work on the rules side have since the beginning been afraid of DEX to damage. The reason is not how great it makes TWF though that is an issue. The real concern is that it makes DEX which is already a prized stat for many builds, even better. Hence it is not just a swashbuckler class feature but they are making it cost a feat.

Which has been proven profusely in this thread and the many others that were spawned with the same concern of "Where's the Dex at?" Allowing Dexterity builds currently is not only not gamebreaking, but is also an inoptimal choice, given the options Strength builds have that outweigh any benefits a Dexterity build could possibly gain.

Quite frankly, it's much more defensible to say that the Devs never cared to have Dexterity to Attack/Damage as an option, and just chopped out a lot of 3.5 copypaste material to follow that vision.

You want to go two-handed Dexterity? No 1.5x Dexterity to damage, and you can't utilize Piranha Strike with it unless it's a Light Weapon, which is double-negative for 1.5x Dexterity; it also doesn't scale up with handedness like Power Attack does. So you're dealing significantly less damage than a two-handed Strength with having to spend even more investment.

You want to go two-weapon Dexterity? You have to be extremely niche in item selection, invest in obscure effects, and forgo damage dice because you have to use Light crap in order to be any good; this also means you should be a Crit Fisher, so unless it's 18-20/X2 in multiplier, you can just go kill yourself for being useful in melee combat. Did I mention you have to give up at least 4 feats (40% of the grand total you normally obtain) in order to be any good at it, like the Vital Strike chain?

All that for what, slightly better acrobatics, Touch AC (regular AC will be unaffected, because heavier armor counterbalances it), and Reflex Saves? At the cost of effectively reduced damage, and the carrying capacity of a fly? Not worth for anyone in my opinion.

By rights, denying options to make them thrive is what really questions the entire purpose of allowing feats like Weapon Finesse to be of any use, other than for Paizo to just implement 3.X Copypaste material because they're lazy to edit out what they like/hate about those predecessor aspects.

While I can definitely find use for Weapon Finesse, none of them involves directly damaging somebody in melee combat, moreso helping me enable others who didn't dump Strength to better damage somebody in melee combat.


Undone wrote:
It doesn't say a warpriest combat bonus feat just a combat bonus feat. I presume it functions as the fighter bonus feat until otherwise specified. RAW it doesn't explicitly reference the class feature so I'm inclined to say no.

That's the problem. With Rogue Talents, you get 1/6th a Rogue Talent whenever you take it, but by the rules you can't take it until 2nd level because you don't have the feature until then. Because it's an actual, specific feature for a given class, it's got a loss less argument against it.

Unlike that, this FCB is more generalized in its application, and can actually be mistaken for another subject. The question is which subject does it fall under?


Silas Hawkwinter wrote:

I think Darksol has a pretty extreme viewpoint when it comes to bards and melee viability. Between inspire, heroism etc you won't have much trouble hitting things. Obviously you won't do barbarian level damage but it will add up.

Most classes who are 3/4 BAB have some sort of gimmick to make them competent in comparison to, say, a Fighter. Magi have empowerment and accuracy via Arcane Pool, plus touch spells. Alchemists have touch bombs, plus mutagens and the like to enhance melee capability if they go such a route. Inquisitors have Judgements and Bane, not to mention Litanies. Clerics and Oracles are the kings of buffing, and with spells like Righteous Might on their list, they're right up there with Barbarians. Oh, and they get full spellcasting progression [even with Oracle being slightly stunted], so that's always nice.

Inspire at level 7 only grants a +2. Between Haste as a +1 and grants everyone a full attack (which is for everyone), Heroism with +2 (which should be on every Martial, not just yourself, and Good Hope is better since that includes damage), and Inspire (same as Heroism), the gap still exists. It's just the scale for both you and the other martials increased, making you (at best) on their previously unbuffed level, whereas they are on a level that is quite unprecedented.

Trust me, the numbers are ran, and while Bards can be competent, I find their ability level is far more suited to their unique spellcasting power of numerous lockdown and utility spells in comparison to being able to be at-best an unbuffed competent full BAB martial.

I remember making a post calculating average level and endgame DPR for a Bard with all buffs and optimal stats, and noted that it took, on average, 3-4 rounds to kill one melee-competent creature at the endgame, and that it took 6-7 rounds to kill one melee-competent creature, but I can't seem to find it for the life of me. Oh well.


Nefreet wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Granted, this can be fixed via retraining
You can't actually retrain Favored Class Bonuses. Ultimate Campaign never introduced rules for doing so, and retraining class levels doesn't solve the problem either.

...Don't you just love referencing a rule you think exists, but actually doesn't because you're not completely familiar with the given ruleset?

I suppose it still does propose a problem, though...


1. I believe in cases where you need to provide a divine focus, does the shield fulfill. It does not cover the somatic component (which is the gesturing), meaning you would have to still need the free hand. The divine focus would have to be brought out (if it has a high enough gold cost, a move action may be required) in order to be utilized for a given spell, but it can be held in the same free hand and still be used to cast spells. (Figure that the focus is a part of what the hand needs to gesture with, similar that a pencil is a part of what the hand needs to write on paper.)

2. I would assume so, since for spells that use normal foci and/or materials, the single hand is all that's needed, subtracting the divine focus on-hand doesn't change the factor that you need to have a free hand to gesture with, which can be that free hand that otherwise possessed a divine focus.

Additionally, I'm with everyone else, avoid the hassle and get a Light Shield. The 1 AC won't make or break, and it actually gives you less ACP.


Xi'Tir wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

I find that it has to remain the same type for its transformation to apply. Being able to transform into any type really questions the kind of properties that can be/are put on it, as well as whether the transformation allows alteration of those properties or not.

Simply put, it should remain the same item type whenever it transforms. So you can't turn a ranged weapon into a melee weapon, and vice versa, the same way you can't turn a shield into armor, and armor into a shield. It just bounces way too many mechanics, something which I doubt is the intent of the effect.

But, it's an Artifact, so I suppose if there's anything that can surpass those sorts of rules, it's an Artifact...

True thats why I asked because it honestly seems like they are giving you close to a blank check. Limited to One other form. Being an out of the box type of thinker I could see some awesome possibilities for this but don't want to go overboard when there is an explanation for it.

I understand the Not turning into Armor <-> Weapon. That makes sense. But Weapon to Weapon seems plausible. Same as Armor into clothing. But we also have glamoured for that...

The only thing I found so far was someone jokingly (I hope) about turning it into an Adamantium Boulder... :P

The problem we run into when you try and transmute ranged to melee are special properties. Melee Weapons can't have the Seeking property on them, for example and there are numerous melee-only properties that won't work on a ranged weapon.

You could treat them like the Transformative+Keen properties in cases where items that aren't a specific type just simply don't function, but that only follows the rules for when subjects are the same weapon type (just deal different types of damage); for subject matter where the weapons are two different kinds (melee or ranged, or even ammunition) the rules could be the same, they could be different.

It's just safer rules-wise and a lot less of a headache to assume that you can only transform to like-objects, such as melee to melee, ranged to ranged, armor to armor, shields to shields, etc.


7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Warpriest Favored Class Bonus for Humans provides 1/6th a Bonus Combat Feat. Some Warpriest archetypes replace some if not all of the Bonus Feats class feature that Warpriests get, which allow them to substitute their level for BAB, and treat their level as Fighter Levels. It has become a conundrum as to how this is to be enforced.

In short: Does the Warpriest Favored Class Bonus for Humans follow the bonus feats they get from their class feature, or are they general bonus combat feats the Warpriest can pick?

If we go under the assumption that it functions as the class feature, then this option cannot be taken until 3rd level, because of the rule that you cannot choose the Favored Class Bonus option that enhances a feature unless you currently possess that feature. Granted, this can be fixed via retraining, it definitely puts a hamper on the Warpriest for leveling, and for those who trade out the Bonus Feats that a Warpriest gets for a class feature, they could never take this favored class option.

If we go under the assumption that it doesn't require the class feature, then you can take the option by 1st level, though you cannot utilize the benefits of the Warpriest Class Feature. This isn't an issue for those who trade it out anyway, but if it functions as the former, then they are shut out of a fairly useful and powerful option.

The big question is which interpretation is correct. If you too want to know the answer, please hit the FAQ button and get this resolved!


I'll agree with Seranov on this one. Assuming you decided to follow the rule that it functions as the class feature, you would fall under the FCB FAQ ruling, in that if you do not possess the class feature needed to enhance, you cannot choose that option as your FCB until such a feature becomes available.

Granted, there are retraining rules, but from a strict leveling standpoint (or even by 20t level), if you don't get the feature by 3rd level (if at all), you can't take those FCBs until 3rd level, when that feature becomes available. In the instances of trading out those class features specifically, you would never be eligible for that FCB option.

So, here's how it would be ran: You either get 1/6th of a general Bonus Combat Feat (abbr. BCF), of which you must meet all requirements for, or you get 1/6th of a Warpriest BCF, which you don't get access to until 3rd level, if at all.

In either case, I think this subject just became FAQ worthy: Time to make a thread specifically for it.


You get all of the benefits and drawbacks of the Bonded Item rules. So, you can cast any 1 spell on your list whenever you want, can enhance it for cost, but also need to make concentration checks if not in use.

That being said, I highly doubt the intent of the Arcane Bond ability is to work with Divine Spellcasters. A Bard or Sorcerer casts Arcane Spells and are more eligible for the ability than an Oracle, or even Paladin are.

Sure, you can configure the ability to work with Divine Spells, as there is such a thing as a "Divine Bond," but there is not one in existence from Paizo that works in the manner you want it to; that sort of thing is neither here nor there.


I find that it has to remain the same type for its transformation to apply. Being able to transform into any type really questions the kind of properties that can be/are put on it, as well as whether the transformation allows alteration of those properties or not.

Simply put, it should remain the same item type whenever it transforms. So you can't turn a ranged weapon into a melee weapon, and vice versa, the same way you can't turn a shield into armor, and armor into a shield. It just bounces way too many mechanics, something which I doubt is the intent of the effect.

But, it's an Artifact, so I suppose if there's anything that can surpass those sorts of rules, it's an Artifact...


A full citation would be helpful in getting an authentic answer. As it sits, I can only go based off of speculation...


I thought there were items that allowed you to not require breathing, and therefore would render this tactic invalid?

To be honest, it's a sticky wicket. Dragons are deadly, sure, and they're very powerful, I get that. But even while young, Dragons aren't supposed to be able to make high level characters go splat with a single breath weapon.

Even if we take Majuba's argument, here's what those rules have to say for us:

Suffocation wrote:
A character who has no air to breathe can hold her breath for 2 rounds per point of Constitution. If a character takes a standard or full-round action, the remaining duration that the character can hold her breath is reduced by 1 round. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check in order to continue holding her breath. The check must be repeated each round, with the DC increasing by +1 for each previous success.

So, even if we follow this rule of thumb in comparison, characters are still effectively suffering a modified Nauseated condition, being able to only take a move action each round. That's still very powerful.


KuntaSS wrote:
Exactly, trying to argue touch should count as personal to get your stoneskin on a ring of continuation is B.S. You open up some ridiculous can of worms with that sort of idea, and the emphasis was yours Darksol, I wasn't trying to point out that stoneskin was too powerful an effect, only that he was making a big stink over not being able to put it on his ring of cont. If he really wants it he can grab the belt version or see if his DM will let him reskin it as a ring for similar cost and no headache. Instead he comes on the forums and calls B.S. that it won't go on the ring in hopes of... what? That Paizo will actually make a FAQ for this (which is neither FAQ-worthy or debatable)? So he can get a few people to agree and have backup for trying to get his DM to let him do it?

Like what? 24 hour Heroism? By the time you get this ring, 24 hour Heroism is a joke, and quite frankly nothing too special. It's also something that a Wizard doesn't really need. 24 hour GMW or GMV so you can run around with +5 weapons and armor? Targets only an item, not yourself, so not valid, and even if that wasn't the case, why would Wizards be wearing armor or using weapons?

The Belt version is garbage in comparison, since that not only absorbs nowhere near the amount that is plausible by that level, but it also costs more for no good reason. It's not a permanent "Grants target DR 10/Adamantine," like it should be for that cost, it instead grants that until a certain amount of damage is absorbed, in which case it becomes useless.

It might be good for the min-maxer who can 1-round any given creature, but when its life expectancy is at-best a single combat when fighting a BBEG with his mooks, it's stupid, especially in comparison to a stat belt that all classes would find more value in. The worst part is that the Belt is even more expensive than the ring...

You're reading too literal in his claim; it's that the ring in general has very little to offer as it stands, since spells that follow the given restrictions are few in number, and even fewer in value. The reason it was reduced was because of the power of round/level spells, and this level of reduction was way too far given the price that it has. Limiting it to creature touched or personal spells, and cutting it to minute/level or higher durations would've made the item much more valuable. Now, at best, you can transform to any sort of dragon or giant or whatever, and even that is only valuable to a set handful of character playstyles because of the overriding mechanics that come with using Shapechange.

Ironically enough, I don't think Time Stop by RAW was ever eligible for being put into the Ring anyway, since it's a set variable duration instead of a scaling variable duration, the requisite for use of being put in the ring for a 24 hour duration. As it sits though, I don't have the pre-errata text on my person, so it could be either or.


KuntaSS wrote:
You must have glibness on a ring of continuation, to so effectively lie to yourself and become convinced it's B.S. you can't have 24 hour stoneskin. If you hate it that bad just get rid of it and grab a different ring.

The pot calling the kettle black here.

Since Stoneskin expires after the DR absorbs a certain amount of damage, it's hardly gamebreaking or bull$#@! to allow it to be put it into the ring, especially considering that when you have, let's say, a CL of 22 for Stoneskin, after his item absorbs 220 points of damage, the spell ends as normal and he has to recast it into the ring. Quite frankly, it's at best a safety precaution, and at worst, no different than the spell being cast as a pre-combat buff.

Additionally, the RAW says that only the wearer of the ring can cast spells into it, so you can't bum it off of your party caster if you're a Martial wearing the ring. (You could try a Wand of Stoneskin, but good luck getting one that's any good, and for cheap.)

It's not my fault the players decided to play a round of munchkin that resulted in this item going from pretty useful to borderline vendor trash by saying "Hey Devs, I found a way to cheat because I like doing that."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sstrad wrote:

Hello,

for our next campaign WOTR, one of our player wants an halfling bard.
She really wants her pc to go into melee. So well, how would you do it?

I was thinking of a character like Syrio FOREL from GOT, but well ...

You can use any paizo's books, and 25 creation points, full bard leveling.

Thank you for your help.

Honestly, I find the Bard is an either-or case when it comes to melee combat and his party members. He can either be a semi-competent melee combatant at the cost of his utility for his party members, or he can be a very valued asset to the party without being terribly useful.

From here, you can either choose to be a supportive type or a melee type. Since the choice is the melee type, here's what I recommend:

Take the Dervish Dancer archetype. This makes your melee capability much stronger than usual when you're leveling, helping you remain competent with the other martials. You are squishy though.

You can use a Kukri for its 18-20/X2 multiplier while using a Light Shield for AC to stay alive in the thick, and still being able to cast spells. The damage dice is crap, but the damage a Bard does comes from his static bonuses, and multiplying those static bonuses is what nets you the consistent damage.

To help with the statistics, take Weapon Finesse, and once you get enough cash, get the Agile property on your Kukri, making you rely on Strength solely for carrying capacity, which won't mean much when you can have Mithril/Darkleaf Cloth/Darkwood Light Armor and Shields. Additionally, since you are using a Light Weapon, you can take the Piranha Strike feat for an effective Power Attack bonus without needing to spend the Strength for it.

Even if you are a melee bard, you do still cast spells, but you will be focused mainly on buffs and utility spells, which don't really scale off of your modifier, so a primary Dexterity focus and a secondary Charisma focus is what you're aiming for.

Here's my recommended statistics for a 25 Point Buy:

Strength 7 [- 2] = 5 (-3) *Adds 4 Points*
Dexterity 18 [+ 2] = 20 (+5) *Costs 17 Points*
Constitution 14 (+2) *Costs 5 Points*
Intelligence 12 (+1) *Costs 2 Points*
Wisdom 10 (+0) *Unchanged*
Charisma 14 [+ 2] = 16 (+3) *Costs 5 Points*

You can probably cut Charisma down to 12 if you need a higher Wisdom or Intelligence, and make up the lost points with a Charisma Headband, but having a 16 Charisma allows you to cast all your spells without any further investment.

For Skills (you'll have at least 7 to max out, not including FCB and such), you'll want Perform (Dance) and Perception maxed out, no questions asked. Use Magic Device is fairly important for any Bard, so I'd max that out as well. Maybe some party face skills, like Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive, etc. Finally, a couple Knowledge skills (your choice, though I'd recommend some of the off-tune ones, since the rest of the party should have the main ones covered).

Feats, Weapon Finesse and Piranha Strike are required ASAP for damage. Extra Performance may be useful, since feats like Lingering Performance, but I wouldn't get it more than once, twice tops, since you are fairly feat starved. Improved Initiative is also a must, as well as Improved Critical. Additional Traits may be awesome, since he can get Reactionary (+2 Initiative) and another useful trait, such as Indomitable Faith, or Fate's Favored. From there you can pick whatever you want; Expanded Arcana is helpful if you are short on spells and want some nice goodies, Agile Maneuvers is great if you plan to take up combat maneuvers. Arcane Strike is a nice static bonus you can grant yourself, and is great if you have no use for a Swift Action for the round.

There are plenty others, but those are the ones that come to mind. Good luck!


Splendor wrote:

Comprehend Languages, Disguise Self, Find the Path, Foresight, Freedom of Movement, Glibness, Meld into Stone, Pattern Recognition, Read Magic, See Invisibility, Shapechange and Spell Turning

All are 'Range: Personal' & 'Duration: 10 min./level'.

Helm of Comprehend Languages & Read Magic makes it pointless to put that on a Ring of Continuation. Additionally, a Wizard who has that ring would probably know every single language possible anyway, defeating that purpose. Finally, this also contains Read Magic, so two birds.

Hat of Disguise and its greater form makes it pointless to put that on a Ring of Continuation.

Find the Path might be helpful if you're on a long-term campaign to go from Point A to Point B, but by the time you can cast this spell (I have no idea why it is such a high level spell), Teleport says "Hi." Additionally, it only works for one destination you specify per casting, so it defeats that purpose.

Foresight is probably one of the spells that would go well with it, since it actually gives a unique bonus type. Unfortunately, it's a 9th level spell, and there are much better things to get with 9th level spells instead of that...

You're kidding about Freedom of Movement for a Ring of Continuation, right?

If a Bard is investing in a Ring of Continuation, then they might want Glibness. However, that's quite a pitiful expenditure of funds for a Bard given the other options he has. Good luck making a Wizard make use of it.

Meld Into Stone has minor uses, but is a very risky gambit to use. This would be a spell you put on a scroll, not into a ring.

Pattern Recognition is a big joke. Every character should have their Perception cracked up the wazoo, and if that's not good enough, it's not something you should be fighting anyway. And the Survival bonus is situational at best.

See Invisibility is probably the only reason you'd ever want it on anyone other than a Wizard. But, since it's limited to 24 hours instead of a constant effect, it's value isn't anywhere near the level it could be.

Shapechange works if you are a Dragon Disciple, Wildshape Druid, etc. I don't see too much particular use for it otherwise. Since it frees up a 9th level spell slot/use per day, it's definitely got value.

Spell Turning falls under the True Strike clause that was the case for the Ring of Continuation pre-errata, in that once it's cast, it stops working after a set amount is turned, and once they are stopped, the spell is expended. Nice try on this one.

Needless to say, that's hardly an impressive list. It reminds me of a scene from a famous television series...

The Reference:
Quote:

Leonard: You know what, I’m happy that Penny’s moving on. It gives me the freedom to move on myself.

Howard: Are you saying that you’ve been holding back?

Leonard: Of course. Out of respect.

Howard: So, how do you explain the ten years before Penny?

Raj: Who were you respecting then?

Leonard: What? I’ve dated plenty of women. There was Joyce Kim, Leslie Winkle.

Sheldon: Notify the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary, the word plenty has been redefined to mean two.


Claxon wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Claxon wrote:

DR 10/magic is pointless after about level 4. People will start having magic weapons, and the DR is bypassed.

Also it's not BS. It's just the restriction. And Shapechange does way more than Stoneskin, it's also a 9th level spell. Sorry it's not conveniently good for you, but that doesn't make it BS.

To be quite honest, I strongly disagree with this statement. Here's why:

What the !$*& spells are there have Target Personal and a 10 Min./Level Duration?!

Not a damn one.

Especially not one that's useful for when you can get it with this ring. 56,000 gold is a very costly expenditure of cash, not one that can be done willy-nilly until the lategame when you're in the process of leveling.

While I understand they wanted to reduce the amount of abuse that could be done with spells like Time Stop, they should've limited it to Minute/Level spells with Creature Touched or Personal spells; this limitation is way too much, so much that it borders useless, if not already crosses that line.

If I'm going to be dropping 56,000 gold on a ring that is supposed to give me that kind of power, I might as well say screw that and snatch a Ring of Evasion or Ring of Freedom of Movement with that kind of cash to spend. And I'd have money left over to buy other goodies.

There are plenty of spells that have range personal and duration of 10 min/level or greater. That you don't find them useful is not relevant.

The item is useful, even if it isn't as useful as you would like it to be.

[citations needed], because quite frankly I don't know a single spell that follows those limitations or less, much less a spell that is in the hardcovers and is actually worth anything.


Imbicatus wrote:

I'm not saying the fear is reasonable, but when you look at the current sources of dex to damage, it's armed to see any other desire than to limit two weapon fighting with dex to damage. Dervish dance is limited to one weapon only. Slashing grace and it's yet to be published rapier counterpart are limited to one handed weapons, inflicting larger penalties on twf. Agile weapons are a cash sink that need two +2 weapons to further delay access to it.

Why put so many limitations if not to minimize twf with dex to damage?

Quite frankly, the numbers and mechanics they've implemented thus far that Dexterity affects doesn't really add up in comparison to Strength.

By 11th level, I can have up to a +10 Dexterity modifier while raging in combat, and be able to TWF without penalties, have +2 Agile properties on my weapons, cast Haste on myself, and have a base AC over 30 while wearing light-ish armor, all according to WBL that they've printed.

And the numbers come out to still being substantially under an average two-handed Martial that actually has more durability than I do, and a comparable AC to boot. And he didn't have to give up a damn thing for it.

Needless to say, it only proves my point: Balance is not something Paizo cares about. They have a vision for the game which supersedes such pedantic things, and that vision doesn't include implementing Dexterity for Damage (unless you're a Swashbuckler, and even then that's iffy).


Claxon wrote:

DR 10/magic is pointless after about level 4. People will start having magic weapons, and the DR is bypassed.

Also it's not BS. It's just the restriction. And Shapechange does way more than Stoneskin, it's also a 9th level spell. Sorry it's not conveniently good for you, but that doesn't make it BS.

To be quite honest, I strongly disagree with this statement. Here's why:

What the !$*& spells are there have Target Personal and a 10 Min./Level Duration?!

Not a damn one.

Especially not one that's useful for when you can get it with this ring. 56,000 gold is a very costly expenditure of cash, not one that can be done willy-nilly until the lategame when you're in the process of leveling.

While I understand they wanted to reduce the amount of abuse that could be done with spells like Time Stop, they should've limited it to Minute/Level spells with Creature Touched or Personal spells; this limitation is way too much, so much that it borders useless, if not already crosses that line.

If I'm going to be dropping 56,000 gold on a ring that is supposed to give me that kind of power, I might as well say screw that and snatch a Ring of Evasion or Ring of Freedom of Movement with that kind of cash to spend. And I'd have money left over to buy other goodies.


Imbicatus wrote:
The fear is allowing dex to damage with two weapon fighting, clearly.

You've got to be kidding me. TWF is already feat intensive as it is if you want to be effective with it; tacking on Dexterity only makes it even more so, given Weapon Finesse feat tax, as well as the generic Dervish Dance, or even the Agile property, which isn't in any official hardcover book. It also has a lower scale in comparison to Two-hand + Strength, at the enhanced benefit of a couple stronger combat-related skills, higher Touch AC (general AC will remain mostly unchanged, given MDB limits, depending on how you TWF), and better Reflex Saves.

That's it. That's the big "pay-off" for going Dexterity in offense versus Strength, is a higher subset of AC, a higher saving throw that's occasionally targeted by spells and supernatural effects, and a couple of skills that are decently better in comparison to both subjects that go fully invested into a skill. Did I mention that you also can't carry anything worth a damn because you have at-best a 13 Strength, which carries maybe all of your combat-related equipment?

I'm glad that's super-duper-powerful compared to characters who can get a single statistic as a modifier to their saves for a single feat (even with hefty requirements), something which before required a 2 level dip into a specific class to function, on top of that being stackable with a spell that provides the same effect, since it specifies it works as a separate bonus type, not to mention some of the reach antics Bloodragers can pull, or even the OPness that is the Arcanist.

This whole "We're afraid of granting X the power of Y" theory goes in the toilet when you compare the power levels of what they have allowed in the past, those levels, which were around since the Core was released. It's not a matter of power or balance, as evidenced by the constant threads made on their boards pointing out and infallibly calculating the disparity between Full Progression Spellcasters and Full BAB Martials, or even Martials and Spellcasters amongst themselves, and their constant hardcover splatbooks which only enforce and increase the stated disparity.

It's a matter of perspective and vision when you think about Paizo's design choices; they view Wizards or other full spellcasters as characters whose potentials are almost limitless in what they can do, whereas they view Fighters and Rogues as the every-day, average Joe who works with what their mundane skills can pull them through.

When you look at the game in that light, everything fits into place, and it matches the design values and choices made by Paizo. Notice where Balance is in the grand scheme of things: non-existent. Which, for them, it is how it should be; not a part of their regime.


It really depends on whether you add these static bonuses before or after you throw on a Reach weapon, a subject that's been unprecedented or unchecked until the ACG was released, opening many more options. I would say it's 15-20 feet for medium size as well. Long Arm adds a static 5 feet to your base natural reach, unlike the Lunge feat, which requires activation, and is added at the end of every calculation.

So, given a 5 foot reach base, you tack on Long Arm, which makes your natural reach 10 feet.

Here's the description of Reach Weapons:

Reach Weapons wrote:
Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, and whips are examples of reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren't adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

With a natural reach of 10 feet, using a Reach weapon doubles that, but turns it into a circumferential subject (that is, it only encompasses that in a circular motion, and not any of the area within its boundaries). Meaning you threaten 15 feet and 20 feet away, but not 10 or 5 feet away from your current position on the map. With the Lunge feat, you can also threaten up to 25 feet away.

Tack on Enlarge Person? That's a bit tricky. Assuming large with a 10 foot natural reach, Long Arm spell makes it 15. With a Reach weapon, it becomes 20-30 (that is, you threaten squares that are 20, 25, and 30 feet away) at the exclusion of 5-15 (5, 10, and 15 feet away). Lunge adds the 35 foot marker to your total reach level, but that's about it.

Ironically enough, a Bloodrager could get even more reach than that, but I am digressing.


Navarion wrote:
Okay, so you can only get Dex to damage with "heavy" slashing weapons and not light piercing weapons. And they fix that by making an extra feat specifically for the rapier, leaving other things like the trusty short sword in the dust?

Yup. Because apparently allowing Dex-based martials is too overpowering compared to the other options that everyone has available to them.


At any rate, I don't think that's the case. Most incorporeal creatures don't deal hit point damage, they usually carry ability damage/drain, or something to that effect, so there isn't really much to go on in terms of rules, and in those cases, that wouldn't apply.

Additionally, the book specifies whether the subject matter affects attack rolls, damage rolls, or both, and in this case, it addresses the former more than the latter, meaning no Dexterity to damage rolls.

That being said, a +1 Ghost Touch Agile weapon isn't too far-fetch'd to obtain some time down the road, and while it costs 10K to get, it fulfills the same desire you were looking for, which is Dexterity to Attack and Damage rolls. Unfortunately, that only works with Finessable weapons, so...

1 to 50 of 2,522 << 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.