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

5,359 posts (5,367 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 5,359 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never played a "Roll your stats" table, because A. I suck at it, and B. I'd be better off just "taking 10." Let me demonstrate why.

STR: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 1, 1) = 8
DEX: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 4, 3) = 9
CON: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 4, 5) = 12
INT: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 3, 6) = 10
WIS: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 4, 6) = 12
CHA: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 5, 1) = 11

I got a 2 point buy, and at best I can play a Spellcaster Cleric who sucks nuts past 7th level. Let's try that again...

STR: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 4, 4) = 11
DEX: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 6, 1) = 12
CON: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 2, 6) = 11
INT: 3d6 ⇒ (5, 2, 1) = 8
WIS: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 4, 2) = 9
CHA: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 3, 3) = 7

I just got a negative three point buy now, for a character who is dumb as a box of rocks, can't make prudent decisions, and is ugly as sin, and whose physical features are lackluster. (Heck, there are probably my real-life attributes.)

This is why the traditional rolling rule sucks. I'd be better off not rolling, taking 10's for each attribute, and then applying racials, since you're more likely to get negative point buys per attribute score than positive point buys.

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
I can see where you're getting 6 from feats where is the other two?

Spell Specialization is +2 CL.

Varisian Tattoo is +1 CL.

Bloatmage Initiate is +1 CL.

Spell Perfection doubles the CL bonus granted from those feats.

2(2+1+1) = 8.

nicholas storm wrote:
I think the arcanist is near broken compared to other casters, so I wouldn't allow bloodline mutations on it as a GM. Arcanist doesn't need an additional power boost.

Which is perfectly fine. Arcanists are still very powerful even without them. But, this is an optimization thread, and optimization requires the very best, so requesting to use an option not usually associated with them is certainly in the player's best interests.

Luckily, for the OP, the GM caved in and allowed it.

Praeceps wrote:

Hi I have been having an argument with the GM about a players use of wish.

Would you say that wishing all your spells back is overpowered without penalties?

I'd say it is, even with the 25,000 gold cost, especially if that player optimized his spell selections.

Especially considering the Wish guidelines presented in the spell description.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the one(s) that lurk under bridges, personally...

Sorcerers can be equally powerful with Battering Blast, especially since they can nix School Understanding. Also, only Blood Arcanists would benefit from it per RAW, since Bloodline Development only gives you the 1st level power, whereas Blood Arcanists get every power, and a Bloodline Arcana.

But, it is a splatbook, so the odds of it being FAQ'd are slim-to-none.

The "10D6+10" is technically incorrect, and this is proven with the Maximize Metamagic feat description (as you roll the original dice normally, and take only half of the effect).

So, the empowered 7D6+7 is actually 1.5(7D6+7). It makes a slight difference in determining damage, and it's for the better, actually, especially based on how much higher you roll in comparison to average damage rolls.


Also, you can get as high as SEVEN Blasts by yourself, though it requires a lot of min-maxing, is only for a limited time (10 minutes), and 20th level.

20 Base CL + 1 Ioun Stone + 1 Robes + 8 Feats (Spell Perfection) + 2 Potent Magic + 4 Karma Beads = CL 36, or 7 Blasts. Since the Robes are (as far as I know) Adventure Path specific, you can factor that out and you'd still meet the quota, but with the Robes, you can reach that power level sooner.

ShroudedInLight wrote:
Huh. When did that happen.

It happened when they revised the Crane Style feat chain for the third and final time, some time after the Crane Wing PFS cheese that caused it to get nerfed to the ground.

Personally, it should've been the first thing they errata'd. Or they should've just banned the archetype from PFS. (They've arbitrarily banned other archetypes that weren't anywhere near as broken, so...)

Forcy wrote:

Have you rolled 3x d12 for those stats??

There's no any kind of advantage to multiclass a wizard if you don't want to take a prestige class (such arcane trickster).
Wizard can do only 1 thing... SPELLS!
And they are the best class to do this... if you loose some caster level you loose your strenght!

Btw with those stats you can do a decent Mystic Theurge wit Oracle levels.
And your party don't have a healer... so think about that....

Core only, so no Oracle via Mystic Theurge.

If anything, this is perhaps the only time he can do Mystic Theurge and not absolutely suck at it.

Brian Minhinnick wrote:

Sweet, thanks again!

Only thing I’m not clear on now is why I’d need special permission from the DM to take bloodline mutations instead of powers.

I made a FAQ about this in the guide I wrote. In short, per RAW, the Bloodline Mutations only apply to Sorcerers and Bloodragers with a Bloodline. Not Arcanists. The Blood Mutations weren't written with the Arcanist (or more specifically, Blood Arcanist) in mind, and as such the rules would technically preclude them.

However, I personally feel that Bloodline Mutations were written for anyone who gets a Sorcerer or Bloodrager Bloodline, such as if somebody took levels in Dragon Disciple (without actually having a Bloodline to begin with), or an Eldritch Scion Magus, and as such, it'd be my assumption that, if you wanted them to work with your alternate options, that GM approval would be required.

Since you already got the GM to agree to allow it, it doesn't really matter what the rules say, because the GM basically overrode them.

@ Nicholas Storm: If you went by that argument, then you need to define what a "sorcerer" or "bloodrager" spell is, which the rules technically don't do. One valid definition would be "spells that are cast from someone with levels in the proper class," which is what you're thinking.

Another, equally valid definition, would be "spells that are on the Sorcerer or Bloodrager spell list," which is what I think, and objectively speaking, makes the most sense.

@ andreww and Chromatic Durgon <3: Read the spell description again, the first paragraph tells you how the damage of each blast is increased.

Battering Blast wrote:
You hurl a fist-sized ball of force resembling a sphere of spikes to ram a designated creature or object. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike your target. On a successful hit, you deal 1d6 points of force damage per two caster levels (maximum 5d6). For every 5 caster levels you possess beyond 5th, you gain a second ball of force.

The damage of each individual Battering Blast scales by Caster Level, and has a capacity (5D6). This is what Intensify increases. The amount of blasts you make also scales by caster level, but that's not what I'm saying Intensify increases, nor does it make sense, since the amount of blasts you create isn't limited. If you have a Caster Level of 100 (I don't know how you'd pull it off), you would create 20 Blasts. (God help the poor souls who have to deal with that.)

The other thing, with Blood Intensity, is that it increases the damage dice you deal by an amount equal to your Charisma modifier, identically to Intensify, meaning that all of his Battering Blasts damage dice are increased by his Charisma modifier, to 8D6 currently.

So, if the OP increases his Charisma modifier (by getting a Headband of +6 Intelligence and Charisma), his Blood Intensity boosts would be ridiculous (imagine dealing 11D6+22 per Battering Blast, pre-Metamagics, as a 3rd level spell). Again, that's pre-metamagics, and pre-Spell Perfection and all the other good stuff.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interesting. You actually managed to reach the 20 CL, so you will now be shooting 4 Blasts when using Potent Magic. This is important, as that's a big damage boost to your overall DPR, well done! The bosses will cower before your power now!

For your Spellbook, remember that you only need to prepare a spell once, and then you can cast it as many times as you can for that day if you so wish (unless you apply metamagics to it like Battering Blast, in which case you only prepare one slot for each variant you want to utilize), so you should have more prepared slots for those slots that you have "X2s" or "X3s" on for other spells you may want.

As for damage, remember that you add +2 damage for each dice you roll on your damaging spells, and it isn't just a flat +2 or +3 bonus. Let me give you the breakdown:

A single shot of your Battering Blast would deal a base of 5D6+10 with Blood Havoc and Orc Bloodline going.

Throwing on Intensify will bump it up to 7D6+14 (or 8D6+16 with Blood Intensity, though this is limited; save it for boss fights!)

Empowered takes the total result of each of your blasts, and increases them by 50% (rounded down), giving you a final result of 1.5(7D6+14), or 1.5(8D6+16) if you use Blood Intensity instead of Intensify Spell (for conservation of spell slots or for fighting bosses).

You then take one of those total numbers and multiply it by the number of times you hit (which is no more than the number of blasts you create). At most, you can hit 4 times per casting. A simple average damage total, assuming all hits, would be:

=Normal 4(5D6+10, average 27) = 108 damage.
-Intensify/Blood Intensity 4(7D6+14, average 38 or 8D6+16, average 44) = 144 damage (Intensify) or 176 damage (Blood Intensity).
-Empower 4(1.5(5D6+10), average 40) = 160 damage.
-Empower AND Intensify/Blood Intensity 4(1.5(7D6+14/8D6+16), average 57 or 66 damage) = 228 damage (Empower AND Intensify) or 264 damage (Empower AND Blood Intensity).

I hope those examples help you out in basic calculations. The actual results when you cast the spells will vary, but those are the numbers you should be expecting.

...Oh, just putting this out there; that damage is UNREAL if you hit with all four. But if you buff with Greater Heroism and eventually nab a Belt of Incredible Dexterity, that should be a cinch with targeting Touch AC.

And that's without all of the goodies, like Spell Perfection (acquirable at 15th level, gives you access to ~5 Blasts full-on upon acquisition), Quicken Spell, Karma Beads, and so on.

@ AVR: That's basically how I'd run Arcanists using a Ring/Page/Vestments.

Most likely a roll of the dice.

A very generous roll of the dice...

DrDeth wrote:
Funny thing, what with detect magic being at will, and the fact that the water there can only be a few feet deep, recovering the rings should be a snap.

Note the emphasis.

GM would probably still adhoc some bulls#! about the rings being underneath sand (which is just broken-down rocks and stone) too far to be detected, or that the water carried the rings away too fast for the PCs to catch up.

At least, based on what's been posted, that would be in-character for him to do.

Quandary wrote:

My premise is that the quoted line does exactly what it says.

That is why I affirm that Expanded Arcana works perfectly fine for Arcanists.
I just also point out that functionality isn't enough to enable ALL related mechanics to work with them.
Although in case of Pages, Lattices exist to offer identical functionality aside from minor difference in weight/storage.
WERE Arcanists able to freely use Rings/Vestments they would effectively get disproportionately higher benefit from them than Sorcerors, because they are able to use them with spellbook that they already carry around and add spells to for free, while Sorcerors must purchase all such spells to use with them and don't get further usage from those spells outside of Ring/Vestment.
The Eldritch Heritage issue is not particular to Spells Known ruling, as I point out re: Spontaneous Arcane Witch.

That was a difficult conclusion to ascertain from your post.

But, I don't think you could scribe spells from a Ring of Spell Storage; especially if you aren't wearing it, and/or they're a spell you can't normally scribe onto your spellbook, so in that light, I don't think it'd work.

For Vestments, they could've just taken the scroll they put into the Vestments and made a Spellcraft check to apply it into their spellbook. But, the Vestments reduce the need for that, and like the Ring, would add them to your spells prepared list, without taking up a preparation slot, since it's in addition to what else you'd normally prepare.

My Self wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:

But a guard dog costs 25 gp. Have it fight for you while you sling stones or use a longspear.

Why a guard dog? For the same price, you could get 833 housecats.

The pen-ultimate catlady who rules as a corrupt regal lord.

That sounds like the most tedious and cruel encounter to run as a GM. (Though, I imagine if my players were Evil-aligned and mature enough about it, they'd certainly enjoy such an encounter...)

John Kretzer wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
B. Find a game for all of his players to enjoy, because, as evidenced so far, Pathfinder clearly isn't that game.
I think the problem with this GM goes beyond system.

Never said it didn't. But I never said it did, either.

Option B would give confirmation of such information, and would determine whether gaming with him/her at all is worthwhile.

Also, an Arcanist is an infinitely better Blaster than a Wizard will ever be.

Quandary wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
"Feats and other effects that modify the number of spells known by a spellcaster instead affect the number of spells an arcanist can prepare."

Just following up on this because the thread popped up during search on topic...

IMHO it is pretty clear that line DOES NOT enable Pages, Rings, Vestment to work for Arcanists.
Pages/Rings/Vestment do NOT modify # of spells known, they allow casting "as if" you had that spell known.
(which does nothing for Arcanist casting)
Lattice works for Arcanists because it has separate sentence explicitly for them in addition to "as if known" sentence.
(there would be no need for separate sentence if "as if known" worked for Arcanists)

Eldritch Heritage:Arcane(New Arcana) is a bit more ambiguous, as it IS increasing spells known,
but implicitly is referring to SORCEROR spells known, e.g. an Oracle or Spontaneous Leyline Witch could not use them.
(thus neither should an Arcanist)

Expanded Arcana (+1 Spell Known) does work with "your class" and explicitly modifies # of spells known,
as long as one doesn't see a problem with them qualifing for Feat in the first place (requires Spells Known casting).
Since Expanded Arcana seems THE primary application of "Feats/effects modifing Spells Known instead affect Prepared" rule,
I am inclined to allow qualification for the Feat.

Arcanists also don't have FCB:Spells Known.

While I can agree with your basic premise, the fact that you're saying the line doesn't do what it says it does is a little far-fetched to say the least, since that is the entire purpose of that line.

In my opinion, the line more like a Magi's Spellstrike, in that it's supposed to allow them more options than it is supposed to restrict. A FAQ could certainly be used for it, that's for sure.

A little late to the party, but some additional insights...

habibo wrote:

Ok so i have a orc blood sorcerer i am making and am taking the bloodline mutation swap for the first level power that adds damage like the orc bloodline to sorcerer spells i have spell focus with

Now im curious how this works so i am going to start with a level 1 example and also the table for description will be F focus O Orc M mutation

So at first level saying i have spell focus in conjuration and evocation
a acid splash with focus would do d3+3 (1 F, 1 O, 1 M)
and ray of frost d3+2 (1 O, 1 M)
and magic missile d4+3 (1 O, 1 M)
Snowball d6+2 (1 O, 1 M)

so that seems pretty straight forward but now act like he is 9th level

so the magic missile would be 5xd4+3 (1 O, 1 M)
and the snowball would be 5d6+10 (1 each O, 1 Each M)

or am i doing something wrong with my math here because an intensified snowball would be
9d6+18 (1 each O, 1 each M)

Also different from other questions if you intensify a scorching ray or magic missile do you get another missile or just can't do it?

The math is correct on all of these (at least, after acknowledging that Acid Splash was given an Acid Flask focus component).

Keep in mind that for multi-hit effects, like Magic Missiles and Scorching Ray, that any resistances and immunities and such apply to each attack you make with that spell, and apply to the damage of each projectile individually. So, throwing 3 Scorching Rays against a creature with Resistance 5 or Resistance 10 means you subtract that from each of the damage dice rolls.

As for Intensify, the Metamagic feat says only damage dice from Caster Levels. Extra effects (such as multiple missiles or rays) that scale from Caster Level aren't increased from Intensify. At least, that's what the RAW says. You're more than welcome to talk to your GM and get his opinion; if he says it applies to the extra effects, then by all means take the "buff" and enjoy, but that's an overly-optimistic perspective that I'd rather not grant the illusion of.

**EDIT** I should post my Blaster guide for you; though it uses Arcanist as a base, a lot of the elements and options that an Arcanist gets can be applicable for a Sorcerer as well.

For the Arcanist, it replaces the class feature. If you no longer gain an Exploit at 1st level from your class features, then you wouldn't be able to select the Extra Exploit feat, because you don't meet the pre-requisites (which is the Arcane Exploit class feature that you no longer have, at least at the time you want to take the feat). Even if you could take the feat, or don't believe you can't take that feat, this FAQ would specifically say you couldn't do it.

As for the adhoc archetype, that would be a GM FIAT call, per RAW. Relevant entry from the APG:

Adapting Existing Characters wrote:

Players with existing characters should talk with their GM about whether on not these alternate class features are available in her game, and if so, whether they can recreate their characters to adopt them. As alternate class features are designed to be balanced when compared to those in the core class, players who revise their characters shouldn't be gaining any special advantage over other party members. As long as the GM is comfortable with retroactively adjusting character specifics, there should be no disruption to future adventures. Typically, the best time for a player to adopt alternate class features and significantly revise his character is when leveling up between adventures, though he should always check with the GM before doing so, as she may wish to work significant changes to a character into the campaign.

While the GM might want to make concessions for players who didn't have these alternate class features available to them when creating their characters, PCs should be one of the most constant elements of a campaign. Constantly changing and recreating characters can prove problematic to a campaign. While the GM should be willing to adapt and may allow players who grow bored with their characters to redefine them, alternate class abilities shouldn't feel like exploitable options allowing PCs to build and rebuild their characters in whatever ways seem most advantageous at a given moment. Allowing players to remake characters in light of newly adopted rules may be desirable on occasion, but GMs shouldn't feel like they're being unfair or breaking any rule by not allowing players to rebuild characters or by disallowing certain options. While the GM should always strive to help players run the characters they want, ultimately she knows what's best for the campaign.

In most cases, if you're starting a character, the GM would demand the knowledge of what archetype (if any) you're selecting when constructing the character, especially if it alters or changes features you gain for simply having levels in that class (such as Smite Evil for Paladins).

_Ozy_ wrote:
It was all just a nightmare....

FTFY, considering how the encounter went.

The FAQ would tell you no, as you must measure the distance between the two creatures in question.

The general intent behind the FAQ's answer is that, if you threaten a distance not explicitly graphed out on the 2D battlemap, that enemy still provokes since the distance it's moving would put it as moving through the distance you normally threaten in terms of horizontal or vertical movement.

Threatening 15 Feet doesn't mean you threaten the third square, because the distance closed doesn't pass the distance you threaten, and its distance is properly graphed and calculated on the 2D battlemap.

3 Diagonals is 20 feet. 2 Diagonals is 15 feet. 1 Diagonal is 5 feet. You provoke from the 2 to 1 Diagonal because the distance you moved (15 to 5), from a horizontal or vertical standpoint, would require that you move to the 10 foot distance interval first, and then to the 5 foot distance interval second (which is where the provocation occurs).

Unfortunately, due to quadrilateral gridmapping, the "first interval" above is cut out when moving diagonally, so for consistency and balance purposes, the FAQ regarding this was created.

Though, for a creature that threatens 10 feet, the rules would technically allow a character to move 5 feet horizontally or vertically when 2 diagonals away from the creature and not provoke attacks of opportunity by that argument. I imagine the rules don't explicitly mention this because A. that loophole hasn't really been thought of or made public yet (Shhhh!), and B. it's still enforced for simplicity and general consistency purposes.

Johnnycat93 wrote:
zainale wrote:

your DM made a mistake and under estimated to power of your group. and for all you know the BBEG could have gotten away with his rings vowing revenge on those dirty adventurers. and that person you just murdered was polymophed/body swapped cabin's boy. and that's why he had such poor loot. the evil guys can and will mess over their minions. they are after all expendable.

That'd be a stupid plot twist to add to an already large pile of stupid plot twists this GM has thrown out.

The best thing that the GM can do right now is drop the whole thing and move on, never addressing it again.

Not only is that a stupid plot twist, it's a logically impossible one, since A. The Pirate, presumably, isn't a spellcaster, so magical disguises couldn't be done, and B. The PCs will have seen through the ruse well before it became an issue if it was done mundanely, and the Pirate most likely would've died anyway.

A better twist would be the Pirate rises as an Undead soon after his defeat to vow revenge, but even that's very stupid, because the entire encounter, as a whole, was executed stupidly, which leaves a sour taste in their mouth, and any attempt to bring similar elements back would be an equal turn-off. And that's assuming the players even stick around after this bunch of stupid bulls#!^.

The best thing that the GM can do, for the whole of his table, is either A. Not GM (until he properly learns from his mistakes, which is doubtful), or B. Find a game for all of his players to enjoy, because, as evidenced so far, Pathfinder clearly isn't that game.

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
If he has the money for it an orange prism ion stone would help get to that last blast.

Unfortunately, he doesn't, as the value for it is 30,000 gold, and he has only ~12,000 to work with.

He has money for a +4 Dexterity Belt (+2 to attacks with his Battering Blasts) or a Cyclops Helm (1/day "Natural 20" on any roll), and maybe some consumables.

But, if he ditches his Maximize and Dazing Metamagic Rod, he could potentially have enough for it, which is definitely worthwhile for his current level.

@ MrCharisma: Taking the attributes and factoring racials out of the equation, that is exactly a 60 point buy. Good lord, if I was given 60 point buy to work with, I'd have a heart attack...

@ shademu: If your goal is to help other players (as a player-character, anyway), a Bard focus would accomplish this better with his buffs and supplementary spells compared to a Wizard focus. Since you already have a Full Arcane Spellcaster, playing a Wizard who can do so much more (and better, I might add,) would make that player (and several other newcomers) feel overshadowed with your incredible skills and system mastery.

With Bard, you have an outrageous amount of Skill Points (meaning any and all Knowledges, Face skills, and so on, are covered), you have Bardic Performance that can accomplish a number of things that can be taxing for a Wizard's spell slots, and you have access to exclusive spells, and some powerful spells (like Heroism) are available to you earlier than it would be for a Wizard or Sorcerer.

Also, if you want to help your players outside of your PC's development, giving them tips and advice as to how to plan out their character (as well as researching things on their own; the D20PFSRD site and the Advice forums are great places to start, and) would help, as well as regularly "quizzing" them by asking them what X does, or how Y scales. I have a player who would almost always forget what the scale for Power Attack is, so every session, I would (now jokingly) say "Power Attack, go!" at that player, and he would cite back to me his current scaling for Power Attack.

Couple other things: Wizard Subschools are APG and above, just like Archetypes; no such thing exists in Core Rulebook. Like Retraining, you could ask the GM to allow it, but Retraining is more of a "game quality" thing, whereas the Wizard Subschools aren't.

The GM allowed you to take Blood Havoc and Blood Intensity in place of the given Bloodline Powers? Wow, you should thank him, that gives you a lot of added power, and spares you a feat or two.

Greater Spell Focus only increases the Save DC of Battering Blast. Remember, the Save DC is only for falling prone after the fact (which is actually a bad thing for you, since it makes it harder to hit them when they're prone). They will take full damage from Battering Blast regardless of whether they make the saving throw or not, so pumping it any more than you have to is a waste of time.

I would substitute Greater Spell Focus for Greater Spell Penetration if you can; Spell Resistance will be a common occurrence for most enemies you fight, and the current levels where you're at now are where Spell Resistance is the most common (and most difficult) for you, where you don't have nearly as many Caster Level boosts as you want. After all, if you fail the Spell Resistance check required, your spell does zero damage. But if they make the Saving Throw, your spell still does full damage. That's what makes Battering Blast such a good spell. Well, that and it's Force damage and has some of the best damage scaling in the game.

Just a minor nitpick, but your SQ still says you have Versatile Evocation when you substituted it for Metamixing. Nothing wrong with that, just a clerical error I noticed.

Tacking Metamagics on the fly means you can't move more than 5 feet at a time, so unless you're in a very good and safe position (not always the case with Battering Blast's shorter range), it's a risky tactic.

Scribing a version of Battering Blast (one with metamagics, one without, and others with one or more metamagics [but not all that you have]) each counts as one of your spells memorized based on what it takes for you to cast that version of the spell. The big thing with having them pre-scribed is, you can cast them while moving more than 5 feet (and synchronizes well with Dimensional Slide which you will get later), since you only take a Standard Action to cast it.

Metamixing just gives you the option to spare memorized slots for other spells instead of using them for different versions of your Battering Blast at the cost of Arcane Reservoir. If you feel that you have plenty of memorizable slots for your other spells (and would rather save your Arcane Reservoir for things like Potent Magic), then you can skip Metamixing and pick up one of the other options I mentioned in exchange. There are still some amazing things out there to choose from.

Otherwise, best use of your Arcane Reservoir is usually applying Potent Magic for Increased Caster Levels on your Battering Blast (or even for your long-duration buff spells to make sure they last all day). Unfortunately, at this level, you'll only have Caster Level: 13 + 4 + 2 = 19 with Battering Blast, and that's just shy of flinging 4 blasts of 5D6+10 at an enemy, since it gives you extra blasts based on every 5 Caster Levels.

Holy crap, those stats are amazing.

My suggestion is to not dip Bard at all and stay pure Wizard, losing Caster Levels and Spell Level progression is just not worth it, especially for Bard abilities that require levels to maintain their power over the course of the campaign and interfere with your ability to cast spells.

Or, since you already have a full Arcane Spellcaster (who is a blaster, and will probably get wrecked in the higher levels because resistances/immunities are a b!^@# and you have no means to circumvent them in a Core only game), ask the GM to retrain your Wizard level into a Bard level, and go pure Bard. With those stats, you'd pick up a Longspear, Combat Reflexes at 3rd level, and be a walking combat support monkey.

Your allies will appreciate your buffing abilities, and you get access to exclusive spells as a Bard that Wizards/Sorcerers can't get. (If you were a full Bard, then I would agree that a 2 level Paladin dip would be a good idea, for the extra healing and defenses; I'd even suggest archetypes, but again, Core Only doesn't allow that.)

But, the point is that a Wizard benefits best from being single-classed, especially in a Core-only game.

_Ozy_ wrote:

Is this something you and the other guys are keen on actually playing? If not, why not suggest/insist on something different?

Everyone is supposed to have fun, not just the DM.

The way I see it, if they do complete the campaign with the sort of challenge that's presented, that'd be a nice challenge-run they've accomplished.

But, this ultimately depends on how the GM's campaign is. If he's throwing full-on 20 Point Buy BBEGs with powerful magic items and full class levels at them when they're only like 2nd/3rd level, it'd be hell and like you said; a waste of time.

However, if the GM tailors the campaign to accommodate the grittiness presented, I believe it would result in a more-than-adequate gaming experience.

**EDIT** Incomplete Post was Incomplete. That's been fixed...

Also, Engrish is hard...

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
As avr said Witches are missing a lot of the defensive staples, Mirror image and Invisibility are the main ones.

Depending on which Patron is picked, they do get access to those spells. I'm not saying they shouldn't take them (so they can get a Patron whose bonus spells are harder to acquire), but that if they're using Mystic Past Life for spells already acquired through a Patron, it's kind of a waste.

The best thing for them to do is to compare what Patron offers which spells they can't normally cast, select the one they want the most, and then shore up other spells they like from other Patrons with the spells gained from Mystic Past Life.

dragonhunterq wrote:

I have not exactly kept my love of rolled stats to myself, nor my love of 1st level, but in the interests of remaining open minded I have managed to let myself be talked into my personal nightmare of a campaign that should run to 7th level.

Core only, 3d6 in order for stats, first level must be commoner. Oh! and only 35 starting gold - so if you buy a light x-bow you can't buy any bolts.
My dice rolls are Str 6, Dex 10, Con 16, Int 9, Wis 13, Cha 14.

I am thinking going towards dwarf druid or cleric, or human sorceror.

But what do I do for 1st level. With 1 skill rank, 1 simple weapon, 1-2 feats and no combat spells what are my options in a fight?
And what feat/skill choices enhance or at least don't impede my 2nd level options?
Is there a better class at second level to aim for?

Intimidate seems an option.
Carry a melee weapon and trying to generate flank opportunities. (armour up in hide and a large shield as a dwarf gives me AC 16 and 10 hp but does also give me a -11 to hit though, -7 if I take proficiency)
What other options do I have?

Since you only plan to go to 7th level, and you have a crapton of Con and decent Charisma, I'd suggest going to Human Sorcerer with your first class level (any Bloodline, though Arcane is adequate for specializing in Spells), adding your Racial bonuses to Charisma (16 Charisma isn't the greatest, but for your campaign, it will serve).

The big downside is lack of skill points, and the 1st level of Commoner. At best, you can take Favored Class Bonus for Skill Points (and the extra from Human), putting you at 3 Skill Points to use. Again, not great, but adequate, all things considered.

Bard can also work, simply staying in the back lines (has a lot of skill points) and using your Bardic Performance abilities. Even though you may not be in the limelight, you granting bonuses to your allies is a nice boon on itself, and doesn't require you participating in combat to help the encounter along. It also spares you the Favored Class bonus of learning spells, so you can be versatile there, and with 6+ Skill Points/level, you'll be just fine.

35 Gold isn't too horrible. A lot of commoners have maybe a fraction of that in a typical game, so I'd say you're off to a good start here, especially if you're just going to be a simple Sorcerer moving forward. Getting a Crossbow may seem like a smart idea, but just start with a Ray of Frost/Acid cantrip, you'll find/purchase a Crossbow when you have better loot (AKA 2nd level).

Don't forget, there are some weapons and items that are free of cost and anyone can use (Club and Sling are a couple examples), and using those starting out will be minimally different than starting with a Crossbow.

If you make a Bard instead of a Sorcerer, picking up a Club, a Light Wooden Shield, and Studded Leather will be about the best you can expect in terms of gear.

All I can say is, enjoy the Hard Mode; I know players who enjoy the grittiness of 1st level, and with attributes like those, it's about as gritty as it gets!

Wheeljack wrote:

Blade Tutor's Spirit says "Only penalties incurred by voluntary use of feats or maneuvers are reduced by this spell."

So it wouldn't work with Spell Combat, as that's not a feat or a maneuver?

FTFY. And yes.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

The Golden Rule of Gaming: No Gaming is better than Bad Gaming.

Immunity to Energy Drain doesn't mean it can't take negative levels. The negative levels from the Negative Energy Drain aren't from the result of Energy Drains.

If he took the Draconic Bloodline, or has a lenient GM that lets him exchange his 1st level Bloodline Power (which sucks for him) for Blood Havoc, he certainly could.

An optimized Battering Blast Arcanist can shoot the Tarrasque dead in a single round quite easily. He can target the corpse with the blast a dozen more times as needed, to keep the hit points from regenerating so quickly.

If the Arcanist is prepared to fight a Tarrasque, he will have contingencies set after its death (one example I came up with is to transfer the "corpse" into a Negative Energy plane after having used a scroll that lets you ignore plane effects and then proceed to plane shift back to the material plane; once it rises again, it will be stuck in the Negative Energy plane, subject to Negative Levels until it has 0 hit dice left, in which case it will turn into a Shadow/Shadow Demon, and no longer be a Tarrasque.) I'm sure there are others, but that's just the first.

It can be permanently beaten, you just gotta be creative and know what can actually affect it to be dead.

jcdman1 wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:

As Johnnycat93 said the GM made a mistake and than in a attempt to correct just made it worst. Like the woman who swallowed the spider to catch the fly...

I would talk to him about it...leaving out the 'Dick' part.

How new is he to Role-playing Games?

How new are you and the other players to RPGs?

He's DM'd a lot of campaigns. But I'm still fairly new and learning. This is my 2nd campaign and most of my learning is coming from these forums,, and my friends that I'm currently playing with. Sometimes I feel I know more about the game than they do though because I'm always doing research about classes, characters, feats, items, etc. they know how to play while I know more about the content of what I'm playing.

I don't know how you can GM numerous campaigns and encounters and make silly mistakes like that. I'm not saying he should 100% predict what the PCs are going to do, but if he wanted to design an encounter that would make the PCs want to run, then he needed more than a ship with a bragging pirate to convey such a message along.

By experience, I'm considered the newest player on the block at my table, but I know so much about the mechanics and rules of the game (perhaps even moreso than my current GM, which is probably why he's giving me the chance to design and run an encounter). Of course, I still have a fair bit to learn with tactics (but at least I'm getting better with that, and this upcoming encounter I'm making will help out a lot in understanding and making use of tactics).

For the record, I thought this was about letting a character cast a lower level spell with a higher level spell slot (which is actually specifically covered in the spellcasting rules for each spellcaster).

Otherwise, you're basically giving power to characters who shouldn't normally have it, and GM Rednal gives an important point; Psychic casters have this, as it's built into their spellcasting features.

A Cleric can spontaneously cast Cure/Inflict spells because they have a feature that lets them. Same goes with Druids and Summon Nature's Ally, and as GM Rednal stated, Psychic Casters with specific spells that permit undercasting. They have features and exceptions that give them this power. If they didn't have those features, they wouldn't otherwise get the ability to do that.

In my opinion, allowing power like that would be something akin to a feature that a class either possesses, or can trade for via archetype, as that's the current precedent set in the rules.

But, at the end of the day, it is your table. If you feel it's not unbalanced, then by all means let it work. Just remember that the current precedent would most likely tell you not to do it without giving up something in exchange.

Ascalaphus wrote:

Lady-J: there are far more animal companions that are good than the ones you listed, and just because an animal isn't the absolute best doesn't make it terrible. The ranger list has several that are fully functional.

But on the whole companions were never meant to be quite as good as someone else's whole character, so maybe you're just expecting too much?

I think they're speaking objectively in relation to other companions (and not PCs), and in that light, I agree.

The Big Cat has so much power and versatility between the Pounce and Rake abilities that other animal companions will, at the very least, have difficulty competing with it. There are some that have similar (or even identical) options, such as that one dinosaur that gets ~5 attacks on a Pounce (without Rake) whose name escapes me at the moment, though it does lack in size and other benefits in comparison, so while they may be useful, in comparison, the Big Cat is the strongest battle companion (ironically enough).

Making the most out of your class feature is an inherent part of optimization and min-maxing, and selecting the best companion for X purpose is just another Tuesday for such behavior.

A battle campanion would most likely never (read: shouldn't) outpace a PC who follows similar optimization/min-maxing protocols.

**EDIT** Engrish is hard.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

Of course and chain lightning went up from 20 to 30 because of the ten modifier. (This is assuming around level 20 casting but if the beads double with spell perfection it does work at 16 however which is just mad). The limited uses per day is a problem for spells where one wants to pile all their damage onto a single target (battering Blast and scorching ray) but multi target spells doing 322 to x people one probably isn't going to need to cast that many times. Another quickened spell would probably allow you to one round anything not immune to your damage type up to about CR23-25 especially if one involves rods.

Does battering Blast not care about the tarrasque carapace since it's not a ray?
That's nifty

EDIT: are you saying it doesn't need boosted caster level to boost the damage dice beyond their normal limit (I can see why you'd think this from the wording I just thought it was too OP and must be badly written xD)

Well, he doesn't need to be 20th level; in fact, he could probably do it next level with the proper spec, without Prayer Beads.

14 CL Base + 2 Spell Specialization + 1 Varisian Tattoo + 2 Potent Magic + 1 Ioun Stone = 20 CL for Chain Lightning. It's quite simple. Of course, since he uses Intelligence for casting, I don't think Blood Intensity would be much better than Intensify spell in this case, so...

Battering Blast doesn't say it's a ray, so it wouldn't adhere to it. That is, if you took Weapon Focus or Improved Critical for rays, it wouldn't apply either. But, it's Touch AC, and it's Force Damage; it's perhaps the best you can expect.

Also, the mutation increases dice by an amount equal to your modifier, it doesn't adhere to caster level benefits, limitations or otherwise (nor does it require caster levels to apply, unlike Intensify), so there is that. Of course, whether it's supposed to adhere to caster level limitations is a whole other question entirely, and to be honest with you, if it did, it'd be pretty damn useless (at best, it saves you a feat for a dumbed down version of the metamagic).

jcdman1 wrote:
The pirates were firing muskets on the ship and they were about to jump down to help but me playing an archer I was able to slow them down. There was a treasure chest inside the ship that had 30,000 gold but the ship "magically disappeared from existence" when the pirate captain died.

Still would've had some jump down in addition to having some firing muskets (I'm surprised they didn't carry flintlock pistols instead; it's more pirate-themed than muskets). I may have had them firing cannons from the ship instead of using muskets, but that's a whole different topic, and that might be a little much for you guys to handle, magic items or not.

Most treasures have more than just gold. They usually have valuable trinkets (such as a silver goblet or crown) and gems in addition to any gold, some of which can be magic items without the Pirate's knowledge.

Either way, he screwed up, and based on how he handled the situation (pirate had no reasonable way to ditch the rings without the PCs being able to find them, ships shouldn't disappear out of nowhere unless they're ghost ships with ghost pirates and crew; which would be interesting, but the encounter wasn't made to play that way), he has a lot to learn and understand being GM before he tries crap like that again.

jcdman1 wrote:
So in his campaign there were pirates getting ready to land ashore. The DM clearly didn't think we could handle them. The pirate boss jumped off the boat and the DM said "if you manage to kill him you will get a lot of good loot" because the pirate was wearing 12 really powerful rings such as; never crit fail, immune to crits, fast healing, etc. well after an hour long fight we were about to kill him, then DM made the captain use a smoke bomb to disappear. We were all annoyed and so we tried to look for him and we found the captain on the ship, we finished him off and tried to get the rings. The DM said he threw all the rings into the ocean. We were all really pissed because we got some loot that wasn't really worth the trouble and the DM said "if y'all would've gotten those rings I would've just had to kill your characters because you would all be OP." My thing is why would you give an npc really powerful gear and flaunt it as a reward if you didn't want us to get it anyways?

Yeah, GM screwed up hardcore here, and basically cheated the boss to be more overpowered than usual because he wanted to enforce it being a "run away" encounter.

For starters, there are ways to make a "boss" pirate overpowered without the use of ridiculous and obviously homebrewed and overpowered magic items. (Also, where the hell are all his crew? You'd think he'd have some crew members to spare for assaulting a land or enemy ship! Instead of having all of his men sit on the ship and look stupid.) Having some crew members join in the fight would certainly have made the encounter more dynamic and interesting, and also gave loot amongst the extra bodies without it being overpowered or abusive. Hell, most pirates usually have a treasure chest of some sort, maybe you guys could've found it aboard the ship and a couple of them may be magic trinkets like necklaces or what have you?

Having the pirate use smarter tactics (that Smoke Bomb trick would've been handy as an initiation tactic to take you guys out one at a time) instead of just charging and getting swarmed would've also made the fighter harder without requiring magic items. Did I also mention that, since you're on a beach with soggy sand and water, that him fighting in the water, his home terrain, would probably require difficult terrain issues on your part? Yet another difficult element to add to the encounter.

Templates; giving him the Advanced Simple template is also a great way to buff a creature without giving it magic items.

He has so many avenues to make the encounter harder (not including what I've just listed) instead of what he did, and he didn't do it because he was cocky and confident that you guys would just run at the sign of a ship.

Also, the GM forgot the biggest rule with rings; you can only ever benefit from two at a time. Unless the boss was wearing a Hand of Glory, or had multiple rings attached to a Meridian Belt (a better, more rules-legal way to get the "multiple rings" effect going), he only should have benefitted from maybe two of those effects at any time.

There also is no ring that gives you immunity to criticals, and critical failures is a houserule (since rolling a 1 for an attack roll is just an automatic miss, not a critical failure; big difference), meaning if a ring gave him that, that'd be houseruling too.

In other words, bad GM. I don't blame you for leaving the table if you so wish.

Backpack wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
Backpack wrote:
This topic is a hard one for me because i personally think the being middle of the road with much of your stats is the more optimal choice. Ie. not having 7's in the stats. However, my opinion is that if one player is causing the rest of the table to not have fun, then you need to talk to him. If he still refuses to change then let him walk.
There is a huge difference between having 7s in one or more slots and putting 13 in everything.

No i think that thirteens in all stats is ridiculous,also it would assuming a 20pt stat buy be one 16 and the rest 13, but like 16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 11 seems, while not optimal, decent.

Personally the "best" stats in a 20 pt buy would be 18,14,13,12,10,10

I'm presuming that those include racial bonuses to Strength, since those would be the equivalent of a 25-30 point buy without them, and not a 20 point buy.

Keep in mind that Blood Intensity keys off of Charisma modifier, not Charisma score, which would be ~10 dice for a 30 Charisma.

It'd be double the effect of an Intensify, without the spellcast increase or requisite caster level stuff. It is, however, limited to uses per day, which isn't exactly conducive with the late/endgame.

@ OP: I'd talk to your GM and see if you can substitute any of your useless Bloodline Powers for Bloodline Mutations, especially Blood Havoc.

Lady-J wrote:
should get him a big cat instead its better

Agreed. Pounce and Rake is too good to pass up for a battle companion. At least, certainly not for a climb speed or some other dumb crap.

Dimensional Slide gives you the option to move through and around enemies without provocation, and is great for getting you out of tough spots without resorting to spells. For 130 feet's worth of "free" movement, it's quite handy if you're stuck adjacent to a creature with a lot of reach (and heavy attacks), and you either don't want to risk the concentration, or will have a difficult time making the spell work (since you'd provoke multiple times for your Battering Blast spellcasts).

Metamixing lets you add Metamagic feats spontaneously like a Sorcerer without increasing the casting time, which can save you some memorized spell slots for other buff and utility spells you may want.

If you run around with a bunch of Wands and Use Magic Device items, getting a Familiar can certainly help out their use for you and your action economy. It also gives you a minor boost to some of your other statistics, and some interesting tactics for you to utilize.

If your GM is lenient on downtime, getting an Item Creation feat may save you a lot of money and let you craft items you possess for a lot less money, letting you "buy" more and better stuff.

Spell Tinkerer lets you apply pseudo-Extend (or a reverse Extend) Spell effect to a single existing spell that you or an enemy is benefitting from. So, you can cast your spell as an Extended Spell, and then affect it again to increase its duration by 50% of the Extended Duration. In essence, it's a Double-Extended Spell. Very useful.

Solid choices so far. It will be interesting to see how well you can pump the damage with your Battering Blasts, though I do have a few more insights for your current build.

You will want the Wayang Spell Hunter and Magical Lineage traits for your Battering Blast spell. This makes it so you can cast Empowered Battering Blasts for free. You can also cast your Empowered Battering Blasts while using only one or both of the traits, so it is great for manipulating your spell slots pre-Spell Perfection.

Dazing Spell is good to start out, though I'd recommend retraining it when you get access to Spell Perfection for Bloatmage Initiate. It's good character flavor, and gives you even more CL boosts for your Battering Blast at the cost of meager defense and mobility. Caster Level is your #1 priority with this route, and with enough CL, you can outweigh any need for crowd control on a given boss. As I said in the Conclusion, you can one-round a Tarrasque with Battering Blasts with the proper set-up.

Quicken is always a good option; I'm not saying don't take it, but you aren't quite high enough level to make use of it reliably as a feat. It's best to get it as a Lesser Metamagic Rod. My suggestion is to instead select Intensify Spell, as it gives you an extra 2D6+2 damage (similar to a Bane weapon), and that also is multiplied by Empowered. It only increases the Spell Level by 1, and you can mix it up for your higher spell slots.

Bouncing Metamagic Rod is useless for you unless you're planning to use it with some Save or Suck/Die spells, but that kind of defeats the point of going Blaster. I'd suggest replacing that with Extend for your personal/party buff spells of 3rd level or lower. Heroism, your Pernicious Penumbra, and other such spells would be great options.

With your remaining cash, I'd suggest either buying a Cyclops Helm (~8,000 gold), giving you a 1/day ability to specify a Natural 20 on a given D20 roll you'd make (great for making critical hits with Battering Blasts, or automatically escaping a Grapple/Saving Throw), or a Belt of Incredible Dexterity +4 (gives you +2 to hit with your Battering Blasts). If you get more money down the road, look into an Orange Prism Ioun Stone for +1 Caster Level on all your spells.

The Admixture School exploit is almost useless for Battering Blast. Sure, it gives you +5 damage, but that only applies once as part of one of the blasts you make with casting the spell. The ability to transform it into Force damage is only really beneficial when you're facing enemies with Vulnerabilities (which are usually Dragons and Elementals). It's a waste of an exploit otherwise.

Other than that, seems pretty solid. Have fun destroying bosses in a single round (and having your GM ragequit)!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mostly agree with everybody else's points.

As such, I'll just leave this here...

Yeah, a lot of GMs will rule that the ability won't stack since they think either the ability is a Charisma bonus (which the rules don't actually say), or the ability should be a Charisma bonus (which can actually be debatable). All I pointed out is that RAW, they stack. A GM is certainly within his rights, PFS or not, to screw you over. Because that's just how GMs work.

In such a case, I'm okay with GMs ruling the latter (though if that's the case, they wouldn't be restricted by MDB and so on like an Oracle's Sidestep Secret would be), since this tells me they understand what the RAW is. But I'm not okay with GMs ruling the former, since that tells me they don't understand what the RAW is, and is something that a PFS GM shouldn't be ignorant of.

Derklord wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
You also have to have the weapons drawn and in-hand when performing TWF

I don't think so. The TWF FAQ makes it clear that using TWF is a decision to make, similar to using Power Attack. I don't think the Armor Spikes FAQ has anything to do with this matter, because if you couldn't use your hands for anything else, you could also not reload and fire a musket in the same round without having three hands. Also, if one would need to wield both weapons the entire time, Weapon Cords would never have worked, anyway, so they wouldn't have changed them.

Making all MH attacks first (thanks for pointing that out, somehow my brain never made the conection) actually drastically cut's down on the free actions needed to "merely" number of attacks plus two. Two more for subsequent rounds if you need to have a specific main hand weapon.

If you can't use a Greatsword during TWF in the same round you use a Spiked Gauntlet because you're busy making attacks with the Spiked Gauntlet (despite having an obvious means to carry out both attacks within the same action), then that's exactly what the Armor Spikes FAQ is saying in regards to using a Musket during TWF; that you need a third hand to reload the musket.

Again, this is only a TWF restriction, that doesn't mean a character using a Musket can't make regular full attacks with it, since a regular full attack doesn't have the restrictions of TWF.

Wheldrake wrote:
If this guy's a friend, you need to just GET OVER IT and let him play the character he wants.

I've been preaching this since I've posted it, though I don't think that's really the case, in hindsight. I only posited this in an attempt to make the issue resolve naturally; there's always the possibility that it won't, and it will lead to something worse than what it currently is.

Remember, he is one player who is having fun compared to multiple others who aren't.

I'm all for a player having the right to enjoy his own character. No matter how good or bad it may be.

What I'm not for, is a player enjoying his character at the expense of other players' characters..

And a lot of posters (no offense) aren't seeing the latter happening while the OP consistently brought up the former for the problem player's motivations (and not the consequences of said motivations).

I've had some time to think and configure some ideas for what I'd want, based on the events of the prior book (though it is a bit of a new spin in my opinion), and what I feel is a bit of "normalcy." Of course, since I have no idea of the next book, I am a teenie bit afraid of making a "redundant" encounter, though since I'm given effectively free reign for encounter design, the odds of that are fairly slim.

I will be effectively GMing the session while the original GM plays my PC, according to the back-and-forth we've been having, and before you count it as a maybe, I'm saying that as 99% likely to happen. Unless the GM has some freak heart attack with my encounter (which, since he gave me free reign, shouldn't be a problem), that's what's going to happen.

I'll be having a mix of both, some skill check requirements (well, not so much requirements as it is for gathering information, learning encounter and story elements, and so on). But primarily speaking, it will be combat-based.

That is certainly true, though if I want the Boss to be more of a humanoid with class levels as was my original plan (I know I didn't say it, but this came to me after I thought on it a while), some modicum of gear is required. I do plan to have the Boss escape and become a recurring villain for the PCs, if worst comes to worst, though if the PCs do manage to defeat the boss, then I'd say they certainly do receive whatever treasure the boss may have.

I'll have some of the mooks use Combat Maneuvers, since we've had horrible experiences facing Combat Maneuvers from specialized monsters in the past. The Boss will be busy doing other, better things, so as to make the PCs not complain about being made essentially useless because of an overly zealous Grappler, Sunderer, etc.

The PCs won't be travelling alone either. They'll have a couple random NPC mercenaries and a few NPC guards with them as well; it's going to be a big fight.

I'll post some more information about the encounter details **EDIT** And respond to your editations **EDIT** tomorrow. Right now, it's getting late, and I need some rest...

1 to 50 of 5,359 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.