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

DeathQuaker's page

RPG Superstar 2013 Star Voter, 2014 Star Voter. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 6,049 posts (9,299 including aliases). 5 reviews. 5 lists. 1 wishlist. 14 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,049 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Wow, that last bit of detail was both completely disgusting AND entirely superfluous to your item's function. Even though the other object probably should have been another magic item type, I voted for it instead.

We need a "recommend therapy" button.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Feros wrote:

...and for the DeathQuaker crack I just had to vote for an item I swore I would never vote up because the opposing item was just far too hokey!

Damn Karma! *shakes fist at universe*

While I will neither confirm nor deny my ability to influence shifts in karma, and I will note that while yes, I do fight dirty, I would like to make it clear that I have absolutely no power or responsibility over what you get in the voting pool.

As evidenced by my own insane voting pool luck. :)

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Melon wrote:
Thanks for the help guys and gals. I am new to this, but if I was DQ, I will be sure to come back next year better prepared.

You were not DQ, I am DQ. ;) (Don't mind me, I am required to make this joke as much as possible.)

You however probably not DQed, or rather, disqualified, unless your item was more than 300 words, you made a wondrous item, you made an item for a system other than Pathfinder, you identify your item before the round is completed, or you otherwise broke one of the rules listed on the rules page.

Don't fret if you don't see your own item, in past contests I've seldom seen mine but I've later learned mine made it through the voting. AFTER--PLEASE NOTE AFTER--the top 32 are announced in January, if you are not one of the top 32, you can post the name of your item and people can say whether they've seen it or not.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A specific magic weapon does not "function as" a +1 etc. etc. A specific magic weapon IS a +1 etc. etc. that also does other stuff. Because, see, it is actually that weapon, not something else that also works like a weapon. A rod or staff might "function as," because they are primarily not weapons. The only exception for a weapon I can think of would be something like, "the fooblade is a +1 longsword but when the wielder is standing in molasses, the fooblade instead functions as a +3 treacling burst longsword."

Niggle: getting tired of seeing "as per" a lot. The phrase is not incorrect, but it is a redundant one.

I point these things out because when you're working with a limited word count, avoiding unnecessary words ("is" instead of "functions as" or "as" instead of "as per") is worth trying to do.

I regret not inventing a weapon that bursts treacle now.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Wow, that was the most beautifully described, perfectly formatted spell-in-a-can I've ever seen.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Garrett Guillotte wrote:

Oh no, DQ, it's Muphry.

I already fixed it and mocked myself for it perfectly, now you ruined it.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I understand everyone works very hard and I hold them in the light and support them and wish every person well.

But...

But.

Rage of a Formatting Junkie:

BUT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WHY CAN YOU NOT JUST COPY-PASTE THE TEMPLATE PROVIDED AND USE IT?!?!?!?!?!?

ALSO:

Pedantry:

I just for some reason feel like copy-pasting this bit from the PRD here for some reason, and adding emphasis to one particular part for some reason:

PRD wrote:
Rods are scepter-like devices that have unique magical powers and do not usually have charges.

Yes, I know, "usually." But still.

Patterns seen that are similar to prior years...

- "... prized by..."
- "... appears ordinary but [foo] reveals its true nature..."*
- General unnecessary gore.
- Things that harm you as much as, if not more than, they help.

* Total admission: I really had to resist putting a similar description on my item even though I knew it was cliched because reasons.

Newer patterns that I am already seeing...

- Mirror-like, mirror themed, and "polished to a mirror shine..." items. I really haven't voted that much yet and I've already seen a bunch, across several item categories. And I just typed this sentence, then looked at my next pair, and lo and behold one was described as mirror-like...
- Shadow themes
- Several things that can be thrown (not all of them weapons)
- Rings in sets or pairs

General observations:

Repurposed wondrous items were usually turned into rods or rings, not always to good effect.

Although this was also clear beforehand, rods definitely appear to be the least easy to grasp magic item concept (I've seen one rod that should have been TOTALLY something else that is entirely unlike a rod, and for the interests of vagary I can't really get more specific than that).

Okay, all done.

Edited because I formatted my "rage of a formatting junkie" wrong.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mamaursula wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:


Can I ask a question that is hopefully askable now? Well, I guess I can, and if you can't answer it so be it:

Short version: are simple line drawings best/preferred/required? Or can nicer artwork be used if it's your own or the source's license allows for it?

Mikko wrote a great blog about his experiences mapping last year, you might want to take a look at that post. I'm sure Owen will be back to answer this, but I believe the answer is going to be "use whatever works best for you that works out to make a map."

Link pls? Thank you. :)

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

There are lots of different types of maps we use. Encounter Maps. Dungeon maps (which are really just big encounter maps). Overland maps. City maps. Region maps.

All of them are important. All of them take practice, and being able to do any of them is a very useful skill. Heck, if you prove you can draw an awesome city map (even if it's just clear and evocative line art we'd still need to send to a professional cartographer), there's a good chance Mark Moreland would hire you to do some eventually.

I can do a pretty good city map....

Quote:
When it comes time to talk about the specifics of the next round, I'll absolutely give folks guidance on what is and isn't desired and acceptable.

Until then?

I recommend you practice drawing them all. :D

Can I ask a question that is hopefully askable now? Well, I guess I can, and if you can't answer it so be it:

Short version: are simple line drawings best/preferred/required? Or can nicer artwork be used if it's your own or the source's license allows for it?

I've got Campaign Cartographer 3 (profantasy.com). In an extremely unlikely universe where I make the top 32, I'd most likely use it to make my map, as it's what I'm best versed in (outside of drawing by hand, and it's easier to correct mistakes on the computer version--mind, CC3 isn't easy software to use, but I've used it for a long time).

I CAN tweak the settings so it looks like a very plain line drawing. That actually takes more work in some ways since you have to set it to non-default, but still easy to do.

But its defaults are set to relatively pretty looking symbols and textures. IIRC the license allows these to be used freely as long as you don't claim the artwork as your own or appropriate their individual symbol artwork for something else. Would it be okay to use the pictorial artwork or, again, would it be better to just keep it as basic as possible?

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Joey Haeck wrote:

On maps, I think it's pretty safe to say--from Owen's hints--that this map will be an encounter-sized or dungeon-sized map. The sort of thing you would see in the middle of an adventure module.

But don't forget about the other main kind of map: the overland map. The challenge could be designing a map showing a series of encounters in a wild forest, or even creating showing where important towns and geographical features are for a more intrigue-focused adventure.

I know that I'm going to be practicing both kinds over the holidays.

Remember also Round 2 is create a map but round 4 is design an encounter with a map so it's possible you end up creating 2 maps... or working with the one you made... or working with someone else's....

If it is an overland map it would probably be a smallish area as IIRC most of Golarion is already overland-mapped (so it would be more like an island or forest or stretch of river).

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Avatar-1 wrote:
Snorter wrote:
If there's one thing you learn every year, it's that item pricing is more of an art than a science. I have no idea how they costed some of the things I'm comparing to, so I'll just have to go with my gut, and think 'How much would I pay for it?'.
I think the equation is a bit more like "How much would I pay for it?" and then multiply that by 2.5 to 3.

My method is usually to go, step by step, painstakingly through the item creation rules as closely as possible, then go, "That's way too much/too little!" (usually too much) and then make something up only very roughly based on the calculation I did.

I found pricing a lot harder this year, because yeah, the guidelines are not as solid for non-wondrous items and consumables. There are some hard lines, like a +1 weapon or armor or deflection bonus on a ring costs X but then how you add on any additional abilities is seems as much gutwork as it is calculation.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Anthony Adam wrote:
Worried about DQ?

Stop worrying, I'll be fine!

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mamaursula wrote:
Clay Clouser wrote:
Well, I'm sorry you've been receiving hate mail. I wonder if the people upset about having to write 300 words in a week on the fly realize that if they make it to top 4 they would have to write 300 words a day (assuming a 3000 word max like last year)...

Oh no, my hate mail consisted of -

"I am so mad at you right now. I swore I would NEVER enter RPGSS because I didn't want to write up a wondrous item. How DARE you change it to something else and tempt me to write up an eligible item? I will get you Owen Stephens!

Love,
Me"

So, yeah, it never occurred to me I might have to write up an adventure proposal until after I hit "Submit."

I know, the panicked thought I keep having after submitting isn't, "what if I don't make it" it's, "holy crap, what if I do?" I mean I'm well aware of what's expected and wouldn't enter if I didn't want the opportunity this provides, but... it's still scary! (In a good way.)

Quote:


In all seriousness, I love Owen and I'm glad that the powers that be at Paizo agreed to the change. I am excited to see what this year's match ups look like.

I am too, not just because it inspired me to enter when otherwise I had decided to give up on Superstar. I think it's time for something different... especially as having the same starter every time makes it harder/more daunting for people who've only just learned about the contest (who end up against people who have been practicing for years).

Voting is going to be really interesting because you're going to end up with some very different things to compare, like a weapon vs a ring or staff vs shield.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Goth Guru wrote:
Andrew Hoskins wrote:

Aaaaaannnnnddddd......

Submitted. Phew!

This is the last day. How do I submit it?

The deadline was 5:00 PM Eastern... :(

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I fully trust you were still tweaking the output, Anthony Adam, you're a good designer. I was commenting less to critique you and more to piggy back onto the "what makes a staff a staff" conversation that you essentially started, in case it was helpful. (It most likely probably was not.)

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mikko Kallio wrote:
Template Fu wrote:
Equalizing Stave

While it's not a SiaC as some people already pointed out, and it is a pretty cool effect, there is a fatal mistake in it: It doesn't fit the design space of staves. Staves always have a bulleted list of spells, and each of the different uses spends a number of charges. This one is built much like a wondrous item both in presentation and mechanics. It might get past the voters' radars, but Mark and the other judges wouldn't be fooled.

Minor nitpicks:

* Staff is not a weapon type (you probably meant quarterstaff; is it +3/+3 or is only one end enchanted?)
* Targets > target's (Template Fu!)
* No save vs the effect is very harsh despite the price tag; if it spent some charges, it wouldn't be quite so bad.

Still, as I said, very cool effect. :)

Yeah, that's not a staff, I'm pretty sure. One thing I've been trying to keep track of, and I'm putting it here on the off chance it's helpful:

- weapons are weapon-shaped items that are primarily used to hurt people with, and secondarily might do some other cool stuff that is normally not casting a spell (with some exceptions, and those exceptions are usually not spell-trigger). They normally do not use charges.

- rods are stick-shaped items that primarily do other cool stuff that is normally not casting a spell (with some exceptions, and those exceptions are usually not spell-trigger), and secondarily might be used as a weapon. They do not use charges.

- Staves are stick-shaped items that primarily used to cast spells with via the spell-trigger method, and secondarily might be used as a weapon and/or do other cool stuff. They do use charges and start with 10.

For a staff to be a staff and not a rod or weapon, it MUST have a spell list, and it MUST use charges (and the spells that use charges are all spell-trigger activated). That some of them might be used as quarterstaves or as a holy item or shed light at the wielder's will, etc. etc. is all bonus, but what makes a staff a staff is the spells it casts and the charges used to cast them. IIRC the CRB even pretty much says that.

The challenge of designing a staff, therefore, is knowing it WILL, in part, be a spell in a can, because a staff by its nature must be that. Ergo its uniqueness is in 1) the theme that ties the spells it casts together, and 2) the additional abilities it may have. The further challenge is not just tacking on a huge list of additional abilities on top of a few spells to make it feel "unique," but rather giving it a reasonable, small set of added features that give it a unified, storied feel.

I can say this easily. Can I do it...? Whole 'nother question. (Not that I'm necessarily entering a staff.)

An aside: I've noticed the rulebooks themselves are really inconsistent with how magic double-weapons are notated; e.g., I see some quarterstaves described as "+1/+1" and others merely "+1" (which I assume if it were +1/+0 it would be noted as such). I would presume the most correct way would be to do the dual notation (+1/+1), unless Paizo decided to change the format.

As to the original question, I reckon we are going to see a lot of "staves" that are actually rods or weapons, "rods" that are staves or weapons, and maybe even a few "weapons" that would be better rods or staves.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Maurice de Mare wrote:
Eric Hindley wrote:

Maybe we all can join now I'm doubting my eligibility...

I am going to channel a little Clark here: don't DQ yourself, if it is a thing, then let Paizo DQ you, do not do it yourself.

I'd think if anyone gets to DQ anyone, it'd be me.... ;) ;)

(Alternate joke: hey! leave Dairy Queen out of this!)

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Awww, man. I had convinced myself I wasn't going to enter because for some reason the Wondrous Item round just really stymies me. I like my wondrous item ideas but they're not "superstar" and it's been hard for me to grok what is (from the perspective of the judges, not myself). And I was convinced it was impossible to come up with something new because there've been so many now...

But now the rules have changed and it's something else and yes, I realize that designing a truly unique sword, armor, rod, staff, or ring is even HARDER because so many of them are inherently SIACs or hard to design outside of the "+ something something" box.... but the challenge just makes me intrigued and excited.

So I guess I have to enter after all. Dammit.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ooh, good call.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
sanwah68 wrote:

So I just looked at the source inspiration, then did a quick search on Reaper's website for "female pirate", there are many characters which may suit your purposes, but I thought this one was the closest:

female pirate

She's really good for a Katarina type. You could always clip and file off the sword if it doesn't suit.

If the witch happens to have a monkey as a familiar, this one wouldn't be bad either:

http://www.reapermini.com/OnlineStore/female%20human%20pistol/sku-down/0312 8

(Ran a search for human female pistol)

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'd go for an archetype, and call it the beguiler.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Carter Lockhart wrote:
Christina Stiles wrote:


I'd honestly love to work for Paizo as an employee--it would truly be my dream job--but I don't think they would hire someone as opinionated as myself.

Again, apologies if this seems like sticking my nose into your business or too opinionated, but I'd say, put your name in and let Paizo be the one to determine if they want you or not. Why dash your dream job without even giving yourself a chance?

Again, to the goal of getting a female developer, why would you withhold such a qualified candidate as yourself? The worst they can say is no.

Late to this thread--I usually try to avoid posting any more, and especially feel unsafe in gender-based threads after a shaming attack on me awhile ago for daring to say I wanted to speak to my friends in my own voice, and no one had my back on the situation--but I found this and feel the need to speak up:

Christina, your attitude on this and similar are one big reason why there are not enough women applying in typically male-dominated industries. (It is not the only reason, and it is not the only hurdle women face, but the other reasons are not the subject of my post.)

Men, typically, are conditioned to develop their ambition and competitiveness. Women, typically, are conditioned to develop relative humility and cooperativeness. (Emphasis on "typically" to note of course there are exceptions to the rule, and I hope it is very clear to all I am speaking very generally). Women often psych themselves out of applying for promotions or asking for raises because they come up with reasons why they aren't good enough, rather than thinking about and defending why they ARE.

Many women, when approaching their careers, assess themselves on their flaws. "I'm too opinionated" (socially typically seen as VERY undesirable in a woman, so women are especially often inclined to feel ashamed of such a trait even though having an opinion is not an evil thing), "I'm not qualified enough," "I don't have the experience," "I'm too girly," I'm too butch," "I'm too old," "I'm too young," "I'm too fat," etc. etc. etc. Women who are very successful in so-called masculine fields are the ones who overcome this, recognize the gifts within themselves, and push them hard.

Not long ago I know a high level academic who wanted to write a nomination for an extremely brilliant, highly qualified female colleague. He needed to get her to write a statement of her accomplishments. She took forever to get back. Why? She said she struggled with trying to write about herself positively--and acknowledged it was why many women in her field had stifled careers. This is a woman who has shown immense leadership and brilliance in science, and she struggled--to the point of nearly skipping out on a great opportunity--because she couldn't bring herself to say nice things about herself. That's just messed up.

It's the employer's job to decide whether any given applicant is good or bad enough--or opinionated, or what have you. It's your job to talk about what gifts you have. (It's also your job to decide whether an employer is right or wrong for you--interviews go both ways). If it's a job you want, you should apply for it. Rejecting yourself automatically rather than giving yourself a chance at success makes no sense.

And I say this all, very bravely, not because of course I am a champion of self-aggrandizement but of course because I am terrible at it. I have psyched myself out of so many opportunities. My dream in my youth was to be a writer, but (apart from a stint as a journalist, which was different) have seldom really brought myself to submitting anything. I still fight with myself constantly--I have a story one revision away from submissible status and have a place in mind to submit it, and I find every reason possible not to finish the revision and send it in. And I know when my dreams are crushed, it will be entirely my own fault, a rejection and failure entirely of my own making, because I refused to give myself a chance before anybody else could.

Don't be me.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quote:
A game world specifically designed to their specifications, or at least modified to suit their interests and goals?

No, but players are entitled to a consistent approach by the GM to whatever world the players and GM agrees to play in together.

Usually the way our groups play it, player agree to whatever world is determined by the GM, and agree to abide by the standards and restrictions of that world. But of course if the parameters of a campaign have not yet been established, a GM can of course take requests (and many do). Once the setting is established and AGREED UPON, then changes and allowances should not be expected (within reason), and what changes and allowances do occur should be discussed and agreed with by everyone.

Once a player AGREES to join a campaign set in a certain world, he is not entitled nor should expect the GM to change it to suit his or her whims. A player who does so is not welcome at the table (but that issue has not happened with us).

Once players AGREE to join a campaign, they are entitled to the GM being open, honest, and consistent about its application.

Quote:
Play whatever character race or class suits their fancy, even it if doesn't fit thematically, so long as those options are available to all the players?

No, but again players are entitled to open communication and consistency regarding what is and isn't allowable. Players should also feel able to ASK for anything they want, but the GM is entitled to say no and have that be respected.

Again, usually the way our games are set up, players can request whatever they want before the campaign is declared, but once a GM invites players to a campaign that s/he has decided to run, they are agreeing with the parameters a GM sets, with the GM communicating clearly up front what those parameters are. Those disinterested in the parameters simply do not ask to join the game (there are enough people in my gaming circle that people who are disinterested in the parameters can excuse themselves and those who are interested can apply to play). In my group, there have never been hard feelings if a GM runs a game they personally don't like the restrictions on--they just find another game.

For me personally, I try to approach player requests with advice I was once given: "Don't immediately jump to explaining why you must say no, think about why you can't say yes. If you come up with a legitimate reason for the latter, explain it, and if you can't, allow it."

Quote:
Realization of their original and/or evolved vision for said character?

This is a bit vague. Players are entitled to declaring definitively who their character is and what they want for their characters--within the parameters of the game they have presumably have not agreed to. Players should have total control over their characters' backstories (with specific exceptions like people agreeing to random generation or playing pre-gens). Players should set goals and dreams for their characters to fulfill and share them with their GM, and I think a good GM sets out opportunities based on these goals and dreams (which s/he can of course also use for plot fodder). The realization of such goals should not be guaranteed (where the lack of guarantee comes from the player opting not to take such an opportunity), but they should be borne in mind by the GM. I wouldn't call this an "entitlement" but I'd call it good gaming.

What players are entitled to, really, is AGENCY over their character's actions, personality, and background.

Quote:

Chronic and customary victory, in the sense that the GM tailors encounters so that they will very likely be victorious after what he/she perceives as a hard-fought battle?

Survival (and even prosperity out) of even the most dangerous scenarios?

"A good GM lets the players win without the players realizing it."

Let's see... in terms of entitlement, let's put it like this: players should always be entitled to the OPPORTUNITY of victory. If they blow it with poor decision making and bad tactics, that's their own doing. A GM however should never go out of their way to DEFEAT the PCs.

Players are also entitled to hearing and agreeing to the difficulty level of the campaign. I've had GMs say, "Look, whatever I roll on the random encounter list, that's what shows up, even if it's well beyond your ability to handle it. You always have the option of running." He said it up front, we understood that, and we went forward accepting this possibility of danger.

Players are also entitled to being made to feel they are in a dangerous situation with real risks and real consequences. (And I call that an entitlement because I think that's what makes good gaming.)

Players are NOT entitled to reward that does not match the risk taken. (I had players who constantly avoided everything that looked vaguely dangerous and then had the audacity to complain they didn't have enough treasure. The hilarious part of it is most encounters I design are cakewalks, and the party was massively high level to boot.)

Quote:
Rapidity of advancement to more efficacious and (to them, likely) more entertaining levels of power?

Nope, but again, usually how fast a game advances is something players and GM agrees upon before the game starts, and players are entitled to the GM remaining consistent upon what was agreed (presuming the players are doing their "share" by taking reasonable risks and being properly adventurous, not just hiding at home and hoping XP and treasure are delivered to the doorstep).

I have played with players who were "entertained" by extremely low levels of power. And I have played with players who were more frustrated or intimidated by high levels of power, so presuming that players would think the higher the level, the more entertaining, is erroneous.

Quote:
Flexibility from the GM to the point of impromptu rules emendations to serve any of the above purposes?

Players are entitled to the GM reasonably adjusting rules, with open communication with the group, if the existing rules are leading to the group having less fun than would otherwise be possible.

GMs should be flexible, but they should not be expected to bend at every whim of the player---players are in fact entitled to a GM who is consistent and fair with rulings, and a GM who just changes things for someone at the drop of a hat is being neither.

Quote:
Override the GM via, say, majority vote, and thus to an extent dictate campaign parameters and strictures?

Players are entitled to a GM who suits their play style best. If they find themselves in the majority that the GM they are playing with does not suit their playstyles, they should find a new GM, and likewise, the GM is entitled to find new players that better match his or her playstyle.

Because most of all, players and GMs alike are entitled to having fun and being happy. To do this, sometimes requires recognition that members of a gaming group are not right for each other.

TL;DR: Players are entitled to clear communication, consistency, fairness, personal agency over their own character, honesty, respect, and fun.

The GM is entitled to people not whining about stuff that's already been mutually agreed to, reasonable and truthful feedback, clear communication, honesty, respect, and fun.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Will do, thanks!

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hey! One more issue with this order ---

While it arrived safely, it, bizarrely, arrived to my billing address rather than my shipping address. I checked my account and I do have the shipping address stored correctly and I'm certain I checked to be sure it was sent to my shipping address.

I have also just made another order, and my correct shipping address came up automatically. Hopefully it will come to the right place! (I'll keep you posted).

I want to be sure it gets shipped to the right place. My book did arrive unmolested but I live in a place where things disappear from the foyer sometimes so I prefer to have my items shipped elsewhere.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aratrok wrote:
You could just make healing spells Necromancy, like they used to be. Having them be Conjuration doesn't make much sense anyway.
Gulian wrote:

Why not? You conjure positive energy from the positive energy plane.

Necromancy healing sounds cool and nasty.

Necromancy as currently defined is about conjuring (really, channeling) negative energy from the negative energy plane. By your logic, it should also be conjuration school.

In original flavor D&D 3.0, Necromancy actually referred to channeling energy from BOTH the negative and positive energy planes. In 3.5, they changed it because necromancy (meaning "death magic") they wanted to have a solely entropic/death/undead flavor.

You could either revert back to the 3.0 definition of necromancy (drawing from positive and negative energy planes) or make up a new, parallel school called vivimancy.

You could also add regenerative spells (e.g., spells that grant you fast healing for a certain period of time) and make them transmutation school.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Awesome, thanks.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I received a message the payment did not go through, so I double-checked my payment info and have corrected the entry.

However, when I went to enter the CCIV to confirm the card -- I got a message that, okay, payment is authorized, good to go--but then the window that asked for the CCIV showed up again, and I couldn't make it go away. I also want to note that the first time I put in the order, I wasn't asked to verify CCIV but kept getting asked to confirm my billing address -- (and I wonder if the declination was because I wasn't asked for my CCIV).

Could you please confirm payment is good -- and NOT, say, entered in twice or anything. If you need to reconfirm again, can I call you with my info instead? The store is definitely acting weird for me. What are your business hours? Thanks.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Re Fallout: New Vegas

Spoiler:

Scythia wrote:
The attempt to force you to travel asking a predetermined path from the beginning runs counter to what I enjoy most about Fallout (exploration and choices).

If the devs had really wanted to "force" you to go in one direction, they would have put Goodsprings in a canyon and had only one road leading out. I believe what they were trying to do is for newer/less skilled players and people just wanting to follow the main plot, they were pointing the easiest and most direct way out. But it is entirely possible to go in other directions--they even provide equipment to help you do that in Goodsprings (two Stealthboys and some other decent gear easily findable in the area), which obviously they wouldn't have done if they didn't want you to have the option to use them. You just have to work harder for it. Every playthrough I've done in NV, in fact, I don't think I've ever gone the direct plot-route. You just have to be willing to think about the route you're going to take and plan for it *gasp and horror*. You don't want to think, that's what the main route's for. Personally I think they way they designed it reinforces the idea of exploration and choices--you just have to actually be careful and plan out and be strategic with said choices, but there are very, very few choices FNV does not allow you to make. If you see the most obvious route and don't bother to try to find less obvious ones, that's your forcing yourself down a certain path, not the devs.

FWIW, the easiest, but not the only, non-plot route out is to go north, up the hill, use Stealthboy to sneak past Cazadores. Once you're clear of the Cazadores, you can either hang a hard left and walk along the canyon, sneaking past if needed past the Vipers there, and get into the Great Khans camp, or run straight north to New Vegas, being careful not to veer too far to the right where there are more cazadores and I think maybe some deathclaws (although I find cazadores scarier!). What's fun about this route is it gives you access to the Great Khans and their quests early--which is useful as you head into Fiend territory, and it puts you into the edge of Fiend territory. The Fiends are dangerous and you have to be careful, but usually there are one-two scouts far from base you can kill easily enough, and they often have good gear you can use. It also gets you to the Sunset Sarsaparilla factory so you pick up the star quest early. None of these things are game-breaking and it's clear from how the timelines can work out the devs accounted for players going this--and other--routes.

You wanna talk predetermined paths... Wasteland 2 is driving me nuts because despite the hype about "you make choices and it has consequences and we account for player creativity and let people find different ways to solve one problem" is really, really, really overblown. There are a few choices you make, but even then they're very hard line choices with little nuance to them. There are many other places where the outcome is utterly predetermined no matter what you do (see, the Prison story) or where there should be multiple available solutions to a problem but only one works (see, a rescue scene at Rail Nomad).

If they didn't hype up that stuff, I'd just go for the railroad ride that has the occasional junction and enjoy it, but they're just not living up to what they're saying what the game is about.

That said, I think it's a decent game and I am glad I backed it. Combat is interesting (although will be better once they fix the bug that gives all enemies unlimited movement) and the general world development is really good. I wish there were fewer "traps" for choosing skills and attributes and I don't get why, for example, we need both medic and surgeon as a skill. *rolleyes* Not bad for a low budget game though (and $3 mill is low budget) and certainly a good follow up to the original.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

*delurks to answer OP because*

The things I allow/disallow depend on any combination of

- What suits my campaign
- What won't get me totally overwhelmed
- What the players want (or don't want).

With the last one, I should note, I have had players actually request to stick to core only as much as possible. I think there's an assumption all players want all the toys but some folks get overwhelmed by options and prefer to keep it simple, especially in as complex a game as Pathfinder is--especially if they're new to the system.

My main campaign world is one I built presuming everything in core existed. It's built around that. Anything added on top of core is stuff that makes sense for the world. Beyond core, I usually only allow inquisitor and cavalier for classes. With the ACG out I might allow Brawler and Slayer. I will often allow up to most of the "featured races" in ARG, although which ones may be campaign dependent (if the game takes place in the part of the world where orcs and goblins are prominent citizens, then they may be allowed; they might not be somewhere else). I remind players of unusual races they are going to have to deal with possible prejudices/unusual reactions, etc.

Why I allow so few classes is for a number of reasons -- but mainly it's because most of the new classes are spellcasters and I want the origins and methods of teaching of magic to be somewhat limited---it's not a low magic world, but the sources of magic are more than finite and it just doesn't manifest in people more than in a few certain specific ways. (Sometimes I consider oracles and witches for savage races or folks from the past, as alternate "schools of thought" for approaching magic.) The world does not have firearms (magic is the technology of war and considered more reliable than steel tubes liable to blow up in your face), so gunslingers and alchemists with bombs are out (I've also always felt like bomb was a weird class feature--how come only they can make and throw them? They're bombs. It's weird.). But more to the point, it also just gets overwhelming to me to have to learn all the different classes and what they do and how to adjudicate their abilities beyond a certain saturation point of stuff. My brain is only so capable unfortunately--and I'd rather spend my time writing more adventures than memorizing new mechanics.

But what I'd allow or disallow in another campaign world might be quite different (I've thought of a more steampunky campaign where alchemists and gunslingers are prominent).

And again players--they want to keep it simple, I keep it simple--if it's too overwhelming for them to play, no one's having fun. They want to add stuff, I review it and see if it suits and make sure others are okay with it.

*relurks*

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
chavamana wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:

So this is still coming out October? Strategy Guide has been pushed after?

So if I want this (hard and .pdf) and not the strategy guide I'd have to subscribe, then unsubscribe, then subscribe again? (Or not subscribe and pay more).

The Strategy Guide (per its description) is not part of any subscription.

Strategy Guide wrote:
Note: This product is not part of any subscription, but Pathfinder Roleplaying Game subscribers who preorder this set will receive a free PDF edition of this product when the print edition ships. (Note that you will need to have an active Pathfinder RPG subscription at the time this product ships in order to receive the PDF for free.)

Oh, cool! Thanks for pointing that out.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So this is still coming out October? Strategy Guide has been pushed after?

So if I want this (hard and .pdf) and not the strategy guide I'd have to subscribe, then unsubscribe, then subscribe again? (Or not subscribe and pay more).

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:

A real Egyptian ex-general wants to give me 2.5 million gold pieces (or or something, it wasn't entirely clear):

** spoiler omitted **

Name: "sami Anan"

I just got the same PM -- to an old, unused alias.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Personally I would always exercise caution over all other factors. If you feel creeped out, definitely contact customer service, screencap the message, and block the sender.

If they're harmless--great! They're harmless. No harm, no foul for just being careful and letting the right people know. But if they're not, you've taken measures early to keep them from hurting you. The Internet is a more dangerous place than a lot of people want to give credit for, and Paizo boards are no safer than anywhere else.

That said, no of course, it's pretty easy to track someone's posts and follow them. I've gotten a lot of (very nice, usually) PMs about my posts. But I am assuming that if the messages were harmless responses to your posts your reaction would not be "stalker"--that sounds to me like whatever they said to you scared you and if you're scared, that's a very good reason to report it.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:


My issue is indeed the cost for HeroLab, especially as it is only minorly more convenient than the free apps. And the cost is ridiculous (I only have the paid version for Mutants and Masterminds, for which it is very useful since it's a point buy system)----bearing in mind triple A video games cost $60, IMO a pretty character generator with a few options unlocked year no f#&%ing where worth $80. HL also has limited installs--because I have installed it before on new machines and I bought a new motherboard this year, my software install decided it was new and I don't think I will be able to install it again if I get a new comp/hardware unless I beg for an extension and prove I'm not a criminal.
"Minorly" again as noted before it depends on your expectations.

It should go without saying that all I say is simply in my personal experience, and in my personal opinion. I've used all of the programs I've mentioned for many years, and those are my personal findings. As with all things of course, your mileage may vary. As for my expectations, all I "expect" is something I find works best/most efficiently for me.

As it is, as someone mentioned, HeroLab has a free demo and the others are already free, so there is no cost for someone shopping round trying all of them and finding what they like best, which I strongly encourage anyone to do. Ultimately what matters is not how you or I justify what we use, it's what the individual user finds works best for him or herself, and luckily that's easy to find out.

Quote:
If they are low enough, than PCGen does a wonderful job. If you want every book you own covered the day you get it, then you really don't have any alternatives unless you can code like Cowboy Neal.

Well, last I checked, sCoreForge was up to date (I was discussing both)---although I haven't checked to see if they've added ACG stuff yet. PC Gen tends to be more behind (DRB rightly points out it's a small group of volunteers coding for free and I accept they do it when they have time) but for my personal purposes it still has what I need.

And for that matter, I think PC Gen DOES actually cover every book I, personally own :) --- but I do not own every book in the Paizo catalog (my personal financial priorities do not permit me to buy those any more than they would allow me to unlock all that would be nice to have in HeroLab). And that is a caveat to bear in mind when considering my personal evaluation of these things.

Since DRB posted, it reminds me to add that he and the other CodeMonkeys are extremely responsive and helpful if anyone needs assistance with PCGen.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Echoing sCoreforge esp if you're good with macros. It also has a partner sheet for spells. I'd say even though it's just Excel-based, I actually really like its interface for the actual character generation the best of what I've used. The downside is it is really slow when it's loading sources.

I've used HeroLab, PC Gen, and sCoreForge, among a few other now no longer updated products (if you thought there were other things there were a few announced/started but were never completed) and all are good in their own way. As a player just generating a sheet that I want to print out, I prefer sCoreForge. I prefer PC gen if I am doing all the work on my computer, or as a GM generating monsters, NPCs, and pregens, I prefer PC gen. I will also note that as a player, I find PC Gen hands-down the best for equipment purchase. HeroLab is the prettiest and the fastest, and is a good virtual character sheet if you play from your laptop.

My issue is indeed the cost for HeroLab, especially as it is only minorly more convenient than the free apps. And the cost is ridiculous (I only have the paid version for Mutants and Masterminds, for which it is very useful since it's a point buy system)----bearing in mind triple A video games cost $60, IMO a pretty character generator with a few options unlocked year no f!##ing where worth $80. HL also has limited installs--because I have installed it before on new machines and I bought a new motherboard this year, my software install decided it was new and I don't think I will be able to install it again if I get a new comp/hardware unless I beg for an extension and prove I'm not a criminal.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Plaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanescape.

I will in fact pay money for someone to run a campaign and let me play Annah from Planescape Torment as a Pathfinder grimspawn rogue/brawler specializing in punch daggers.

But the Planescape setting in general, very yes now.

Also, oddly enough, Grayhawk. It isn't necessarily my favorite setting ever but it a solid, classic, simple fantasy adventure world that would be fun to play in with Pathfinder rules.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Female Tiefling Bard 3

oops. Maybe jack just didn't notice yet.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:


The licensed we have signed will allow Obsidian to do several products. The tablet version of the PACG is first, but a computer roleplaying game will eventually follow.

Emphasis mine.

My reaction upon reading this.

That was followed by inward squeeing (I couldn't outwardly squee because someone else was in the next room)

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Covent wrote:
Buri wrote:
You can get a sub that's legit for cheap. Imo, it's even hobbyist cheap.

*Nod*

InDesign = 19.99/Month

Interesting, I'll have to take a look at that. I think I'd rather just shell out and pay for it but depending on the terms it might be worth it.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Creighton Broadhurst wrote:
Garrett Guillotte wrote:


Preferably InDesign. QuarkXPress may do if you can grab it cheap. Honestly, prolific 3PPs like Raging Swan do just fine with Word. (Cue layout pros chiming in with "Word is not layout software." I know! And yet somehow Creighton manages just fine.)

I'm a huge fan of Word (and thanks for the kind words!) That said, I think it only works well for Raging Swan because A) I'm a minimalist - I don't bother with fancy backgrounds and so on and B) I'm a black and white chap. I'm sure trying to do colour images with Word would be "fun". Given I'm colour blind, I choose to endure the "fun".

I'd also point out, Word has a huge number of very advanced layout features if you dig about in the various menus.

Word has some nice bags of tricks within it. But it is not page layout software by any stretch of the imagination.

I'd also note that if you're just trying stuff out and you have Microsoft Office, and it is the package that comes with Microsoft Publisher, you could play around with that. It's nothing compared to InDesign or Quark Xpress, but at least for seeing what desktop publishing software looks like and the general concepts within, it's a start if you already have it. (If you don't already have it, don't bother getting it though if you're planning to buy a different bit of commercial software.)

I use Publisher for personal projects since I get it with the Office suite I have to use for work and hell... I'll be honest, it's not even as friendly as the Quark XPress I used to use in 1998 when I was (briefly) a newspaper layout editor, but it'll do for what I need it for. I used it not long ago to make a poster for my local meeting house, for example, and it did just fine.

Mind, I'd do favors of a possibly questionable and inappropriate nature for a copy of InDesign though, if only to properly learn it. Unfortunately it is expensive, and I don't need it for my current job so I can't beg off for a free license.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I like The Warstore. Very good customer service and fair prices.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
I think the next few months will be very interesting. Paizo has been #1 in the industry for several years now...but lets be honest, D&D was basically a sleeping dragon for almost all of that time. Actual published products were coming few and far between, and came to a full stop almost 2 years ago. My prediction is that if WotC offers good support, to include both adventures and setting material (instead of almost exclusively rules supplements), they will retake the #1 spot in relatively short order.

Probably, especially since there's always a jump in sales when a new core book comes out, and DND has the advantage of being new, and still being the better known brandname.

What will be more interesting is looking at sales two or so years from now, after the new car smell has worn off. DND products may be on top, or Paizo, or be tied (as they were for awhile)--it'll just be interesting to see how they're both doing, and what tactics are being the most successful at getting sales.

That said, and again, I hope they are both successful, as that is good for gamers and the games industry.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For dancing lights, where there are up to four lights, it seems it would be cool to use glass beads/floral "gems" of an appropriate color. They're cheap (link leads to a bag for $1.50). And place out the beads where the dancing lights are being directed.

They'd also be good to show areas of darkness/light etc. in mixed light regions--black beads on squares where there is magical darkness, etc. Could also do that with clear plastic sheeting or plastic math tiles too, which would be less pretty but more convenient (because you can put a mini on top of them.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

To the thread topic...

Scanning the quickstart rules, it looks like a good game. I wish they had just created a new setting rather than a rebooted-rebooted FR (I love FR, but would prefer to see it retired than changed as much as it's been, and see a new thing in its place). But I can still deal (indeed, by just using the mindset that it's basically, to me personally, a new setting with an old name).

If I find an opportunity to play, I'll probably use the quickstart rules to make a character and play, and buy the books later if I find a group that will play in multiple campaigns (I probably won't buy them at launch because see below).

I will still also play Pathfinder, and having invested a lot of time and money into it, GM most of my own campaigns in that system.

Especially as, Pathfinder is still a living, supported system in its own right.

I expect Pathfinder will be the dominant system in my life some time to come, but apart from my current preference to run that system (because I like it for my campaign world and because I've already got a lot of material for it and more will continue to come out) that is very largely out of convenience... while I know a lot of gamers, most of us are in our late 30s/early 40s and many are now busy raising families or occupied by other things... those of us who do have time to play/run.... Pathfinder's the system the particular circles I run in people know the best and can often agree upon. Although I'm sure if we found a GM willing to run DND many of us would also try it. So I probably won't buy the DND books at launch simply because I don't know if I'll get to really use them. I have a few game books on my shelf I've never really gotten to use, so I've started not buying books until I know I can be guaranteed of getting a few campaigns out of them. That's less to do with disinterest in a new system and more to do with sheer frugality.

I find the "there can only be one" attitude amongst many gamers distasteful. I think we can prove ourselves to be better than blind brand loyalty. I generally think the more active, loved, supported systems in the RPG world, the better. The more successful game companies in the world, the better--for us and the game companies. Even if I still ultimately end up mostly playing Pathfinder, and of course I continue to wish Paizo success, I also truly hope that DND does well, that people enjoy it, that it attracts new RPG players to the fold, and that WotC is very successful with its launch. I also hope that indeed that there are many gamers who do play BOTH games, and encourages a gamer community where we do not arbitrarily draw lines in the sand over favorite brand names but rather share with each other the many different games we like and play them all with each other and have fun no matter what book's open on the table at the time. I think that will be a stronger and healthier gaming community, and will enable the industry itself to be stronger and more profitable.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Evil Queen wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
The Evil Queen wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
This isn't a monster manual, it is an NPC codex using monsters instead of standard races.
And I want this faaaaaaaaaar more than a new Bestiary! With 4 Bestiaries I've got way more monsters I'll ever be able to use (I enjoy the Bestiaries, but I feel no need whatsoever for more), but being able to easily flesh out stuff like savage orc tribes or noble distant giant cities with pre-statted leaders, shamans, and the like, that's REALLY useful and will save me a lot of time.
Speak for yourself. Humanoid lover. :-D

Don't make assumptions. I think most non-humanoids are so impressive they don't NEED class levels. :) (But I've got four books' worth I will probably never even get to use half of, however awesome--there are only so many games and terrains PCs will cross!)

But when I DO need savage humanoids, this will come in incredibly handy. Especially as my homebrew world has a nation full of orcs and goblins of a variety of walks of life. (And just so you don't go jumping to conclusions again, there is also a thriving and powerful dragon population, hordes of aberrations and magical beasts, and very active and involved outsiders of all kinds, among others.)

Well you can always skip the next bestairy right?

For us real life myth/mythology/folklore/fantasy lovers there are still MANY more monsters to paizonize, so we really need more bestiaries.

Of course. And when the next Bestiary comes out, I am not going to piss on the parade of the people who really want it by spamming its product thread about why I think it's a waste of time and why I think people who want the Bestiary are wrong and terrible people. Just because I personally don't want a book, I still respect the fact that others do. (If I implied otherwise, I apologize.)

However, in this here Monster Codex thread, I was just trying to post that I'm glad this thing is coming to be and that Paizo isn't ONLY (but not never) producing Bestiaries as monster sources---because I see room for this AS WELL and that I personally have even more use for it. I want to give Paizo the feedback that the new thing they are trying is also appreciated. I should have just left it there, but people started telling me I was having fun wrong and I got defensive and let myself go off topic. My bad. This is why I try not to post in the discussion boards any more. And with that, I'm out.

The only point I should have made and left it at: Paizo, thanks for making this. I plan on resubscribing when it comes close.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Evil Queen wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
This isn't a monster manual, it is an NPC codex using monsters instead of standard races.
And I want this faaaaaaaaaar more than a new Bestiary! With 4 Bestiaries I've got way more monsters I'll ever be able to use (I enjoy the Bestiaries, but I feel no need whatsoever for more), but being able to easily flesh out stuff like savage orc tribes or noble distant giant cities with pre-statted leaders, shamans, and the like, that's REALLY useful and will save me a lot of time.
Speak for yourself. Humanoid lover. :-D

Don't make assumptions. I think most non-humanoids are so impressive they don't NEED class levels. :) (But I've got four books' worth I will probably never even get to use half of, however awesome--there are only so many games and terrains PCs will cross!)

But when I DO need savage humanoids, this will come in incredibly handy. Especially as my homebrew world has a nation full of orcs and goblins of a variety of walks of life. (And just so you don't go jumping to conclusions again, there is also a thriving and powerful dragon population, hordes of aberrations and magical beasts, and very active and involved outsiders of all kinds, among others.)

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dragon78 wrote:
This isn't a monster manual, it is an NPC codex using monsters instead of standard races.

And I want this faaaaaaaaaar more than a new Bestiary! With 4 Bestiaries I've got way more monsters I'll ever be able to use (I enjoy the Bestiaries, but I feel no need whatsoever for more), but being able to easily flesh out stuff like savage orc tribes or noble distant giant cities with pre-statted leaders, shamans, and the like, that's REALLY useful and will save me a lot of time.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Female Tiefling Bard 3

Take care, Edward. Holding you and your wife in the Light.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Times like these I miss my maps subscription sooo much.... just can't really set aside the money.... maybe... *thinks about things awhile*

(And half the maps I got when I did subscribe were stolen.... gah.)

1 to 50 of 6,049 << 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.