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

DeciusBrutus's page

4,733 posts. Alias of Daniel Powell 318.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,733 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblinworks Executive Founder

Al Smithy wrote:
Quote:
Without that, I see continued calls of "look at the evil EBA" as just refusing to engage in constructive conversation.
You have chosen to label yourselves as Lawful Good, the onus is on you and your players to live up to it. Shirking that responsibility because it is difficult, while hiding behind the veil of provocative discussions is really just a disservice to serious role players.

Who are you talking to?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
Capitalocracy wrote:
I'm certainly not arguing you should expect to lose rep in a fight in a hex with an open PVP window, that's very unfortunate, but we're still playing a game with feature rollouts and bugs and all that. My argument is that a game where killing people means a rep hit which affects your ability to train is literally the game we all signed up for, and there are workarounds and there are things we have to be patient for. It would be fun to train something and see that kind of character improvement on a daily basis, but soon it'll be weeks and months before we're training our next big thing, which gives you plenty of time to do a lot of PVP as long as you're willing to bank in your smallholding or Rotter's Hole. Are the numbers right on target? Probably not, and I haven't been doing PVP, so I can't really say, but we're seeing people on both sides of the argument complaining that the rep system is either too harsh or too lenient. I'd hate to be in the devs' shoes on that one figuring out which side is right, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt for now. Maybe rep is too harsh too soon without settlement customization options, maybe rep needs to be harsher because there isn't a formal bounty system yet... it's all a tough balance, but for now, you should plan for the consequences of your PVP according to the rules in place now. But being mad about taking a rep hit in an open PVP window I can definitely sympathize with.

I am not questioning the expected loss of PVP in situations where you should expect to lose Rep. I'm looking at the inability to accurately assume the risk level of your choice.

Now that reputation recovers offline, high reputation is potentially a matter of inactivity. Why should it cost as much to kill a frequently inactive character as it does a character that has had frequent interactions in the game?

A flat rate of loss and regain is what I'm suggesting.

Would being able to see exactly how much rep you would lose (or how much someone had) remove enough of the uncertainty? Because making the cost lower to attack someone with low Reputation is a primary goal of the system and making the loss flat would significantly weaken that.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Atheory wrote:

Let us broaden this otherwise declaration of lines on a map.

How does one go about obtaining permission to harvest in your "claimed' territory. Are there limitations? If not, do you trade? trade what for what? rates?

Who speaks for the EBA? Are request completed by committee or still done at the individual settlement level? Just yesterday a Phaeros officer, who I will not name, plainly stated they have policies that the rest of the EBA do not. Where is the consistent message? Will Phaeros honor something agreed to by another settlement in the EBA.

Help me, help you.

Atheory
Allegiant Gemstone Company

Someone other than you would contact the settlement nearest the location you wished to harvest with their request. Requests will be evaluated on an individual basis.

Trades are also negotiated individually.

In no case should members of companies or settlements hostile to EBA or Phaeros expect to be granted privileges or safe passage.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gol Tink wrote:
Capitalocracy wrote:
Savage Grace wrote:
Nonsense, we're all just Thod alts, roleplaying villains and victims.
That's another part of the problem, just villains and victims. We've got some proactive robbers, but we don't have many people playing cops yet. I suspect that will change with time, but it would be nice if there were some sort of brute squad people could call on to come fight bandits that are just camping around ambushing people.
To be fair, Phaeros are doing a good job acting as Team EBA, World Police right now. They are keeping us occupied with things that aren't accidentally picking on small settlements.

Darn! I thought that our motive to get you to follow the funnel towards the desired type of behavior was going to be unnoticed for at least a week or so.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gol Tink wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Gol Tink wrote:
How does T7V respond to ongoing rumours that Tink is actually their super secret leader, and this has all been a ruse? It's all anyone is talking about.
How does Golgotha respond to ongoing rumors that Phyllain changed Golgotha's PvP Window to the middle of the night when no Golgothans were online to defend their Towers, despite all the rhetoric about how much you guys want PvP?
The same way that TEO responds to moving theirs to 11am server time? You said you wanted a war, we aren't going to be stupid about it.

Y'all launched the war, we just moved it to the known location on your doorstep at a time of your choosing.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gol Tigari wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
What wasn't fun for the last week was a pattern where Gologthans camped out around Keeper's Pass in moderate numbers, killed a few individuals until word spread and a small response could arrive, and then ran away.
Our moderate number was always between 3-7, and your small responses where normally double that, it wouldn't be too smart to stick around..

So it wasn't fun for you either. Change is good.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gol Tabomo wrote:

First of all, Decius and your squad: nice defense. For me personally, I had fun. :)

Secondly, I didn't personally notice any of you all going red, which was clearly the smart move as you were tower rushing to lower our ticks and waiting for us to attack. In that case my next question may not be answerable.

But on the off-chance that one or more of you did get a kill while red, did any of your guys lose rep? Even though it was an open pvp tower hex, I personally lost about 4k rep, and a lot of my team mates were in a similar boat. Just wondering what the deal is with that.

At one point I made a targeting/command error and flagged vs. myself. I got a message indicating that I lost Reputation for participating in my own murder, and my reputation was lower after that skirmish than it was before it.

I submitted a bug report with that information.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Savage Grace wrote:

I (currently) don't want Eve station safety. That could change.

My problem (and I call it a problem because I know I'm in the minority, even though I'm right) ;-) is I want *some* risk even in crafting because I view crafting as just another cog in the military industrial complex.

I feel that I deserve a chance to interrupt that, which of course means the other guy deserves a chance to interrupt me.

The improved Thornguard behavior and an open mini-map might be all I need to be comfortable.

It is hard to say, though, because you can't predict how your human opponents will surprise you, later.

Emergent player behavior will probably make crowdforging as difficult as it makes being a developer difficult.

Would you be satisfied if the settlement itself could be attacked in some manner to disrupt the industrial base?

Because what I see now is roughly analogous to a squad of German soldiers walking into the Detroit tank factory and shooting the assembly line workers during the Battle of the Bulge. And I think that is not how large-scale warfare should play out.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Midnight of Golgotha wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Midnight of Golgotha wrote:


I want to be able to craft, gather, carry recipe drops, etc. without unreasonable risks. You can't get far in this game without doing that stuff.

Can you be more specific about what the necessary and sufficient conditions are for an unreasonable risk?

It is subjective for each person, obviously. Thus the need for whole INFORMED crowdforging thing, tempered of course by the devs' intentions and the way the game is/was marketed.

I'll offer some SUBJECTIVE personal views...

To offer you an Eve-online example, I didn't like 4 cheap destroyers being able to kill a far more expensive Mackinaw before the Concorde "guards" could stop them.

In this game I wouldn't want to see a throwaway 1,000 point character two shotting my tier 2 equipped character. (I don't think that can happen now, but I also don't imagine myself crowdforging to get such a gank-friendly world).

I completely agree with the crafters who want to be able to see the mini-map while having the crafting window open.

I didn't start crafting until the devs improved the Thornguard behavior to fire on an attacker flag (and I'd *still* like to see the mini-map).

I was asking what qualified for what you want, yourself. Not anyone else.

Based on your response, the current state of crafting is roughly borderline, because it's possible to suicide gank crafters, and that level of risk is greater than the level of risk in EvE? Would being "in the building", off of the main map, be sufficient risk reduction to make you happy? (The EvE equivalent isn't Hisec, but being docked at a station)

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Midnight of Golgotha wrote:


I want to be able to craft, gather, carry recipe drops, etc. without unreasonable risks. You can't get far in this game without doing that stuff.

Can you be more specific about what the necessary and sufficient conditions are for an unreasonable risk?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gol Phyllain wrote:
I mean the deal I made with Nihimon where we wouldn't engage in tower swapping. In that conversation I told him that we would still come south to fight and you guys where more then welcome to come north to fight us. Just wanted to be completely clear that you guys where breaking that agreement. Which I'm sure you will now say was never formal or lasting and that we some how broke it by killing people. It's your typical method.

That wasn't a deal; it was simply an acknowledgement that tower swapping wasn't fun.

What wasn't fun for the last week was a pattern where Gologthans camped out around Keeper's Pass in moderate numbers, killed a few individuals until word spread and a small response could arrive, and then ran away.

So, we're doing something different and expecting a different result. With the shorter PvP window, fewer towers to defend, and better capture mechanics, I expect that tower PvP will either be fun enough to satisfy the Golgothan PvP contingent, or that we will be able to provide specific feedback on what is wrong with it that can be incorporated into the system where Holdings change hands.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
It is nice to see you have agreed upon setting up a theme park, battleground PvP arena. Will there be various rule sets, limitations on numbers, tier of gear, etc?

Yes.

1: You have what you hold.
2. You have what you hold.
3) You have what you hold.
4- Courts are for kings.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gol Phyllain wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Charlie George wrote:

I have no stake in this game, but have those in EBA that feel Golgotha is a net negative considered merely marching to their door and showing them the error of their ways by the point of their swords?

Result: More pvp between "non sheep". Less pvp against "Sheeple"

Your stake remains unchanged.

And the gauntlet was thrown quietly, so you might not have noticed. Golgotha will continue to lose one tower per day until/unless their PvP-thirsty players overcome their aversion to fighting and defend their towers during their short window.

I encourage others who believe that Golgotha's PvP players have written checks that their swords can't cash to arrange independent blows at Golgothan holdings to provide them all the consequence-free PvP they can handle, so that they will have no need, reason, or justification to spend hours each day looking for a target that they can handle.

Oh no, our towers. I take it that our deal with TSV is off then?

Deal? Did you mean the situation that briefly existed where we would live and let live, or did you make a personal deal with someone?

The understanding that we would both end up worse if we fought each other in earnest didn't survive the actions of various Golgothans, and any deal you made with any individual remains in just as much force as before.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Savage Grace wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Charlie George wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Charlie George wrote:

I have no stake in this game, but have those in EBA that feel Golgotha is a net negative considered merely marching to their door and showing them the error of their ways by the point of their swords?

Result: More pvp between "non sheep". Less pvp against "Sheeple"

Your stake remains unchanged.

And the gauntlet was thrown quietly, so you might not have noticed. Golgotha will continue to lose one tower per day until/unless their PvP-thirsty players overcome their aversion to fighting and defend their towers during their short window.

I encourage others who believe that Golgotha's PvP players have written checks that their swords can't cash to arrange independent blows at Golgothan holdings to provide them all the consequence-free PvP they can handle, so that they will have no need, reason, or justification to spend hours each day looking for a target that they can handle.

That's good to hear. At least i can get back some interesting stories. It might even convince me to start using up my "free" months :)

Edit* Bonus points if you conduct corrective murder while you are there. I am not sure taking towers that are unattended will make a compelling story.

If the towers are unattended it will be very strong evidence that there is enough/too much PvP for the individuals in question, or else that their actual priorities differ from their nominal ones.
Or that they aren't redcoats who are going to march in straight lines for you.

Good point. If you would prefer to meet us at your tower at a time of our choosing instead, we can accommodate you.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Charlie George wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Charlie George wrote:

I have no stake in this game, but have those in EBA that feel Golgotha is a net negative considered merely marching to their door and showing them the error of their ways by the point of their swords?

Result: More pvp between "non sheep". Less pvp against "Sheeple"

Your stake remains unchanged.

And the gauntlet was thrown quietly, so you might not have noticed. Golgotha will continue to lose one tower per day until/unless their PvP-thirsty players overcome their aversion to fighting and defend their towers during their short window.

I encourage others who believe that Golgotha's PvP players have written checks that their swords can't cash to arrange independent blows at Golgothan holdings to provide them all the consequence-free PvP they can handle, so that they will have no need, reason, or justification to spend hours each day looking for a target that they can handle.

That's good to hear. At least i can get back some interesting stories. It might even convince me to start using up my "free" months :)

Edit* Bonus points if you conduct corrective murder while you are there. I am not sure taking towers that are unattended will make a compelling story.

If the towers are unattended it will be very strong evidence that there is enough/too much PvP for the individuals in question, or else that their actual priorities differ from their nominal ones.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Charlie George wrote:

I have no stake in this game, but have those in EBA that feel Golgotha is a net negative considered merely marching to their door and showing them the error of their ways by the point of their swords?

Result: More pvp between "non sheep". Less pvp against "Sheeple"

Your stake remains unchanged.

And the gauntlet was thrown quietly, so you might not have noticed. Golgotha will continue to lose one tower per day until/unless their PvP-thirsty players overcome their aversion to fighting and defend their towers during their short window.

I encourage others who believe that Golgotha's PvP players have written checks that their swords can't cash to arrange independent blows at Golgothan holdings to provide them all the consequence-free PvP they can handle, so that they will have no need, reason, or justification to spend hours each day looking for a target that they can handle.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gol Elsworth Sugarfoot wrote:

Erian: I would have liked to continue that chase off the mountain, but didn't want to lose the rep at the time. Next time I know it's you it'll be worth the hit :)

Decius: I would have stuck around a bit longer, but a few people in our party weren't keen on trying to fight so outnumbered after we had died a few times. It seemed a waste of durability. Plus, we'd been chased to a non PvP hex, so we couldn't fight you there. Also, I had been down south for 3 hours trying to start PvP. I mistakenly assumed you would be in coms with your allies and was wondering why no one was coming to the assistance of BWG so I came up to Keeper's to taunt you once your PvP windows opened.

"Outnumbered". I do not think that means what you think that means.

And I, personally, was known to be streaming the PFU lecture during that time.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

It would be a lot nicer for the aggressive PvP aficionados if they had an extra 20-30 minutes during the nights they attack. That way once the response has a chance to arrive, they would be able to fight more than a couple skirmishes before having to log off in KP.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Plus, the low granularity of the D20 system is well-suited for games where you want to be able to have humans do the math on the fly, but poorly suited for a MMO where you want there to be ways to seek out ever-smaller advantages. Hence the 3d200 mechanic; by not being binary hit/miss, the importance of to-hit bonuses is reduced, and thus +1 to hit in PFO is not the relatively huge expected difference that +1 to hit is in Pathfinder.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

After wrestling with various software, the recording is finally up here.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Well it sounds like the developers are going to learn a few interesting things about unplanned interdependencies. :)

May you learn interesting things in time.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Savage Grace wrote:

My only fear is that the popular kids will just decide who gets to own what and everything will remain as static and conflict free as they are now.

How can devs thwart players who don't want to fight?

More importantly how are they going to entertain those folks, if the players won't create entertainment through conflict?

Of course, for the 32 or so people drawing the boundaries they at least get to play Diplomacy.

Will the rest of us just have to sit back and wait to hear what we've been apportioned?

No. You're quite permitted to take whatever you can hold, or join an organization that doesn't agree to the distribution, or join an organization that does agree but doesn't hold their members to that agreement.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Mai Shael wrote:
My client crashes roughly every 20 minutes, I'm on a newer mac with 8mb of ram. The fan runs fine, it doesnt have a great video card but it should be adequate. my graphics are set to fast, I'm using a lower resolution but it doesnt seem to matter. heat doesnt seem to have much to do with it, just more data to deal with in terms of players, buildings or mobs, animations, in a big fight and the client locks up

Assuming you meant 8GB of ram: That might be the problem.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Broadcasting from now until complete here.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lisa Stevens wrote:
Yrme wrote:

I'm not sure why crafter settlements are expected to thrive at this time, compared to other settlements? All settlements have some crafting capabilities; crafting settlements have the advantage of all crafting stations *plus* an auction house.

Just speaking as a EBA member, I have spent more time in KP than in any other settlement during the last 6 weeks. I don't need to belong to Keeper's Pass to use their crafting stations or auction house.

I think this is a big part of it. You don't have to belong to a crafting settlement to use their resources right now. Keeper's Pass is absolutely overflowing with activity right now, but it isn't all from their citizens. Members of EBA are spending all their time there gathering, crafting, and foraying into the field.

I don't think pure numbers of members is going to be a good indication of the health of a crafting town. I think the other non-crafting settlements around it are going to use it as a base for their trade, help those settlements with defense, and basically ally with them for mutual benefit.

-Lisa

Indeed. If Keeper's Pass needed resources and labor to improve at being a crafting settlement, they would have it despite not having many direct citizens.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Is there a way to track video card RAM (or other resource) usage in a meaningful way? My guess, based on crashing more frequently in congested areas and less frequently when not crossing lots of tile or hex boundaries, is that something is hitting a hardware limit unexpectedly.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

It sounds to me that the original problem might be related to swapping weapons around combat. How exactly did you change staves for the first test?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

If nobody else is doing so and I get no objection, I plan to broadcast on my own Twitch and maybe expand the audience by a couple of people.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
How was it "rejected cleanly"? There is probably a good reason you can't replicate it, I'd say.

It's rejected because in the initial data sets, the series that should have a max and mode of 98 has one of 79.

The problem is that we cannot replicate how to get those results. In many circles, the presumption would be to consider it a failure to follow procedure and move on, instead of asking if there might be a bug related to updating keywords when weapons are changed out.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Are you tracking GPU temperature? There's no use troubleshooting anything except the fan unless the thing the fan does is getting done somehow.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Does the GW Twitch plan to cover the event as well?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravenlute wrote:
*Sprays a can of Raid on the thread*

You need acid or fire at this point.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Neadenil Edam wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:

Seeing the amount of bartering going on: if we can assign a sane value in copper to each of the things people want and have, then the market will help handle things.

"Sane" prices do not mean "prices that everyone can afford". They mean "prices that people who have stuff are happy to sell it in roughly the same amount as other people are willing to buy it".

Do you mean copper ore or copper the coin ?

Copper ore will work as a standard.

Sane prices in coin are not going to happen at present. Coin is easy to come buy (an hour or so leveling some achieves in one of those proto-settlement goblin filled training hexes will easily fetch a few hundred copper along with a stack of other goodies) and there is absolutely nothing to currently spend it on.

The proposed AH changes in EE 4 may change that.

That just means that the market has to extract that much coin from adventurers, somehow.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Sissyl wrote:
Neadenil Edam wrote:
Sissyl wrote:


Aaaaaah... so if we can't reject the null hypothesis, we have actually PROVEN it???!!!??? Wow. I never knew THAT particular trick of statistics...

OK

We are not trying to confirm the null hypothesis.

We want to confirm there are two separate formula at work and to do that we need to reject the null hypothesis.

We are not able to do that with two means that give a p=0.77 .

Intuitively, the reason for such a high p with so small a sample number is the standard deviation is over 3.0 for each sample set whereas the difference between the sample means is only 1.5 .

The only thing you can conclude with a p value of 0,77 is that any correlation you have found is most likely due to chance. And thus, you have nothing that says the null hypothesis (same weapons) or the hypothesis you're testing (different weapons) is true. You can't reject either of them. Do more tests, find a correlation with a p below 0,05, then draw your conclusions.

Bad statistics and bad science are bad.

First the null hypothesis (that things were working correctly as described) was rejected cleanly in the original data. The issue we have now is that we can't replicate the original results, so we can't write a proper bug report.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I, too, was unable to duplicate. I'll keep an eye out for further instances.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

The hypothesis that we are trying to reject is that one of them is taking from a particular distribution capped at (45-2)*1.84, and that the other is taking samples from a particular distribution that is capped at (45+10*2-2)*1.84

If we can reject that hypothesis (which we can with the data sets provided, exact p based on relative attack/defense values), then we need to check for methodological flaws and attempt to replicate.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

It's not a chance to "gather rare items". The number of items gathered is weighted by the current stock of those items.

And long streaks of unlikely outcomes are astronomically unlikely to the point that I would suspect the RNG long before I believed that something as improbable as majorly unequal depletion happened with stocks starting around 500 of the rarest.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Seeing the amount of bartering going on: if we can assign a sane value in copper to each of the things people want and have, then the market will help handle things.

"Sane" prices do not mean "prices that everyone can afford". They mean "prices that people who have stuff are happy to sell it in roughly the same amount as other people are willing to buy it".

Goblinworks Executive Founder

The only reason players in those hexes aren't in more danger than they would be in general is because they go there in larger groups that are harder to kill.

Otherwise, it's the same rep cost to attack, and higher rewards for winning.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Black Silver of The Veiled, T7V wrote:

I don't know if it is still there because I avoid it like the plague. But there was two holes that were death traps through the pass from Phaeros to Keeper's Pass on the west side.

I remember seeing Ryan's avatar sitting there for the next person to fall victim to them.

The ones that were on the best-time path through that hex are gone. There may be more that nobody has found yet.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

In support of PFU, I will be listing starter weapons and implements in Riverbank for 1c; I encourage others to do so as well.

Since starter armor is no longer a side effect of clearing escalations, my supplies and transport costs are too high to give them away.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Which attack feats have been seen to exhibit the behavior where base damage appears not to change properly, and which ones have been tested and appear to work?

I consider a critical hit against an opponent to be sufficient to observe that full damage should be displayed. The OP described behavior is obviously a bug, and now we can look at how that bug is expressed and how to replicate it.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's a reason that the invites are limited and that the only way to get more is for your guest to convert. Those who give theirs out to strangers who give up after ten minutes will only send two invites ever; anyone who sends a lot can do so only because they added new paying players.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

It sounds like people are accusing people of using a not-exploit and reporting an AI bug that makes certain enemies easier than intended.

Am I missing the reason for the drama? Is the culture created by causing this the culture that we want?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Stephen Cheney wrote:

The exploits were an experiment in training people to make use of conditionals. That they just add precision and damage was to make them very easy to understand. I'm not sure they've had the desired effect, because they seem to be making people value them as a source of pure damage, when conditionals are generally for making good use of the other effects in the system.

So we may look at making them more varied in their conditionals rather than just incentivizing going for the biggest straight up damage numbers.

Try fixing them to have less base damage boost and more stacking debuff.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Any estimate that ignores the residual value of the account will be horribly low.

If we make an unwarranted assumption that PFO will exist forever, DT will be worth just as much in five years as it is worth now. (not even accounting for the value of XP earned in those five years).

Right now it is worth an income stream of $150/year to someone. 7.5% is a reasonable ROI for an investment with as much uncertainty as "PFO will continue to exist for the long term."

Goblinworks Executive Founder

My rough estimate of the Present Value of a DT account is on the order of $2000. I don't think that you would consider that a reasonable offer.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

2 people marked this as a favorite.

But, are they always glad you came?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Are you valuing T2 recipes that little? Do you have any that you would sell at those equivalencies?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I will be unable to attend due to conflicting schedules, but approve of the coordination effort and encourage others to join in.

1 to 50 of 4,733 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.