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

3,883 posts. Alias of Daniel Powell 318.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,883 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblinworks Executive Founder

Nihimon wrote:
<Tavernhold>Malrunwa Soves wrote:

"That suicide is painless

It brings on many changes
and I can take or leave it if I please."
I'm somewhat curious how many folks knew without looking it up that those were the lyrics to the theme song to M*A*S*H (I did). I'm also somewhat curious how many folks don't know what M*A*S*H is.

I recognized the lyrics as from M*A*S*H when I saw them, but for some reason I thought they were from some kind of musical production...

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Because it's extra, baby.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

pavaan wrote:

I am a little overwhelmed by the number of company and settlements that i have seen. I don't know who to ask to join. I would like a company or settlement that i could play with. the time that i can play is 11 am -4 pm pacific time. I am thinking of playing a fighter tank and i have fun gathering i have found.

only post like this i will make and i will not bump it.

What kind of play style do you expect? Sword-and-board heavy armor fighter is an equipment and feat loadout, not a playstyle.

Are you interested in a position of tactical leadership, making decisions regarding party targeting, or would you prefer to only have to know your own niche, rather than everyone's?

How well do you handle costly defeats; are you happy to rearm and charge back into a battle against superior equipped enemies if the strategic plan is to wear them down by attrition, or does that sound too much like repeatedly losing to you?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Andius the Afflicted wrote:
FMS Quietus wrote:
I'm good at PVP and find myself not liking a lot of the PVP I've seen in MMOs. I think MOBAs, RTS and FPS do battleground/arena style gaming much better. I think that trying to force complete balance doesn't work in an MMO and I think anyone that is looking for it is hunting a white whale. I think the place for PVP in MMOs of this nature is to have it as something that builds upon the world that we all share.

This I can believe as it sound like you are saying you enjoy and are good at arena PvP but are not good at and don't enjoy Open World PvP.

That's not surprising Arena PvP focuses on providing very even (balanced) fights in which the team/player that plays better should always win while uneven and seemingly random battle conditions are the essence of Open World PvP.

It's less about mastering your character's combat abilities (though that helps) and more about learning how to manipulate the conditions of the Open World environment in your favor. It's entirely possible to be good at one but not the other. However I find those that are successful at open world PvP tend to enjoy open world PvP.

Among people who regularly engage in open world PvP (using your phrasing of it), I suspect that success is slightly negatively correlated with how well they enjoy it. I say that because I expect that some people who are good at it experience outside pressure to perform.

Do you know anyone at all who doesn't like open world PvP who still regularly seeks it out?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Andius the Afflicted wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Myself, circa 1999, playing Diablo on battle.net. You haven't been looking.

So you were very successful at Diablo PvP and did not enjoy it? Forgive me but I believe one of those two statements to be false. The rush of being successful at PvP aside I don't think anyone who wasn't enjoying PvP would invest the time and practice needed to become successful.

Unless what you actually mean is you were good at and enjoyed Diablo PvP, but are not good at and do not enjoy Open World PvP. I could believe that.

No, I was good at it, in that I would win more than 50% of the time when some random yahoo started attacking me, and I didn't like it, in that whether I won or lost, I would no longer play with the player who attacked me.

Diablo PvP was virtually the same skill as PvE, which was more enjoyable because it included the Skinner Boxes which made me feel like I was accomplishing something

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gol Tigari wrote:

Thats what we're talking about Decius. How long should assassins have to "Observe" a target before we can kill them. I don't care how long it takes them to get into place, or all ready. Once the team is staged, and where they need to be, and they pop the "Observe" skill, how long should it take before they can "assassinate" a target

I don't think you should have to Observe at all. I think that the advantage of an observation should be that your initial attack(s) gain a moderate bonus to base damage.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

So, every merchant will additionally be required to evaluate the creditworthiness of banks, and guess how likely they are to fold before he can liquidate his paper? Or when Bank of Exploits issues a cashiers check and then gets sacked and burned, do the looters not get the coin that became the check? (In which case, it's a complicated way of changing coin to have encumbrance, then making a special case of coin weightless without adding any interesting effects).

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
most people who express an aversion to trying a PvP focused game have usually never played one. They get a majority of their negative impressions from players who have pvp'd but sucked at it
Do you have a reference on that one, or is it an internet statistic?
Find me one person who was good at PvP and didn't like it. I've not been able to find one, in over a decade of playing MMOs, or PC games in general.

Myself, circa 1999, playing Diablo on battle.net. You haven't been looking.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

It's up now.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Darcnes wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
If coin has weight and mass, the economy becomes crippled. Merchants cannot move enough coins fast enough to the market hubs to engage in production at scale.

Cashier's checks. Using the escrow system, the ownership of money can be transferred without it physically being displaced. I believe there is a lot of value to be had in the resulting ramifications.

Ryan Dancey wrote:

If coin has no weight or mass, the Settlement will divide its wealth among a large number of proxy characters that will be created expressly for this purpose. [...]

Result will be a system (looting Settlements) that rarely actually gets used.


  • Settlements would not be able to vanish their money on a whim.
  • Looting settlements retains a high value.
  • Goblinworks can easily track the location of these funds.
  • Players would still need to move money to the bank by hand after adventuring.
  • Players would be able to access large amounts of wealth without issue.
  • Players and even Settlements and Nations are passively encouraged to proactively spread their wealth to facilitate trade, and possibly to protect their wealth if they are weak.

I would be very interested to hear what negatives you believe a system like this might entail.

What happens to the people who accepted cashier's checks when the bank that issued them is looted?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Guurzak wrote:

And con is in the critical path for leveling any role in medium or heavy armor, so we definitely need more options for raising it.

It looks like getting either fighter or cleric fully leveled requires significant investment in not one but two con-based tradeskills. That design will lead to market saturation with metal ingots, and no profitable niche for commoners.

Maximizing smelting can be done smelting only six items. You need a common and uncommon +3 or better of each tier.

Right now you'd probably also want to trade tanning, sawyer, and probably carpentry for additional constitution and crafting feats. I really hope that more skills get added, or constitution benefits get adjusted, so that crafting feats are not strictly required to advance in armor skills.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Being wrote:
Kitsune Aou wrote:

It would certainly be adding a lot to their A.I., so this would be a significant task for the programming team. They'd have to make each individual mob aware of the location of all other mobs in the area, and then make judgement calls based how many are left in their group, how close they are to other groups... etc.

But it certainly would be cool.

I don't think they have to make each individual mob aware of all other mobs in the area. The mob just has to have an ever expanding friend-or-foe radar that polls outward while it is running until it finds friends. Sorta like an aggro range.

Omniscience is easier to do than partial knowledge.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

All true, but the coin drains will be largely non-discretionary.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

What are the odds that any given group that purports to be a lending agency will pay off their debts to all of the "Merchant B"s and/or "Client C"s, or even a significant fraction of them?

How would you differentiate between a lender that honestly wanted to do so and a Ponzi scheme?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Stephen Cheney wrote:

I don't know that setting up runners is that hard, in the grand scheme of things. It's just that they don't tend to be particularly fun for players. If they run and don't get help, you just wind up sitting around for the remaining creature to come strolling back after forgetting why he was terrified in the first place. If they bring friends, you can often wind up with a whole overwhelming cascade of creatures when you thought you were picking on something you could handle. Our aggro distance and group aggro is already higher than a lot of MMOs (in that you will get the whole group and get it fairly far away), so you can already pull multiple groups if you're not careful, which should account for it being fun to sometimes bite off more than you intended and win anyway.

Which is to say, the problem is less about programming it, and more about it falling on the wrong side of "Creatures behave enough like enemy players to not train you wrong for PvP" vs. "Creatures are nearly as deadly as enemy players and thus extremely stressful to fight."

Making runners is easy. Making runners that are smart enough without being too smart is hard. Drawing aggro from every goblin in the hex when you attack any goblin is easy. Drawing aggro from the amount of goblins that make sense is hard.

I would like to see some tougher goblin champions, and even a few spawns of goblins that, like Fallen Paladin cluster, can make a group pause before steamrolling them. I hope that idea is just waiting on some more awesome artwork for the next tier of goblin. (Advanced Goblin Cleric of Zarongel, anyone?)

Goblinworks Executive Founder

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a cool idea, but it just isn't the low-hanging fruit on improved AI.

The easiest close approach would be a monster recognizing that it was over matched and running away from enemies/towards friends. Even that level of sophistication is hard to figure in the general case.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Do you mean "more than half of their total cash reserves"?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Loans aren't money stored in the bank, even on the part of the lender.

Unless you think that players will sell on credit but require the seller to maintain some kind of fractional reserve... somehow.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Additionally, there's the hard to value costs of crafting queue time and capital experience spent on crafting as well as capital investment in the facilities.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
It does require that a guild prefer a site based on which site other guilds get.
Unless two large groups show up--or three....

If your preferences are independent of which site another guild gets, then you can do no better than listing those preferences.

Getting to be near (or far from) a specific guild, particularly if they don't coordinate with you or have preferences other than being close to you, is rather more difficult.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gaskon wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Unless at least one group put forth preferences that were not their true preference (possibly because they didn't know who their neighbors would be), a trade where both parties get a choice they want more is impossible.

Group A's top priority is to be close to Group B.

Group C's top priority is to be near swamp hexes.

Group D adds 100 members just before the close of the landrush and bumps everyone around to lower choices, such that group A ends up in a swamp hex far away from group B, and group C ends up in a plains hex close to Group B.

Groups A and C can swap settlements and both be happier for it.

EDIT: Now I'm trying to think if this is actually possible if everyone set their preference list correctly...

It is: group a can get their first choice (which happens to be near a swamp), group b can get bumped to a corner, and group c can get a low choice in that corner.

It does require that a guild prefer a site based on which site other guilds get.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Coordinate your lists with your allies', and anticipate the choices of others. That isn't a perfect solution, because of imperfect information.

A system where groups who had their first choice blocked could change based on the choices of groups with more votes than them would be fair, but even if the timeframe for making choices was short, it would take several days to go down the lists.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

What advantage (to PFO) would accrue from making it difficult to earn value in one location and spend it in a distant location?

Realism is not an advantage in a fantasy roleplaying game.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Unless at least one group put forth preferences that were not their true preference (possibly because they didn't know who their neighbors would be), a trade where both parties get a choice they want more is impossible.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I am unsure if it is possible to e.g. get the Cleric dedication bonus while using the Unbreakable armor slot.

As far as I can tell, your armor feat is always active when slotted, and activates the keywords on appropriate armor. I'll check this weekend whether the secondary benefits apply when wearing the wrong armor.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
Guurzak wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
I will not limit myself by the scapegoat of "Well you can do it, but we prefer you don't, but there will be no punishment if you do". That is a Green Light! in my book.
What if their actual stance is "Well you can do it, but we prefer you don't, and we will arbitrarily punish this behavior in a heartbeat if we think that's good for the game"?

"but there will be no punishment if you do". Was part of my statement. If you introduced the exact opposite, my statement no longer applies.

The mindset I want to make clear I reject, on the part of developers, is that they have a known issue in the game and instead of fixing it they tell us nothing about it. They don't admit it exists, they don't declare it an exploit, they don't fix it, but they expect the player to just not do it.

If it is not a big enough deal to fix, it's not a big enough deal not to use.

That hasn't, and won't, happen. Exploits have already been declared to be against the spirit of the game and using them is subject to arbitrary and capricious punishment.

The stance regarding a known issue that hasn't been publicized is much closer to "Well you can do it, but we prefer you don't, and we will arbitrarily punish this behavior in a heartbeat if we think that's good for the game" than "... and we won't punish it".

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Aet Khorvak McTiernan wrote:

Not being part of Alpha makes me wonder if this isn't unintentional. As FOO pointed out heavy armor is heavy armor. It doesn't matter who's wearing it...and it's not like the Clergy have a "special" way of wearing it. It's probably a simple over site that will be taken care of in due time.

Fear not...is only Alpha.

But... clerics DO have a different way of wearing armor. That's why Crusader is different from Unbreakable.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Are you suggesting that Unbreakable should qualify as one of the armor feats required to get Cleric levels?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Summersnow wrote:
Gaskon wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Chatting with Ryan the other day, he was very excited about the beginning of Early Enrollment when everyone will start the game with 0 XP, no Role-based Feats, and a Club.

I hope he is not forgetting this:

$10 - Class Pack

When characters arrive in the River Kingdoms in Pathfinder Online, they do so with little wealth or equipment to their name. A Class Pack will provide the character with a selection of items appropriate to a lower level character
of the class selected when the class pack is used. Each pack will include a weapon, a suit of armor (torso, legs, and helmet if applicable), and three or four other items of such as thieves tools, shields, boots, gloves, belts, hats,
etc. One Class Pack is required per character. You may purchase this Add-On multiple times.

I am curious, would people consider this to constitute "pay to win" in a pvp based game where everyone else starts pretty much naked?

At what point does something like like cross the line from "a cash store that does not provide anything of significant mechanical advantage" which is I believe how GW advertised a proposed cash store to one that is Pay to Win?

It becomes Pay to Win at the point where the playing field is divided into those who have purchased, and those who have not.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

If you choose to have your character make a public statement, expect that people will attribute your character's statement and motives to you.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Ryan Dancey wrote:

I think that right now Coal is the fundamental unit of account but that may just be a bad assumption.

You need Coal to make magic swords and everyone is going to want a magic sword and Coal only drops in any meaningful amount in one hex. Iron (the other major component for swords) is dropped all over the map. So the rate at which swords can be made is dependent on Coal, which means coal is therefore a proxy for value in the game's economy.

You also need Leather Strips. I do not have the Leather Strips recipe. But I really really want one.

BTW, I will trade Coal for recipes and recipes for Coal. If you wanna make a deal, post your offer here or on the Alpha Forums so everyone in Alpha can see the market prices.

I'm not sure at the moment what recipes I have, but if I had leather strips +1 and/ +2 recipe, what would your offer?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Without seeing what the coin drains are, I can't estimate how desirable it will be to acquire things which destroy coin, which will determine a lot of things about the economy.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:

I fail to see how the questions asked of the Devs were somehow related to meeting other people.

I saw it as a political "trial balloon" to gauge the reaction of others. There.

Really? You don't see how people's responses have been informative about their position.

Oh, wait, you think that finding out how people think (phrased with a positive connotation) is completely different from finding out how people think (if you phase it with a sinister connotation). And you claim that you don't see how anything your opponent does could be described with a positive connotation.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Guurzak wrote:
Decius, I think you misunderstand the distinction. The intrinsic value of a gold coin is the practical utility of that amount of gold metal, as distinct from its value as money per se. PFO coin has no intrinsic value if it cannot be rendered into wire or jewelry. The fiat value of money is its worth as a form of payment, specifically to the government. I think GW programmers dictating the size of our coin sinks makes a fair analog for "the government" in this conversation, so the value of coin for feeding the drains is fiat.

Yeah, I took Econ 101 a long time ago and lost a lot of what I used to know. I'm not even positive how much the demand for thing that are coin drains will vary with the amount of coin available. I could see it being interesting either if demand far outstrips the faucet or if the faucet outstrips the sinks by less than population growth.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Xeen wrote:
Spraga "The Bird Caller" Uhuru wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:

The current purpose of the discussion is to gather two sets of information: First, is the offer to re-enter the competition on equal footing still open. Second, what do the people who follow these events think should happen if it is?

As a method of getting to know the community, that second point flows to an obvious instrumental goal.

LOL
Seconded

Just because we know some people doesn't mean we know all the people.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Xelstorm wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:


The population of characters will also increase; if average wealth decreases as population increases as well as coin supply, do you predict that prices will increase or decrease?

If the monetary supply stayed constant while population increased then prices would almost certainly fall. Not because of increased population, but due to the (presumably) increased productive capacity of the entire economy. The more goods available while keeping the supply of currency stable leads to falling prices.

Most people fear deflationary markets, however it tends to reward those who choose to save their capital for future investments or purchases. Inflating the monetary supply has the exact opposite effect. It robs the value of the Coin and makes saving ones capital an unwise investment, thus creating a consumers market.

Granted, the developers will have vastly more transparency as to the movement of Coin through the economy than their real life central banking counterparts. Central management of the money supply is always attempted in order to grow the supply of the currency at the same rate of production. This seems to be what the folks at Goblinworks are aiming for.

Did you account for the characteristic that coin has some intrinsic value (it is the only thing which can be used to feed the coin drains), but no fiat value?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Amari wrote:
Uncle Tony isn't the Tony from the bread business

That's what he wants you to think!

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I think that it makes a very compelling story when two groups with major differences encounter an outside force that makes them overlook those differences.

Enemy Mine comes to mind as the story to reference.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Xelstorm wrote:

I am actually glad that there will be none of these points of reference because they would end up being set at some arbitrary rate by the game designers.

As someone who is passionate about studying economics, I am very excited about the prospect of prices being set strictly by producers of goods. I imagine prices will fluctuate a bit when the game first launches, but these market prices will most likely stabilize over time.

It will be interesting to watch and see how this economy evolves. Hopefully we will get more specifics in the near future on how drains and faucets for coinage are going to work. The Goblinworks blog seemed to indicate that the total amount of coin would be slowly ever increasing so expect market prices to be ever inflationary. And if the monetary supply does always increase, will players begin to hoard mass quantities of widely traded goods as a way to preserve their wealth from such inflation?

The population of characters will also increase; if average wealth decreases as population increases as well as coin supply, do you predict that prices will increase or decrease?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

<GLiberators> Qyck Majere wrote:

What would the typical mob drop upon being slain? 1 coin, 1 salvage material?

Indeterminate; the loot tables are one of the pieces of tech recently fixed, and so the balance is not yet determined.

<GLiberators> Qyck Majere wrote:

Do you get anything additional upon an achievement kill? maybe an extra coin or salvage?

Not as far as anyone has determined. Why would that make sense?

<GLiberators> Qyck Majere wrote:


is there a range from which a RNG determines what drops, or is this already pre-determined at the spawn time of the mob?

There is no way to differentiate between the two; it is expected that knowledge skills will effect drops, but the details are uncertain at the moment.

<GLiberators> Qyck Majere wrote:


This salvage material, does it have a monetary value? 1 piece is 1 coin.

I don't expect that it can be transmuted into coin, but it should be sellable on the market.

<GLiberators> Qyck Majere wrote:


How many pieces are required to craft something? (I am looking for a range from what people might know so far, i.e., 1 - dagger, 2 - sword, 3 - 2handed axe, 4 - halberd)

Check the recipe list. A salvage item substitutes for an iron ore, 10-16 of which must be combined with other items (some of which might also be substituted with salvaged items), to make a stack (10? I think) of steel ingots, which must be combined with other refined materials (which have their own, often different, raw materials requirements) to create a finished product.

With the production sizes and ratios, I guess that a given sword will use about 4-12 raw material worth of refined components, plus an indeterminate amount of the rare and precious resource time.

I speculate that in the mid-game, many characters will have trained refining and/or crafting skills for the ability score increase, and will refine or produce the things possible at low levels of training (because doing so has low opportunity cost to them once they train the skills). I also speculate that those characters will have a negligible overall economic impact, because highly-trained crafters working at high-quality facilities will do the cheap stuff in a tiny fraction of the time.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Monster hunting currently produces salvage materials that substitute for many gathered resources. The rate of production of substitute resources provides a natural ceiling on gathered material prices.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Vrelx wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:

Second, what do the people who follow these events think should happen if it is?

As a method of getting to know the community, that second point flows to an obvious instrumental goal.

This is the first time I have seen this question. I believe the original 2 questions were "Was it still possible" and "If so, how long?"

There was never concern for the community if the original questions.

Welcome back Vrelx!

That question wasn't explicit; it was in the subtext. There are layers of meaning here, and pointing out that if TEO was competing on the same rules as everyone else, they could have five low-ranking spots and still be certain of their first choice by a large margin covers a lot of them.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now with all of the recipes!

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:

Part of having a valid discussion is understanding what motivated the discussion in the first place. Then to present the desirable end goal of each of the parties concerned. Once that is done, then and only then can there be a discussion on how to get to a compromised end goal.

What we have here is a hypothetical question that no one (that it actually applies to) seems to be involved with; no motivating factor to explain why the question was even brought up; and it is impossible to reach any end goal because a meaningful discussion can not begin without the first two parts.

The current purpose of the discussion is to gather two sets of information: First, is the offer to re-enter the competition on equal footing still open. Second, what do the people who follow these events think should happen if it is?

As a method of getting to know the community, that second point flows to an obvious instrumental goal.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

-Aet- Charlie wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
@all: can we make an effort to not antagonize others here, rather than just maintaining barely plausible deniability?

Towards this end, I would like Callambea members and leaders to leave this topic alone. I have no interest in rehashing this argument no matter who is who or what is what.

For those that were curious, Callambea also has no intention of moving.

There's plenty of valid discussion to be had. No need to swear off the topic.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@all: can we make an effort to not antagonize others here, rather than just maintaining barely plausible deniability?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Valkenr wrote:

I think GW should either shorten or extend the Landrush, and not tell us when it is going to end.

Just kill the looming uncertainty of last minute upsets. I see no reason why each guild shouldn't be submitting honest pick-lists and having their full membership listed now.

I think that making those the rules from the start would have been better, but it is too late to make a change that major.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Phaeros is looking for companies to start by controlling a tower for the war of towers.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

The meta reason for why the landrush is happening is to resolve the bootstrap problem; creating a settlement from scratch will require lots of refined and crafted resources, and the only way to refine and craft things in an effective manner is at a developed settlement.

The bootstrap problem remains resolved when settlements start changing hands.

In Go, it is trivial to prove that whoever gets the first move is guaranteed to be able to force a victory. It has yet to be proven which initial move(s) are on the winning path.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Yes-alpha access (eg from the Tech Demo KS) does not include EE access unless it does.

1 to 50 of 3,883 << 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.