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

DrDeth's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 5,965 posts (5,966 including aliases). 18 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,965 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Many, many years ago, at Kennedy's Historical Models & Games, I ran what might have been the first: "you wake up naked in the dungeon and have to get out" campaign. It was very popular, had to run it two nites a week with two large groups.


I had a table with two wallflowers. And I tend to dominate the table a bit. So, I read sometimes, in order to stop walking over them.


ProfPotts wrote:

People who use the word 'decimate' when they actually mean 'devastate'.

1.

kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage or part of.
"the project would decimate the fragile wetland wilderness"

The word has changed meaning from the Roman days.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Delenot wrote:

1: Game starts at a certain time, you show up at or before that time.

2: Game starts at a certain time, you start playing at that time. Social hour is over.

Regarding the first point, this is fair to expect on a regular basis. But sometimes people have jobs and families. Sometimes you have to make exceptions for lateness, because of life. If it's really bad discuss it out of game; but if people have genuine responsibilities sometimes you need to be reasonable. Gaming is a fun social commitment, but like all important social commitments, sometimes life comes first.

It's odd, but in my groups, the guys who are unemployed have the worst record at being late. Especially those who are chronically unemployed.

Professionals with jobs will make it on time- or let folks know they aren't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cerwin wrote:


He started out as a fairly easy going or at least as much as an inquisitor of Gorum could be. But after his best friend in the party was brutally murdered in front of him he has kind of going to a dark place. And is now looking for someone strong enought to kill him. And as such he is going to fight every fight to the death. (and I have told the GM that this is his way of thinking after the last time he forced me to stop a fight before the enemy of my character were down).

So I missed the last session and I get a text from the GM that my character fought the guy to a draw and then got drunk with him to celebrate a good fight with a worthy opponent. And at level 1that might well have been what happened. But now with his only goal to die honorably in combat he would not fight to a draw and then go drinking with the guy.

That's pretty small potatoes.

and your stated goal is not very campaign friendly. Maybe you should rethink it. Just mellow it some. Good character, other than that.


I was playing an early "grimdark" game, Ravenloft. The DM was pissed I was still making jokes. My Dad, a WWII combat veteran pointed out that as things got really bad, humor became a important release, getting either silly or really black humor.

So, it's very realistic.

Grimdark is something that many DM's want to run, but not a lot of players want to play.


Alan_of_Q wrote:


When all the adventurers looks at me with "that face" with the big eyes and the pouty lips, I just fail my damn sense motive check every time.

Allowing a player something that broken just means less fun for everyone else at the table, including the DM. The DM has to jack up the encounters to make it challenging which means the other PCs cant handle it... or die.

Just say no.


Alan_of_Q wrote:
Delenot wrote:
I thought Greenbound Summoning was 3.5, not Pathfinder?
Hmm wrote:

It is, but the GM allowed the feat in already.

Hmm

Yep, hands are tied. Pathfinder core rule book page 5, completely backwards compatible with all 3.5 content. I hate that rule the most.

Not true. "Backward compatible" does not mean the DM has to allow everything in.


Kalridian wrote:

Good Option:

Distribute control over the summoned critters evenly among your players. That way, everybody gets something to do.

The only prerequisiite for that is that the stats are available to all players.

If the druid player complains about this, tell him that the other option is changing his character.

Actually, I dont care for running other peoples summoned monsters.

It's better for all if the player just learns not be to a spotlight hog.

One summoned thing per player at a time. Actually we say one extra combat entity per player at a time.


RainyDayNinja wrote:


The big publishers jack up the prices on ebooks because they don't want people to buy them. They're frantically trying to prop up old-fashioned brick-and-mortar stores, because that's where they reigned supreme as gatekeepers.

Nope. They dont "jack up prices" for one. Here's what happens- price wars. People shop around a LOT for the lowest price on a paperback. But not on a e-book. So, the price on both editions often start the same, but then various wholesalers and retailers begin dropping the price on the paperback to compete.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I know: "It's what my character would do!"- but who designed that character, gave him his alignment and his motivations?

Dont design a jerk. Dont play a jerk. Dont play with jerks.

Sit down and talk this out like adults.


You need to bring the new PC in at the same level and same eps in PF. Period.

Now wealth, that's another issue. What happens to the old PC's loot?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Niztael wrote:
Way back in the day, the party or people seeking someone to be raised from the dead in any fashion required more than just money. From Raise Dead to Resurrection, a service was required to be performed for the church or entity using such magic. At the 3.0 and on is when it only became a matter of money.

As I posted before:

For all those complaining Raise dead is too easy:Oh yeah.
Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”

Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."

The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.

The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, , why do you need a investigatory phase? Just send them down into the sewers or dungeons and let them kill stuff.

Tell them OOC that by not having those skills, they are losing out on a lot of stuff.

When the level, they can make that choice.

Maybe they just wanna kill monsters.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Quintain wrote:

Looking further into Ulimate Intrigue, under "Scrying" (the spell, specifically): It states that in and of itself, it is not enough to facilitate a teleport. In order to facilitate a teleport, the subject of the scry would need to move around enough to give a general layout of the area (likely DM's determination), and --- and this is the important part -- the spell doesn't directly indicate location. The PCs must use contextual clues to figure this out, unless they already know where the target is."

So, this jives with the Mockingjay example I gave above.

So, the question is: Is Ultimate Intrigue overriding/modifying the RAW of the CRB? The section of UI is described as being "Advice" (aka RAI).

The CRB description says that the scrying spell and other similar magic are capable of giving you enough visual info to count as being viewed once, and UI doesn't disagree with that at all (in fact, it specifically says it could). But that's the only mention of scrying there; the CRB doesn't say that casting the spell overrides needing to have a clear idea of the location as well. I would say that since the CRB is silent (and even IMO slightly implies the same thing as UI is saying), there's no reason not to use UI here, but certainly in any game where the players and GM prefer scry and fry, I see no reason not to just run it that way instead!

So then, instead of marking this "answered in errata" (which it clearly is not) why not change the spells wording or post a FAQ saying that "It states that in and of itself, it is not enough to facilitate a teleport. In order to facilitate a teleport, the subject of the scry would need to move around enough to give a general layout of the area (likely DM's determination), and --- and this is the important part -- [b]the spell doesn't directly indicate location. The PCs must use contextual clues to figure this out, unless they already know where the target is."

It's clearly an issue and this thread makes clear. It seems like it'd be simple to fix. Just add the wording from UI, and everyone goes away satisfied. Including James Jacobs, it would seem.


Kirth Gersen wrote:


There's a reason almost everyone uses the d20PFSRD instead of the official PRD.

Because it's wrong too often?


andreww wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

I think I could still make a case that RAW, scry & fry doesn't work with Greater Teleport. The spell works like teleport except where otherwise stated. The 'you must know the location' clause is not specifically excluded. You don't have to have seen the location, but if you haven't you need a reliable description. Scrying doesn't say it gives you a reliable description.

Teleport explicitly calls out scrying as providing sufficient information to allow you to teleport as "viewed once".

""Viewed once" is a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic such as scrying."


Mark Seifter wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Quintain wrote:

UI specifically states under the Teleport spell that the destination must be known and the general layout must be known as well.

Then why not add that to the spell's descriptor?
Teleport, CRB wrote:
You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination.

Yes, except that the question is whether or not that can be gotten thru Scrying.


Quintain wrote:

UI specifically states under the Teleport spell that the destination must be known and the general layout must be known as well.

Then why not add that to the spell's descriptor?


Mark Seifter wrote:
Ultimate Intrigue clears this up, and though the option isn't called "answered in book", "answered in errata" seemed the most accurate of the buttons available, since it wasn't a FAQ, it's not no response required, and it's not question unclear.

That's very nice, but afaik UI would not normally be considered overruling the PH.

Why not simply FAQ this? Scavion's post is pretty clear.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

This is why we need a FAQ. "answered in errata" is incorrect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MichaelCullen wrote:

The Ranged Tactics Tool box brings up the topic of Scry and Teleport as a recommended tactic.

Here is what it had to say on the subject.
ranged tactics toolbox wrote:

Scry and Teleport: The combination of divination

(scrying) and conjuration (teleportation) spells can make
for a potent offensive option. Scrying can provide vital
information about a foe’s vulnerabilities and defenses
before the spellcaster teleports in to strike at the most
opportune moment—provided she carries off her plan
before the scrying sensor is noticed.

That's not errata.


Scavion wrote:
Yes. If you look at the opening post it even says answered in the errata.

what errata, where?


Has this topic been forgotten? It used to be pretty high up on the number of requested FAQs?


Has this topic been forgotten? It used to be pretty high up on the number of requested FAQs?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

These statements are usually made just to poke fun at the rules and their flaws. There are plenty of cases where the rules either make no sense or just contradict themselves... The sun might be exaggeration, since that thing is many times bigger than Earth. But what about clouds? Chances are they are impossible to see as well, according to RAW. XD

tl/dr: It's just a hyperbolic joke being used to make a valid criticism. Humor has always been used to criticize real issues, after all. ;)

There's no valid point here, at all. The rules here do make sense and do not contradict themselves. (and in fact the rules rarely do so)

"Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment."

The sun is not a "fine detail" nor are clouds. There is no need to make a perception check in the first place.

The issue is that people just are not reading the rules.


Umbral Reaver wrote:
What's the name for someone that takes things like Craft (basketweaving) and claims it proves they're a better roleplayer? That is, taking options that deliberately hinder them or their contribution to the party and act like it's some kind of badge of prestige.

I dont think that taking one rank of a RP skill = deliberately hinder them or their contribution .

I think that Min-Maxer means someone that dumps all the stats that do not directly benefit that characters main role- a Fighter with 18,18,18 5,5,5,- even tho dumping Wisdom is pretty much always a bad idea.

I have played with a guy who dumped Wisdom, and he proved to be far more of a detriment to the party that some dude who spent one skill rank on a background skill. He thought it was HILARIOUS when he got dominated and started killing party members.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is there any way to get this ability without this Fighter archetype? I want a inquisitor to have it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
So, TOZ, in your games, casters dominate play? No use playing anything but a full caster? Or have you "fixed" it?
I haven't run anything but organized play in three or four years, so yes, yes, and no.

OK, then, good example.


Jiggy wrote:


DrDeth, should we add to this list the 15-20 people from when you made a thread specifically asking for gameplay experiences, or were they already counted in the "very few" you were talking about?

Tormsskull "I haven't noticed it in actual play, only heard about it on forums."

PIXIE DUST sez a beastbound witch outdoes the rogue at scouting. That does not mean casters dominate play. That menas one caster in one game is better at one thing.

7thGate sez " I had it happen once, in a 3.0 game" are you counting that?

Create Mr. Pitt sez "Also if I am facing something with a ton of SR and DR and immunities the wizard needs the fighter almost as much as the fighter needs the wizard.

There's never good to be a perfect power parity between classes; but a fully-leveled martial is sometimes the only thing that can actually take down an enemy, even if you hire warriors or summon a ton of creatures."

Lemmy sez "Well... It haven't happened to me, specifically in Pathfinder,..." and goes on to give times when it happened to others. Still, not in his game. I asked for "what actually happened in your games."

MMCJawa " I didn't really encounter caster martial disparity. BUT..."

and so forth.

Yes, you did list a game where you fighter got sidelined at high level, but your cleric ruled. You only played in two games? Great- does this happen all the time, or do you know always play nothing but full casters?

I saw no one admit that in the games they play, casters always dominate. I saw examples of a time they did dominate, sure. But I have played thousands of games, i can give you an example of everything. In fact, in my OP there, I gave an example of when casters did dominate. It happens.

But does it happen consistently in all the games you play?


TOZ wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Then when somebody says "I know there's a C/MD because [ACTUAL GAMEPLAY]", you reply that their experiences don't matter;
I have seen very few people actually claim that in their games, casters dominate in actual game play.
I'm right here.

So, TOZ, in your games, casters dominate play? No use playing anything but a full caster? Or have you "fixed" it?


Matthew Downie wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
I have seen very few people actually claim that in their games, casters dominate in actual game play.
I have seen 45 people claim that casters dominate play except at very low levels, 47 claim that casters dominate play outside of combat, and 23 claim that the game seems balanced between martials and casters. Even if we assume the first two groups are exactly the same people, that's still around two-thirds of forum users who have that problem in actual gameplay.

I have seen the same thing. But there's a HUGE difference between claiming that "casters dominate play" vs "casters dominate play IN MY GAME".

When confronted they usually say their houserules or way of playing prevents casters from dominating play at their table.


Jiggy wrote:
Then when somebody says "I know there's a C/MD because [ACTUAL GAMEPLAY]", you reply that their experiences don't matter;

I have seen very few people actually claim that in their games, casters dominate in actual game play.


1974.


thejeff wrote:
there are arguments against "non-transgender" as well, generally that identifying people specifically by what they are not isn't usually a good idea.

That is Brynn Tannehill wiring that article.


thejeff wrote:
I'd also add that when minorities ask others "please dont use that term, it offends me", they can usually point out either specific linguistic reasons it's offensive or a history of prejudice and discrimination attached to the word.

That article includes such.


thejeff wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Look, I agree with Rynjin! ;-) It's not so much that "cis" is horrible nasty and always a pejorative. It's that us caring and progressive people have learned that when a group tells us "Hey, please dont use that term" we now respond with "Sure, if that's what you want, Ok by me." Often with a qualifier like "Do note, we didn't mean anything pejorative by that term, we used it without meaning offense, sorry."

So then when we ask others to "please dont use that term, it offends me", we expect everyone to be on board with it- with a qualifier, sure.

So then we are shocked when the reply is "you have no right to be offended and we'll keep using that term whether you like it or not- and the fact that you're offended by it means YOU are intolerant" !!

We expect to be treated like we have tried to treat others- and if you're part of a majority group, it doesnt happen.

This just leads to more anger and intolerance.

Thanks for starting this thread, TacticsLion.

It helps though if you've got a replacement for the supposedly offensive term. If you're telling trans people not to use the term "cis" because you don't like it, you really need to be able to say "We think X is preferable." Not "We don't need a special term because we're just regular folks" or even "Just call us normal".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/the-new-c-word_b_5617913.html

"There are perfectly good substitutes as well. In public discussions I frequently use the term "non-transgender" instead of "cisgender." The meaning is apparent without being specifically diminutive of any group. It also doesn't carry the baggage of seeming like academese or being offensive to some.

Often the words don't need to be used at all. When describing someone's sexual orientation, do you really need to use "transgender" or "cisgender" as a prefix to it?

As a result, "cis" and "cisgender" should be used sparingly in public discourse. There are a limited number of circumstances in which they are necessary, appropriate, and ultimately beneficial to the community as a whole."


Andrew Roberts wrote:
Curious if there are any rules governing how masterwork tools work in Core campaign. For example, there is an item called "Training Harness" that gives you +2 to handle animal, but it isn't Core. Would you be able to buy a masterwork tool that does something similar?

This came up, which leads to some silly ideas- the list of mundane gear in Core is not all inclusive. Does this mean that twine, frying pans, marbles and such like dont exist in a Core World?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lissa Guillet wrote:
Privilege is weird. It specifically involves many things you probably aren't aware of. Many little things; tiny little bits that on their own don't amount to much if anything but over the course of a lifetime can have a profound affect or none at all.

Sure. But all of us who live in the USA- or in any First World nation- are "privileged" beyond the fondest hope of someone in Bangladesh or Sudan can even hope for.

And, even those of us who are white, "cis', middle classed, etc have issues- like being overweight or a Senior Citizen or health issues or many other things.

Can I, a overweight "senior" with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Prostate cancer say "Check your Privilege" to a 20-something with perfect health?

"privilege" is so very relative that saying "Check your privilege' is pretty darn insulting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:


The thing about the whole "cis good or bad" debate that gets me all rustled is people like Lazar acting like turnabout is fair play there.

The term "cis scum" is fine to use because trans people have had slurs thrown at them for a long time...and somehow that makes it okay?

That kind of double standard makes communication difficult as well. I don't call black people the N-word or gay people the British word for cigarette because those are appalling words to call people, and they just help to promote racial and social tension among groups.

So deciding that, for some reason, that standard doesn't apply to the other side is baffling to me. It's still a terrible thing to do, and promotes that same social tension.

There's too much of this attitude that payback is inherently righteous in these social justice conversations. Yes, someone called you a bad word. That doesn't give you a chit you can cash in to call someone entirely unrelated a bad word for every time you've heard it.

A lot of these Tumblr blogs and whatnot seem to operate entirely on this principle.

Saying "F&%! all trans people, kill 'em all" is clearly f~#&ing horrendous.

"Die cis scum" and "Kill all men/white men" are somehow then rallying cries, not only acceptable but LAUDABLE (and as many are saying right now in regards to that second, my mere bringing up of this fact merely reinforces the idea that it is a necessary and good idea to spread.).

This is far more of a problem when it comes to these issues than "Talking past people". Talking past someone merely prolongs the discussion, sending it in circles. No progress is made.

The double standards, meanwhile, regress the discussion instead. Negative progress is made. Everyone comes out of the discussion MORE convinced for LESS REASON that their side is right and the other is insane.

Look, I agree with Rynjin! ;-) It's not so much that "cis" is horrible nasty and always a pejorative. It's that us caring and progressive people have learned that when a group tells us "Hey, please dont use that term" we now respond with "Sure, if that's what you want, Ok by me." Often with a qualifier like "Do note, we didn't mean anything pejorative by that term, we used it without meaning offense, sorry."

So then when we ask others to "please dont use that term, it offends me", we expect everyone to be on board with it- with a qualifier, sure.

So then we are shocked when the reply is "you have no right to be offended and we'll keep using that term whether you like it or not- and the fact that you're offended by it means YOU are intolerant" !!

We expect to be treated like we have tried to treat others- and if you're part of a majority group, it doesnt happen.

This just leads to more anger and intolerance.

Thanks for starting this thread, TacticsLion.


Xenre the Vague wrote:
This is a pretty hot topic and has been since 3rd edition (in my experience). Personally, though the wording is a bit fuzzy - because let's be honest, if the wording of the RAW wasn't so muffed up, this would be a very, very short discussion -

No, there is no rule that so worded can't be mis-understood.


Sneaky McSneak wrote:
Can we get an official ruling/faq entry/ errata on this? Infinite casting of anything seems rediculous. By one threads Calculations a lvl 4 caster could create minimum 11,520 gallons of water a day. A half dozen threads are stating the Spells Per Day table does not limit the number of times a cantrip can be cast in a day, only how many you can have prepared.

There already is- it's called "The Rules".


HawaiianWarrior wrote:
Besides, cantrips are so paltry it shouldn't break anyone's game to be able to cast them all day long.

True.

But it really freaks out some of the 3.5 DMs who hate you 'can cast Detect magic all day long". Generally they also banned Warlocks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover wrote:
Everyone reading this thread that is frustrated with loot remember: crafting mundane items may be slow and boring, I get it, but it's still a decent way to get loot.

Well, maybe. But if your DM is into WBL and cuts back loot as you craft, then why bother?


InVinoVeritas wrote:
ElterAgo wrote:

C) Player is upset that his PC's constantly fails will saves, his builds always dump wisdom, 2-3 classes with poor will saves, and never spends the money for anything to protect his mind.

Oh, I've seen this a few times. Unfortunately, it's usually a sign that the player has a low Wisdom. They honestly don't understand that what they're doing doesn't work. Some guidance--and occasionally some flat-out designing the character for them, in extreme cases--is necessary.

Or he dumps everything into offense. In either case, bad designing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This article by the well known author Brynn Tannehill should finalize the debate on the use of "cisgender":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/the-new-c-word_b_5617913.html
"The use of "cis" and "cisgender" should be carefully examined. There are people who strenuously object to these words being applied to them, even if the words come from an academic background. Just as my feelings on certain subjects should be respected, so should the feelings of people who dislike these labels.

It also needs to be asked what using the words gains us....The conclusion of many organizations is that you should not use either "cisgender" or "cis" in any sort of public narrative. ...Even inside the LGBT community the words have a very negative connotation. When someone is referred to as a "cisgender lesbian" or "cis gay man" by a transgender person, it is often in a negative way. The addition of "cis" or "cisgender" is used to imply a certain level of contempt and a desire that they leave discussions on transgender issues. It also implies that they don't, can't, or won't ever understand transgender issues.

...However, using the word "cis" or "cisgender" is not necessary to do so. Just as no one ever called me "tranny" and meant it in a nice or affectionate way, many LGB people have never been called "cis" or "cisgender" in a way that wasn't accusatory. Therefore we find common ground in disliking a word because its context has always been nasty and demeaning when applied to us personally.....As a result, "cis" and "cisgender" should be used sparingly in public discourse."

I agree with the author "The conclusion of many organizations is that you should not use either "cisgender" or "cis" in any sort of public narrative." and I think it's time the Paizo boards joined this movement.


Jiggy wrote:

^Ironically, a situation that only occurs in a system using Vancian casting.

(Also, you're assuming the guy even has haste in his spellbook.)

EDIT: Ninja'd, this was a reply to Redjack_rose.

Or spellpoints. Or mana. Or Power. Or.....

Is there a system where a wizard know every spell there is and only the amount of mana stops him from casting them?

CofC has spells Known. Tunnels & Trolls. Runequest.


voideternal wrote:

I think you disagree because your idea of fun is progressing through the AP.

I've played in a group with a lot of optimal teamwork. 'Teamwork' was the entire party buffing me (the Fighter) and me killing whatever encounter that appeared. We played through an entire AP, very fast.

Every turn was basically the same thing. I hit things, and everyone else used whatever buff was appropriate. It was the most repetative, boring Pathfinder experience I ever had. There was lots of teamwork and lots of wining and lots of boredom.

More or less what we did, and it was HUGE fun.

So, umm, if by game three you werent having fun, why not discuss it with the others and stop?


Redjack_rose wrote:


1st. A simple calculation, is your 1 round of fireball equal to or greater than an entire party under haste for 5+ rounds? If the answer is no, yes you should cast haste.

2nd. Does the buff on you do more for the over all party than on the martial? If no, then cast that buff on the other person.

Why is teamwork such a bad thing. This is honestly a two way street as well. The fighter/martial/whatever receiving a benefit from you should either pull their weight with the gift you gave them, or cede the buff/action to you.

D&D is a team game, not a one on one game. Too many discussion here are focused on what a class or character can do on his own, rather than part of a TEAM.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

How are you guys coming along with Simulacrum, etc FAQs?

1 to 50 of 5,965 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.