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

Durngrun Stonebreaker's page

3,050 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,050 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

When the post that compared me to Hitler (for saying humans don't have tails in Pathfinder) was allowed to stand, I quit flagging any posts.


Natural weapons are handled differently than manufactured weapons. When you make a full attack you can use all your natural attacks. Primary natural attacks are made at your highest BAB and gain your full Str bonus to dmg. Secondary natural attacks are made at your highest BAB but with a -5 penalty and only receive half your Str bonus to dmg.

The Alchemist's claws and bite from Feral Mutagen are primary natural attacks.

The Two-weapon fighting feat has no effect on natural attacks.


If you can meet the Dex requirement, look at Break Guard. With the Foehammer's 7th level ability you can disarm with your hammer, then bash with your shield, bull rush with Shield Slam, and finally, trip at the end of the bull rush.


Mulgar wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

You know, I always hear people ask, "how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?"

My question, If they can't chuck wood, why do we call them a woodchuck!?

Edited to be funnier.

The word "woodchuck" is a misinterpretation of their Native American name "wuchak", which roughly translates as "the digger".

Not funny at all, but true.

I'm still gonna keep using that joke.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If Spiked Shields don't stack with Bashing Shields, then how am I supposed to store them!?
Because as it is they are making a mess all over the forums.


You know, I always hear people ask, "how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?"

My question, If they can't chuck wood, why do we call them a woodchuck!?

Edited to be funnier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

A kobold with a greatsword and CR 1/4 might have the same CR, but he's more dangerous. That's the whole point. Why does half of this thread think the default kobold needs to be more dangerous? Why? I really don't get this, and I feel like it's the main barrier here. Show me there's a reason for you wanting kobolds to not die. Far too keen on what and how, but not so hot on why!

Whoops. Been listening to too much JCS lately. Just kidding there's no such thing.

No, you're right of course Cleavy McKoboldpants. Some creatures were just born to die - that's the meta reason that justifies poor weapon choice and I'm ok with that for mooks. I think all of this stems from the fact that, without changing anything in the standard kobold build other than shortbows I made a gauntlet of an area in a dungeon. The kobolds were secondary; their placement in Full Cover was primary. Suddenly my players freaked saying "HOW COULD KOBOLDS HAVE SHORTBOWS YOURE THE DEVIL!!!" when I started questioning "why NOT?"

There have been a couple of in-game reasons as to their weapons choice in this thread, it just whatever you choose to accept.

(Also their stealth bonus is probably more related to sneaking away as opposed to sneaking up on.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

A kobold with a greatsword and CR 1/4 might have the same CR, but he's more dangerous. That's the whole point. Why does half of this thread think the default kobold needs to be more dangerous? Why? I really don't get this, and I feel like it's the main barrier here. Show me there's a reason for you wanting kobolds to not die. Far too keen on what and how, but not so hot on why!

Whoops. Been listening to too much JCS lately. Just kidding there's no such thing.

Oh, KC, you're are my second favorite poster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or the kobold in the Beastiary is the average kobold, the one adventurers are most likely to run across, and a DM can change the equipment if they want something different.
Or is the idea of all kobolds not being identical just too far fetched?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not if the slaves are trying to kill you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The average kobold is certainly not a farmer.

PRD wrote:
Creatures of deep, dark places, kobolds are masters of tunneling, mining, and setting traps.
PRD wrote:


As creatures of deep caverns and shadowed forests, kobolds have difficulty with light, and even a torch is uncomfortably bright to their eyes. Hence, though they are not naturally nocturnal, they rarely venture to the surface during the day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Did I not link the text you quoted?
One of us is clearly not understanding the other.
I find that to be 90% of forum posts.

And half the fun!


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Did I not link the text you quoted?

One of us is clearly not understanding the other.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Well, that wasn't what you quoted. Please be more specific next time.

Was it not?

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Hydromancer wrote:


PRD, Conditions, Bound wrote:
A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions.
You got a link to this? I'm not finding a "bound" condition in my CRB or the PRD.

Cause it kind of seems like it was...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, there's this.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Pinned condition.

Looking for "bound" condition. You know, exact text not rules pulled out of someone's bum.


Hydromancer wrote:


PRD, Conditions, Bound wrote:
A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions.

You got a link to this? I'm not finding a "bound" condition in my CRB or the PRD.


N N 959 wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
But at the official tables, they aren't going to stack.
I can guarantee you there are PFS GMs who will let them stack regardless of your interpretation.

It's not an interpretation, it's explicitly called out.

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Quote:
Shield Spikes: These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you (see “spiked shields” on Table: Weapons). You can't put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.
Quote:
Bashing: A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger (a Medium light shield thus deals 1d6 points of damage and a Medium heavy shield deals 1d8 points of damage). The shield acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash. Only light and heavy shields can have this ability.
Quote:

Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?

As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).

Just because a PFS GM lets you cheat, doesn't mean it's not cheating.


Everyone pointing out that the FAQ does not address shield spikes and bashing are ignoring the fact that if the devs wanted them to stack, could have easily called out an exemption for shield spikes and bashing in that very same FAQ.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Quote:
Shield Spikes: These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you (see “spiked shields” on Table: Weapons). You can't put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.
Quote:
Bashing: A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger (a Medium light shield thus deals 1d6 points of damage and a Medium heavy shield deals 1d8 points of damage). The shield acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash. Only light and heavy shields can have this ability.
Quote:

Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?

As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).


One side has an extensive FAQ and rules from the CRB and the other side has one guy in a book somewhere, so you can see why it's so hotly debated.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Guru-Meditation wrote:

OP is looking at the equipment from a strictly out-of-game, "i can litterally see the rules the whole world is build upon right before my very own eyes, Matrix-Style" viewpoint, and then determines a best-course of equipping oneself from the near-omniscient base.

In-game creatures do not have this view. They do not know that weapon A is objectively better then weapon B, C and D.

And that not even touching the problems of cost and availability, especially for creatures who are not professional murderhobos 24/7, every month of every year.

Most people generally assume that creatures have an intuitive understanding of the world that correlates to the numbers. It would be reasonable for a creature to understand that a scimitar frequently inflicts nasty wounds, a greataxe is quite inconsistent in the damage it inflicts compared to a greatsword, and a scythe rarely does a lot of damage but when it does...oh boy.

Weapon availability is a concern to a kobold living in a dank cave. Not so much for someone living in a city, who has about as much access to fancy weapons as the typical murder hobo adventurer.

That's assuming the creature in question has seen all of those weapons used frequently enough to draw those conclusions.
Or it's common knowledge. A soldier is quite likely to hear their instructors talk about various commonly seen weapons during training, or from veteran guards while in active service.

I'm not really sure how much instructions or training is given to kobolds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"I'm not arguing with you. I'm explaining why I'm right."


You cannot use natural attacks and flurry (you can flurry with a natural attack if you have the right feat) because of rules.

PRD wrote:
A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks.

Notice if you were unable to combine unarmed strikes and natural attacks period, then this line becomes redundant.

PRD wrote:
A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
Guru-Meditation wrote:

OP is looking at the equipment from a strictly out-of-game, "i can litterally see the rules the whole world is build upon right before my very own eyes, Matrix-Style" viewpoint, and then determines a best-course of equipping oneself from the near-omniscient base.

In-game creatures do not have this view. They do not know that weapon A is objectively better then weapon B, C and D.

And that not even touching the problems of cost and availability, especially for creatures who are not professional murderhobos 24/7, every month of every year.

Most people generally assume that creatures have an intuitive understanding of the world that correlates to the numbers. It would be reasonable for a creature to understand that a scimitar frequently inflicts nasty wounds, a greataxe is quite inconsistent in the damage it inflicts compared to a greatsword, and a scythe rarely does a lot of damage but when it does...oh boy.

Weapon availability is a concern to a kobold living in a dank cave. Not so much for someone living in a city, who has about as much access to fancy weapons as the typical murder hobo adventurer.

That's assuming the creature in question has seen all of those weapons used frequently enough to draw those conclusions.


If you have Courageous then you want at least a +4 weapon in order to get the full benefit.


I think if pinned or tied up was supposed to make you helpless then that condition would be listed in the grapple rules.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Because the Beastiary has average kobolds and not kobolds with a backstory?


Yes, why wouldn't it?


Samasboy1 wrote:
James Risner wrote:

Can you wield a Greatsword in two off hands? Is there a rule for that? No.

There is a rule that Light and One Handed weapons in the primary hand (which you only have one) can gain the 1.5x STR. The Two Handed weapon rules take "both" hands. Both hands on a human means 1 primary and 1 off hand. It does not mean two off hands.

I think the rules are pretty unclear, and don't really support side because of that.

But I think you are stretching here.

The rules for Two Handed weapons just say,

Two Handed Weapons wrote:
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon (see FAQ at right for more information.

Note: "Two," not "both." Not "Primary and off," just "two."

Yes, the rules normally assume a two armed biped, but that doesn't change that it only requires "two," nothing further. Any thing additional is being added by you.

So Yes, there are rules allow a greatsword in two off hands, but it only requires two hands.

Beyond that....much more murky.

It requires reading in context.

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
PRD wrote:

Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.

PRD wrote:
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.
PRD wrote:
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
Two-Handed weapons require a primary and an off-hand.

Note that this isn't pulled from all over the rule book. This is all from the same page, all under one heading. You don't have to like it, you don't have to use it, but it seems silly to deny its existence.


PRD wrote:

Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.

PRD wrote:
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.
PRD wrote:
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.

Two-Handed weapons require a primary and an off-hand.


Dethmunki wrote:
So if I have two claws and a bite, could I take an extra arm with a claw and do three claw attacks? Would that be a legal yet rule-manipulative way to do things?

Only your DM knows for sure.


Alchemist with Strafe Bomb plus whatever.


Claxon wrote:

You seem to have a lot of misunderstandings about how things work.

1) You can never make iterative attacks with natural attacks. Each natural attack (not natural attack type but each individual natural attack) can be used only once.

2) If you had a bite and the claw mutations you could make 2 claw attacks and 1 bite attack each round.

3) If you had the claw mutation, the bite attack, and vestigial arms you would physical possess 3 arms with 3 claws. However, your extra arms doesn't grant extra attacks. You could still only make 2 claws and a bite. You could hold a weapon in the 3rd hand, or a potion, or something else. You could also make 1 weapon attack, a bite (at a -5 since combining with a weapon attack), and a claw (also at -5).

Primary and secondary natural attack types are defined in the section about natural attacks in general.

Quote:

Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.

Some natural attacks are denoted as secondary natural attacks, such as tails and wings. Attacks with secondary natural attacks are made using your base attack bonus minus 5. These attacks deal an amount of damage depending on their type, but you only add half your Strength modifier on damage rolls.

You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a

...

Natural weapons are not restricted by the primary/off-hand paradigm so if you had three claws on three arms you could take all three attacks even if one of the claws is on a vestigial arm.


Dethmunki wrote:

In the Monster Codex for Goblins, at the bottom of the page there is an entry for making Mutant Goblins. One such goblin can have a number of mutations, including "Extra Arms", which functions as the Vestigial Limb discovery, and "Claws", which states that each hand grows claws and she gains a natural attack for each hand.

On top of that, even if you only assume that it would function with it's two existing hands, these natural attacks are not listed as primary or secondary, so along with a bite attack that a goblin can get in a multitude of ways, a Goblin with 2 claws and a Bite attack can only ever get a single natural attack, if I'm reading RAW correctly. No matter how much BAB it accrues or how many limbs it gets, it can never attack more than once with it's natural weapons.

Can somebody please correct me? I know this can't be how it works and would like some clarification.

When you make a full attack, you can make one attack with every natural weapon you have (provided they are not doing something else).


More bike path news.


I blame the schools.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ceaser Slaad wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Ceaser Slaad wrote:
TheAntiElite wrote:
This discussion of the recent happenings in my hometown gives me hope, as the mandatory attempt to derail with whinging over intraracial crime was summarily ignored as the red herring it is.

Say what you want. Believe what you want. Bury your head as far down in the sand as you feel comfy. The incredibly sad, stone cold, multiply documented truth is that the most dangerous thing a black male will ever encounter ... is another black male.

Note that this is a cultural/"learned" behavior problem. It is NOT a problem that is any more inherent in the genetic/biological make up of black people than it is for any other group of people one could define. If the culture breaks down in certain ways then various things will happen.

The good news in all of this is that as one is dealing with a problem that results from learned behavior then it can potentially be fixed. At least in some of the broader aspects. But of course that can't possibly happen as long as the entire issue is dismissed as a "red herring". But hey, somebody got the chance to rag on a "conservative" point of view and that must be the only thing that counts.

IT IS a red herring in the context of a discussion about how white cops interact with black communities.

There is absolutely no value in the following conversation:

"There is a problem that is deep in the community; society is collectively treating black people like second-class citizens, and in particular cops seem to think that beating, or shooting black people is something they need to do at a far greater rate than other colors of people."

"Say what you want. Believe what you want. Bury your head as far down in the sand as you feel comfy. The incredibly sad, stone cold, multiply documented truth is that the most dangerous thing a black male will ever encounter ... is another black male."

Do you understand how (even if it is true, which I don't accept) that the statement in that

...

So we shouldn't worry about police brutality as long as crime still exists?


That's too fine a hair to split for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Shield Spikes: These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you (see “spiked shields” on Table: Weapons). You can't put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.
Quote:
Bashing: A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger (a Medium light shield thus deals 1d6 points of damage and a Medium heavy shield deals 1d8 points of damage). The shield acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash. Only light and heavy shields can have this ability.
Quote:

Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?

As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).


Doomed Hero wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
One attack or multiple attacks, it's clearly not intended to work with pounce or pounce like effects. Are you really trying to argue that Pummeling Style isn't at least similar to pounce?
It is a single attack, where pounce is multiple attacks. Thats a pretty big difference.

They are both full attacks at the end of a charge.


One attack or multiple attacks, it's clearly not intended to work with pounce or pounce like effects. Are you really trying to argue that Pummeling Style isn't at least similar to pounce?


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Well, apparently, they are two handed weapons.
No, they are Ranged weapons, they require two hands to use.

Which, are two handed weapons, sometimes, but not, other times?

They sometimes count, but other times don't?

When does this occur?

Why would rules, and FAQs, covering two-handed weapons, apply to the Bow, if the Bow is not a two-handed weapon?

Are there written rules noting when Bows do, and do not, count as two-handed weapons?

Are Light weapons one-handed weapons? They require one hand to use.

No.

You are, sort of proving my point.

Short sword-Light Weapon-requires one hand

Long sword-One-Handed Weapon-requires one hand
Great sword-Two-Handed Weapon-requires two hands
Longbow-Ranged Weapon-requires two hands

Requiring one hand does not make a weapon a One-Handed weapon.
Requiring two hands does not make a weapon a Two-Handed weapon.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Well, apparently, they are two handed weapons.
No, they are Ranged weapons, they require two hands to use.

Which, are two handed weapons, sometimes, but not, other times?

They sometimes count, but other times don't?

When does this occur?

Why would rules, and FAQs, covering two-handed weapons, apply to the Bow, if the Bow is not a two-handed weapon?

Are there written rules noting when Bows do, and do not, count as two-handed weapons?

Are Light weapons one-handed weapons? They require one hand to use.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Well, apparently, they are two handed weapons.

No, they are Ranged weapons, they require two hands to use.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
It would seem not.

Then why do you think you would be able to use them with a ranged weapon when using two hands?


blackbloodtroll wrote:

See, you can't have it both ways.

Does the Overhand Chop, and Backswing ability of the Two-Handed Fighter work with Bows?

Two-Handed Fighter wrote:

Overhand Chop (Ex)

At 3rd level, when a two-handed fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls.

This ability replaces Armor Training 1.

Two-Handed Fighter wrote:

Backswing (Ex)

At 7th level, when a two-handed fighter makes a full-attack with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls for all attacks after the first.

This ability replaces Armor Training 2.

Note: Neither of these abilities specify Melee weapons. So, if a Bow is a Two-handed Weapon, then these abilities must apply.

Can you use either of those abilities with a one-handed weapon when using two hands?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Hee, hee. You see his "rod of wonder."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

"Immune to fear"

If taken literally, means a lot of bad things.

Only if you confuse immunity with ignorance.


graystone wrote:
thaX wrote:


Why, when all is said and done, would a ranged weapon using two hands to attack with would be any different than a Two Handed melee weapon? Or a One Handed weapon used with both hands?
Why would a crossbow that requires those SAME two hands to use only require 1 to attack with (and I assume one 'hand')? The same logic should apply to both, since both use two hands...

Because of a specific rule in the crossbow description.

1 to 50 of 3,050 << 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.