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

Ion Raven's page

815 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 815 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Trains everywhere. Tracks that can meld into the ground and reform when a train is coming. Also Air Conditioner. Make sure you separate rich magic areas from the poor and magic lacking areas.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
WHIP BOW.

The exotic weapon, the Whip Bow (or Bow Whip). This magnificent contraption rolls up a whip in spindle and when it's released the whip crackles 10 feet forward causing 2d8 non lethal damage. It takes a full minute to reload unless the wielder is proficient with the Bow Whip in which case the reload time is reduced to a standard action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So much what Jess said. Did she read my Mind!?

Anywho, I don't want to repeat myself so I'll just quote myself :P

Ion Raven wrote:
A man who's suave and strong. You know without the overbearing muscles but more than the lanky bards or wizards often depicted. Seltyiel would be awesome if he weren't so emo. There aren't enough clean but masculine men depicted in the sword and sorcery artwork, especially some that show off a tight but athletic body. If you ever get someone that would fit the build they're covered in armor an usually a Paladin and usually chaste as a monk, and if not chaste they usually end up being full of themself. It's like there is no middle ground for men, they're almost all the extreme all the time. =/


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
No paladins? NO PALADINS? :D

>:3 It's probably for the best, you'd prolly have arguments with you Pallies and then question why they don't like you. Jk

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
What be my favored weapon?

:o

I'm juggling between a whip and a crossbow.


A man who's suave and strong. You know without the overbearing muscles but more than the lanky bards or wizards often depicted. Seltyiel would be awesome if he weren't so emo. There aren't enough clean but masculine men depicted in the sword and sorcery artwork, especially some that show off a tight but athletic body. If you ever get someone that would fit the build they're covered in armor an usually a Paladin and usually chaste as a monk, and if not chaste they usually end up being full of themself. It's like there is no middle ground for men, they're almost all the extreme all the time. =/


Kelsey, you could be the Goddess of Creation and Freedom (Chaos :p)

I will also nominate Mister Fishy the God of Sarcasm and the Sea


I guess I would be more impressed if the men were less often bulging masses of meat and I dunno more sexy. I mean, I guess those guys should get their share of attention, but where's all my sexy eye candy hiding?


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
I hereby suggest that nobody gets the Good or Evil domains. Nobody.

Well alignment could get tricky because TOZ could be described as Lawful/Chaotic Evil/Good Neutral.


Well derp. I guess I shouldn't have expected this to be new with the length of times these forums have been around. (Though the last time anyone posted in any of them was shortly before I even got into Tabletop RPGs)

I guess I should just necro some threads then?


*hugs Kelsey* You can can't me as a friend even though I'm just a mysterious ghost :p


I'm nominating TOZ as the Great and Mysterious Head of the Pantheon

Domains: Life, Death, Knowledge

Sometimes I wonder if he's really Odin


Just thinking it would be fun to create some sort of Paizo Pantheon to highlight notable posters. ;p

So just nominate any poster and what position should be and domains you think they should control.


Well not everyone can be the wise and powerful TOZ. If he has any dissenters they will rarely speak out against for fear of his god powers.


I've no problems with you. In fact I like you and your ideas.

You are all over the place and the more ubiquitous you become the more likely someone is going to butt heads with you. I mean, look how many haters deities wind up with. Don't worry about them though, because there are people that actually like you.


Wrexham3 wrote:
A cloud you can stand on and fly? There was an old programme on British TV called 'Monkey' which had one of these. I think the programme was Japanese originally.

I was actually thinking of more of a pet cloud, but one you can ride would be cool too. I think the idea of cloud riding, along with the extending pole, came from some old Chinese story that had a Monkey King that could do this or something like that.


I'm a fan of the feather, but a wind instrument such as a flute or an ocarina could work too.

Something that could be really awesome though is a miniature cloud.


Aw ><; Well then, I guess I'd choose the paint. Mostly because it looks fun.


:3 I would be very disappointed if someone didn't get the theme after seeing this list of items (it was obvious to me after the second item) anyway, I would totally pick the clock. (Now to see what it does)

Spoiler:
I love Alice in Wonderland! It would be pretty cool if it had time stop once per day. I'm not sure if I'm not supposed to be able to take it because it's missing. ?_?


Does this system mean you can't choose which Skills you have? So Fighters could never get better at Perception? What if you want to make a Wizard that is good at Stealth?


Just wondering, did any of these issues get resolved? I mean it's been long since I've houseruled this thing, but does anyone know what was actually intended for this revelation?


><; I remember when I was new to these forums and I questioned the "Sacred Cows" like Alignment oh so much. That was fun... or not fun... well to say the least it was a learning experience.

While I do understand that games vary from person to person, there's merit in understanding what is preferred over a large group of people. Honestly, I think there's a big difference in the demographics of those that post here and those that play Pathfinder. I am the only one of my friends who posts on these forums that I know of.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Any setting that contains chainmail bikinis but lacks chainmail shorts would severely stretch my limits of verisimilitude.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Ion Raven wrote:
Aranna wrote:
3- The internal alignment logic supports the drift into evil of someone willing to kill someone for NO other reason than to earn a status class. If you kill someone because they are of political group Beta, because you were paid to, or because they are evil than you have FAILED to meet the requirement since there IS another reason you killed him.

So if you kill someone because you enjoy it, because they pissed you off, because you didn't like the way they looked, because someone asked you to, you have still FAILED to meet the requirement since there IS another reason you killed him.

Which is what I was getting at with my narrative on page 6. ;p

It is literally impossible to become an assassin in accordance of that silly prereq without metagaming. There's also no justification on how killing someone grants those skills.

I agree with you that it's a silly prerequisite, however it's not literally impossible. One could conceive of an initiation rite where the prospective assassin performs various tests and so forth - finishing with being given their first hit by the guildmaster.

That's obviously not present in the flavor material, but I always understood prestige classes to require extra DM work anyhow on that side of things.

I know that, but if the GM is making stuff to have it work for you, then why must it be an evil occupation? Why can't you have political targets? There's a lot of people that will claim that the CRB is supposed to be setting neutral, so why make assassin's evil? I haven't actually gotten into novels where there was an assassin's guild that existed purely for the evulz.

There's a lot of dancing around between the two prerequisites. Either one just makes the other one unneeded and highly limiting. It's like dealing with religious fanatics who will quote certain passages and interpret them in a way that proves their point, and then when it's argued against they'll come up with some other justification even if it coincides with their previous defense. And when that is argued they go back to their first point.

What I've learned is that there is not really any justification for the Assassin being evil other than that's how Gygax wanted it. I guess I'm done with this thread, unless there's an actual legitimate reason other than that that hasn't been brought up.


A lot of threads also come from playing in a certain play style or house rules and making an observation from that perspective.

When you get to play under a lot of GMs you find out that wizards can be broken in one game and useless in another.


Aranna wrote:
3- The internal alignment logic supports the drift into evil of someone willing to kill someone for NO other reason than to earn a status class. If you kill someone because they are of political group Beta, because you were paid to, or because they are evil than you have FAILED to meet the requirement since there IS another reason you killed him.

So if you kill someone because you enjoy it, because they pissed you off, because you didn't like the way they looked, because someone asked you to, you have still FAILED to meet the requirement since there IS another reason you killed him.

Which is what I was getting at with my narrative on page 6. ;p

It is literally impossible to become an assassin in accordance of that silly prereq without metagaming. There's also no justification on how killing someone grants those skills.


Just listing some threads that come up often enough. This is all for good humor.

Alignment threads

  • Is [x] evil? (killing, looting, necromancy, summoning, kicking the dog, etc)
  • Why is there an alignment restriction for [x] class? (Paladin, Barbarian, Assassin)
  • Player is playing outside of his/her alignment
  • Players who play [x] alignment always so anti-social. (Chaotic Stupid, Lawful Stupid, Stupid Evil, Stupid Good)
  • What alignment is [x]? (Batman, Dexter, etc)
  • What good is necromancy and/or how do I remove it from my game?

    Genre Threads

  • Why is there [x] in my Fantasy? (Guns, Psionics, Asia, Steampunk)
  • I hate [x]. (Gunslingers, Psions, Monks, Alchemists)

    Fighter / Wizard Threads

  • I hate the fighter, why is it so underpowered?
  • I love the fighter, why would anyone think it's underpowered?
  • OMG, Wizards are OP
  • Wizards take work to be good with
  • 15 minute adventuring day
  • Ways to buff the fighter
  • Ways to nerf the caster

    Game Master Threads

  • Fudging
  • Using Rule 0
  • Ruthless vs Coddling Styles
  • How to make a game Gritty
  • How to make a game Low-Magic
  • Using DMPCs

    Economy, Shops, and Magic Items Threads

  • Fixing Crafting
  • Fixing Shop Prices
  • Removing Magic Items from Stores

    Vancian Threads

  • Why have Vancian Casting?
  • How to remove Vancian casting.


  • Let me just point out that I wasn't trying to argue that Barbarian's rage makes them easier to kill, just that there are times when a Barbarian is more likely to be targeted until they are dead in comparison to their companions.

    I actually like the barbarian, and find them less intensive on the thought process than building a fighter.


    I remember watching the Black Cauldron a long time ago, but I don't actually remember the movie, it's so weird. I preferred the book though, which I can remember, the weirdest part was after reading the book I realized I had seen the movie some time ago.


    8 people marked this as a favorite.

    Without an assassin's guild, which the fluff makes no indication that such a thing exists or even needs to exist, the only way to become one is by virtue metagaming.

    Swordfighter Joe: Hey, Deathblade, why did you become an assassin?

    Deathblade: To learn to resist poison and hinder ressurection.

    Joe: That's cool, so how did you pull that off?

    Deathblade: By killing a random guy.

    Joe: What? I've killed people before too, what does that have to do with being an assassin?

    Deathblade: Yes, but my purpose for killing him was to become an assassin.

    Joe: I'm not seeing the link. So you killed some guy and you randomly learned to become an assassin?

    Deathblade: No, my purpose for killing him couldn't have been to become an assassin if I didn't know it was going to happen, so it's not like it could've happened randomly Joe derp.

    Joe: Yeah okay... So how did you know who to kill?

    Deathblade: It was random

    Joe: So how did you know killing him was going to make you an assassin?

    Deathblade: ...
    ...
    ...
    Magic?

    Joe:...
    So did killing that guy give you some weird assassin magic that taught you?

    Deathblade: Don't be stupid, I'm not magic. My abilities are totally mundane and not magical.

    Joe: But you said... Fine whatever. So what was the link between killing that guy and resisting poisons and keeping people dead?

    Deathblade: ...
    Look do you question why Paladins get magical horses or weapons?

    Joe: Well the Paladins are infused with positive energy and generally have gods... You on the other hand...

    Deathblade assassinates Joe to keep the the chastity of the 4th wall pure.


    Fighter takes 30 damage, goes below 0. Is bleeding out, enemy focuses on another target. If the enemy is defeated soon, the fighter can be stabilized and cured.

    Raging barbarian takes 30 damage, barbarian is still standing. Then enemy attacks the Barbarian for another 30 damage, the barbarian goes below 0, the barbarian is dead. Even if the enemy is dead soon, there is a really expensive cost to rez that barbarian.

    Also note that a skilled fighter is more likely to have better AC and thus get hit less often than the raging barbarian. The barbarian generally makes up for this by generally being able to kill an enemies faster, thus sometimes it's more advantageous for the enemies to take out the barbarian first.

    If a combat ever lasts more than 4 turns, you're probably spending a lot of resources on the barbarian.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    The assassin class doesn't have the flavor that the other classes have. It's just a person that kills. The whole "evil" prerequisites that are latched onto it is obviously added as an afterthought. The description mentions how being assassin will likely lead one to evil (which doesn't even make sense if they have to be evil in the first place), but it doesn't give any description or imagery of how it leads to evil. There are no examples of the evil that is the assassin. Instead of giving flavor to the class (as there are not really examples or descriptions or imagery of how this assassin is so evil and in fact talks a lot about how it's just shady) it suffocates the class from interesting concepts.

    The mechanics (resistance to poison, preventing the dead from rising) could go hand in hand with the neutral god Pharasma in keeping terrible people from rising unrightfully and putting down those who Pharasma has judged finished with their life; a sort of reaper flavor. It shares all the flavor minus the evil prereqs.

    Political Assassins work too. Flavor minus the evil prereqs. Mechanics make sense.

    The prereqs don't even inquire whether or not there's an assassin guild, making the one wonder if the character is aware of "classes" in game, because if not, who is deciding what this target is? Is there some knowledge floating around that if you kill a person with the intent to learn to become immune to poison and obstruct resurrection, that killing a person will lead to that!?

    The prereqs don't have any fluff to support it and shoot down a lot of interesting concepts.


    It depends on whether your enemies are just trying to incapacitate you or outright kill you. A fighter that goes below 0 gets knocked out and the enemy usually goes after the still active threats. One cannot incapacitate a raging barbarian (or a character with diehard) without outright killing them.


    I thought you were just making things up until Bedknobs and Broomsticks. I guess I really don't know a lot of Disney movies. D:


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    You should have the zombies wreck their stronghold, so they have to keep up the maintenance in their downtime. Also zombie bodies might pile up and poison their supplies and create obstacles if they aren't busy burning or removing the corpses.


    Gordon the Whale wrote:
    @IonRaven: I'm calculating statistics for the card method, but I'd like a clarification of the method: When you are adding +2 to two stats, can you add +2 to a 17, in order to get an 18? Or can you only add +2 to 16 or below?

    16 and below. I wouldn't even know what formula to get statistics. Good luck with that.


    Vash the Stampede: as much as I love Trigun, he follows a code that constantly gets him in trouble, the absolute unwillingness to kill. On the other hand, near the end of the series they show how others suffer through his actions.


    It's not even about different damage types, it's also about the fact that the same amount of damage is not the same amount of damage with the way HP works.


    Finn K wrote:
    Ion Raven wrote:
    Seriously though, the card method. It gives one a pretty organic and varied array and it avoids the power disparity that can be created by dice methods.

    IR--

    What'cha think of my sample results from the card-draw method you mentioned? (immediately below the post I'm replying to)

    Yeah, they're actually pretty potent, but they prevent multiple dump stats and are actually IMO kinder to MAD classes. You can also change the strength of the numbers by changing the cards used, For example (4 sixes, 4 fives, 4 fours, 4 threes, 2 twos) gives you an extremely powerful character while (3 sixes, 3 fives, 3 fours , 3 threes, 4 twos, 2 ones) gives out much weaker characters especially if you take away the +2 bonuses to two stats; though something along the lines of (2 sixes, 4 fives, 4 fours, 4 threes, 4 twos) might be better for more average characters.

    You also have to keep in mind that this before applying Racial bonuses, that along with the +2 to any stat gives a lot of flexibility (I also let my players decide what stats their numbers go into)

    My players actually enjoyed this method and it was great because I didn't have to worry about high rolls and low rolls and it kept them from excessive min-maxing.

    Going in order though also makes it great for creating random NPC stats.


    mege wrote:
    Ion Raven wrote:

    The problem with the Assassin with an Evil alignment restriction is that there just isn't enough background or mechanics to justify it.

    Paladin, virtue of order and goodness who channels positive energy to heal teammates and smites evil - Good.

    Lich infused with negative energy, most likely ruined many souls, gave up on humanity - Most likely Evil.

    Assassin... Kills people (just like all adventurers)... for money (So mercenaries are evil?) ... Well Assassins are sadistic (Uh, if you play it that way, but why must you play a sadist, why make a class just for sadists?)... Well they have death attacks (Why is that evil? Is it really an action with an evil descriptor? It's not even Necromancy)...

    Any justification for why the assassin must be evil is either making stuff up or insulting everyone else or both. If you're going to go through the trouble of houseruling or interjecting your own fluff why go through all the trouble to restrict a set of class abilities which are pretty alignment neutral to certain alignment?

    I disagree with your relativism regarding the Assassin in particular. I would contend that 'good-aligned' adventurers generally shouldn't be killing sentients (except in the defense of others). The evil necromancer in the tower causing problems kidnapping/raping/murdering - sure, go kill him, even make a profit off of it especially if you're NG/CG, but don't lose much sleep over it.

    And yes, a mercenary troupe which murders mostly-innocent individuals to circumvent common-law justice for money would probably be considered evil IMO. This is counter to: a mercenary group that just 'attaches' to an army for a common defense. In general - the 'soldiers for hire' type mercs are probably neither good or evil intrinsically. IMO war/soldiers aren't evil generally because of the 'honor' part - they're defending their land or fighting for a righteous ideal (even sometimes over two psudo-opposed righteous ideals). There may be some that are blood thirsty, even in a righteous army - but in general I see protagonist soldiers as being LN. There is also a concept of honorable combat to most 'good' folks - dueling and a field of battle, even to the death, aren't evil and can have ultimately good outcomes (by a swift resolution of a disagreement). Killing someone in itself is not evil, but killing someone when a reasonable alternative still exists is. I think that many people don't look for enough alternatives...

    Also, back to assassins in particular, much of the 'common fluff' in D&D and Pathfinder has using poisons as pretty Evil. Death attack preventing a 'good god's intervention' of ressurection also seems pretty not-good as well.

    I think in general my disagreement with most is how 'low' many people set the bar for good-aligned characters. One of the few times I've vocally disagreed with one of my co-players is when a chaos-cult member tried to surrender to the (mostly good) party and they just killed him anyhow. The NPC was perfectly prepared to surrender and give the party information after a little bit of chiding, but instead they murdered him while he was on his knees, cowering with his hands above his head (he was never agressive to them).

    Therefore making my point. You're placing addendums to what it means to be evil to include poisons or stopping resurrection. You're adding fluff to say that it's part of some group that was never stated in the book.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Adamantine Dragon wrote:


    Give me some examples of heroic fantasy heroes who use no or poor tactics and rely on their pure heart to win the day.

    Beowulf? Nope. Trained soldier. Leader of men in combat.

    LOLwhat?

    You mean the Beowulf who swam for a week in the ocean in a competition against his friend?
    You mean the Beowulf who ripped off the arm of Grendel (a giant) with his bare hands?
    You mean the Beowulf who swam underneath a dark marsh alone and weilded a giant sword to kill Grendel's grieving mother?
    You mean Beowulf who took on a Dragon with only the help of his cousin because everyone else ran off scared?

    I just find it ironic that the first of your examples is probably the poorest and actually antithetical to your statement.

    Maybe not pure heart, but definitely headstrong and one of the shining examples of what people use to define epic heroism.


    Feral wrote:

    I tend to agree with the OP's issues.

    The way most games are run players are actively discouraged from doing anything particularly heroic. Sure, it makes sense for the heroes to team up to defeat the dragon that's 20 times their size but what about the human villain. When the 5th level party finally encounters the CR 7 BBEG (a 8th level rogue) they will just surround and pummel him. What happened to the days when the paladin would defeat the villain in single combat?

    Flanking Bonuses

    Sneak Attack
    5 foot Step


    Wow, there are a lot of comments along the lines of "Combat is gritty, get over heroism" as if the GM has no control of it. The GM runs the game, if someone on the side dies, it's because the NPCs attacked someone on the sidelines and let that person die (or the PCs are especially heinous and attacked the sideliner). If the game is gritty, it's because the GM willed it to be so.

    This GM asked how to encourage heroic behavior, and yet there are so many who tell him to get over it and act like there is nothing he can do. It's not true and it's discouraging.

    Rule 0 - You run the game, rules are a guideline, you can change them to keep the game fun and to fit your setting.

    Anyway, the default rules encourage the players to gang up on enemies by making that more advantageous. Flanking bonuses, sneak attacks, more chances of attacks of opportunity, 5foot steps. To encourage the opposite behavior (taking enemies one to one rather than ganging up on a single one) will be extremely difficult without changing the rules or adding bonuses to make one-to-one more advantageous and keeping it interesting once honorable behavior is encouraged will require multiple enemies (to keep all the PCs involved).


    Steve Geddes wrote:
    To quibble though, if you kill someone SOLELY for the purpose of deriving a personal benefit, I still think its going to meet most people's definition of evil - don't you? (their moral character is irrelevant if you didn't factor that into your action. If you did, then you haven't met the admission requirements).

    Definitely non-good. Though if it was someone who had it coming you might be able argue neutral.

    And if we're going to get technical here, those that actually take pleasure in killing would also be banned from the class. So you can't be too evil.

    Anyway that's just another prereq that limits the concepts. My point was that unlike the Paladin and Lich where both the imagery and the mechanics ooze of which alignment they should be, the Assassin's fluff is maybe kind of evil sometimes and the mechanics are only as evil as anything the rogue gets and less evil than what a necromancer (who need not be evil) can do.


    Steve Geddes wrote:
    "Anyone must murder an innocent to join our club".

    My book said that an Assassin must kill another for the sole purpose of being an assassin. I'm not sure when they made the addendum that it must be an innocent and couldn't be a bad guy.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Adamantine Dragon wrote:
    Assassins, by definition, take money to kill people. That's pretty evil by most reasonable definitions. If you want to play a killer for hire who has scruples, play a rogue or a monk. Assassins don't have scruples. That's what "assassin" means.

    Uh, where does it say that Assassin's don't have scruples I must've missed that part. I'm not sure where you're getting your definition of "assassin". So now assassins can never refuse a payment nor can they refuse to kill someone they feel doesn't deserve it. That's way more restrictive than the Paladin class. However, I think I just found the easiest way to kill an assassin, pay the assassin to kill him/herself.


    Hopefully that was the last of the Aranna&Finn convo so we can back to learning about new and interesting ways to generate stats.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    The problem with the Assassin with an Evil alignment restriction is that there just isn't enough background or mechanics to justify it.

    Paladin, virtue of order and goodness who channels positive energy to heal teammates and smites evil - Good.

    Lich infused with negative energy, most likely ruined many souls, gave up on humanity - Most likely Evil.

    Assassin... Kills people (just like all adventurers)... for money (So mercenaries are evil?) ... Well Assassins are sadistic (Uh, if you play it that way, but why must you play a sadist, why make a class just for sadists?)... Well they have death attacks (Why is that evil? Is it really an action with an evil descriptor? It's not even Necromancy)...

    Any justification for why the assassin must be evil is either making stuff up or insulting everyone else or both. If you're going to go through the trouble of houseruling or interjecting your own fluff why go through all the trouble to restrict a set of class abilities which are pretty alignment neutral to certain alignment?


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I've been in games that used alignments at character creation that worked out fine... but that's because alignment never really came up afterwards.

    Alignment gets stupid when you're playing with someone who decides that they're becoming too good for their neutral alignment and must balance it out with committing a little evil...

    Alignment detection gets really stupid when the strength of their evil aura is not dependent upon the atrocities that they've committed or plan to commit but by their character level.

    Alignment spells and effects don't really work all that well with grey areas and gradients. They would work better and make much more sense if instead of "Good" it was a Holy alignment, and "Evil" only referred to those tainted and tied to the darkness.

    Anytime I've ever seen alignment mentioned in a game outside of character creation that didn't deal with the obvious exaggerated Evil/Good, was an annoyance and was always an issue (even if everybody just sighed and said, "fine whatever") and often caused some weird inconsistencies and metagaming.


    Something that could be really awesome if done right would be the inclusion a gun that "casts" certain spells through the use of ammo. The ammo could then replace things like alchemical fire.

    Just a thought, but my mind is going into an awesome place where Alchemists create ammo for said guns instead of bombs.


    Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
    I'm also planning a Magus with divine casting. Stack that with a gun magus, and it is good.

    Why stick a Magus with Divine magic? Wouldn't it be easier to use an Inquisitor as the base?

    1 to 50 of 815 << 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.