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

Irontruth's page

5,167 posts (5,169 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 5,167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Put more clues without NPC interaction into the castle. When thinking of the big clues that push the plot forward, I never require a roll to discover. The clue is still up to player interpretation, and if they want to know something about it or gain an advantage, they need to roll. Secondary clues must be searched for and need a successful roll.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Huh, I wonder if I can work that into my barbarians a little.

We had just made characters and were having our little intro scene. We determined my barbarian and the paladin knew each other and were friends (they met in a bar fight). We're at a crossroads, in the ruins of an inn, a common resting point. Also present:

-2 thugs
-a merchant group
-pilgrims bringing a dying elder to a holy place

The thugs start ruffing up the pilgrims, demanding their stuff. I walk over and have the following exchange:

Me "Hey, how about we kill them and split their stuff."
Thug "Go away, we saw these guys first, we've got dibs."
Me -pointing at the thug- "Dibs"

We fought them briefly and scared them off. Not being one to violate dibs, I left the pilgrims alone, though they did reward me for protecting them.

While in a dungeon we had accidentally befriended some kobolds. They had been kicked out of their home by troglodytes, so we allied with the kobolds, since the trogs were the bigger problem (the kobolds had been hiding under the village for centuries without incident). While going through the caves I found some religious idols and wanting to be a great thief, I felt that stealing those idols was the equivalent of stealing their gods (he wasn't too bright).

After dispatching the trogs, we relocated the surviving kobolds (maybe 5 out of 80 left) into the village proper. My barbarian seeing himself as the champion of the village wanted to be declared mayor, so in an attempt to secure the kobold vote, he gave them their idols back. The town neither had a mayor, nor did it elect it's leaders. Since he was running unopposed and had 5 votes, he declared himself mayor. He then promptly left town, never to return.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I've actually made the mistake of running my Neutral characters as if they were Good. I usually follow that with indignant rationalization of their actions.

I had a CG barbarian who appeared to be violent, reckless, amoral and uncaring. If you paid attention in hindsight though, he was always accidentally helping people and never killed anyone who wasn't already planning on killing him. It was my interpretation of consequences>intentions. He intended to maim, slaughter and steal, but the consequences was protecting the innocent and giving back to the needy.

I game with 4 different groups (something like 7 or 8 campaigns between them).

1. I have a lot of free time on my hands
2. I have lots of friends

It is whatever you determine it to be for your game.

Strong Willed

+2 trait bonus against charm and compulsion.

Had this on a dwarf druid in a Kingmaker campaign. I poured it on with Iron Will and later the improved version. A couple times I hit the jackpot and had to save against fey that were trying to charm/compel. I pretty much never failed a will save, maybe 2-3 times the whole adventure path.

Jean Michael Jarre - Oxygene
My dad had this on vinyl when I was a kid and I was thinking about it the other day, so I went and found a copy.

Bad Plus - Karma Police
I've gone to see these guys 3 out of the last 4 years for Christmas dinner. There's an epic drop from 4:20-5:00.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm denoting possessive in this instance, to make my misinterpretation clearer, with the assumption that "behind" means butt.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Daneel wrote:
Shar Tahl wrote:
People are reading way too much into things. There is such a clear wording. You can only do a move action. full stop. It is a powerful condition. No ambiguity, no grey area.


If there is no ambiguity, please explain why (if Nauseated prevents Free Actions but not Move Actions) we can:
  • Mount/dismount a steed, Move ~20', climb a rope, swim, jump a gap, and stand up from prone . . . but not fall down?
  • Draw/sheathe a sword, load a (small) crossbow, move a heavy object, pick up a sword, ready/drop a shield . . . but not drop a sword?

    Please clarify why when we add in class features, feats, items (like the spring loaded wrist sheath or the quickdraw shield) the list of paradoxes continues to grow?

  • I can explain! : )

    It's simply because Paizo forgot the line about free actions (but not quickened spells, which are what became swift actions) still being allowed, when they cut&paste the rule from the 3.5 PHB.

    It really is as simple as that, and the goal here should be to restore that line, not create an artificial connection between the Nauseated condition and a paragraph explaining what you can do when a situation limits you to a choice between a standard and a move instead of the usual situation where you get both.

    Or we could stop treating the rules like a legal text and assume that paradoxical rules interpretations are invalid.

    Or we could admit that the world "only" can have multiple meanings.

    Just saying.

    Freehold DM wrote:
    If something piques your interest, seek out the talent['s] behind

    sorry, couldn't help myself from quoting out of context and adding editorial grammar.

    Freehold DM wrote:
    What does any of this have to do with the topic?

    It came from the Hedges essay. There are useful linguistic elements of how communism/socialism talks about capitalism that lay over the pornography industry quite well, since it's talking about power and it's distribution.

    Plus, this is an internet forum, we wouldn't be fulfilling our purpose if we didn't go off-topic as rapidly and as far as possible.

    Well, there haven't been bread queues for 80 years. We have had them, just not recently, and I doubt anyone who frequents the boards is old enough to have experienced them.

    Hedges does the common thing, he takes a complex thing (human behavior and sex) and looks at it through a singular lens and arrives at only a single cause of what creates the problem. I agree with his take, but only if you then limit it to one aspect of the issue and not the whole issue. It explains some of the influences on modern sexuality and it's manifestation within porn, but it doesn't explain all of them.

    For example, the issue of race in porn is super obvious and easily observed. It isn't necessarily in ALL porn, or even all porn with multiple races, but it does exist and there are thousands of examples that would back up most of his claims.

    In a way, porn is useful as a way of highlighting the "bad thoughts" in society. It's already something that is inherently taboo, and often it delves into deeper taboos, or exploits them to achieve reactions. I don't point this out to say that porn is bad, rather that in some ways it can be a revealing mirror to hold up and expose the expectations and prejudices of society.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Quark Blast wrote:
    Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
    Quark Blast wrote:
    Irontruth wrote:
    Quark Blast wrote:
    Lemmy wrote:
    Also, pretty much everything bad has higher chance to happen to low-income people, since a higher income gives you more means to avoid the bad stuff.
    Wait, are you saying that pornography is bad stuff? If so, one more for the Destructive Entertainment camp.
    You put words into people's mouths almost as well as Peter North puts.... you get the idea.

    Is there a point to this red herring?

    Or do you just like to obtusely beat up on honest expression of opinions?

    Or is it you like the easy pickings of verbally slapping a minor on a public forum?

    And people wonder why I'm cynical. Pfft....

    No one cares why you're cynical.

    Aww.... You shouldn't be so hard on yourself. At the very least you're someone. ;)

    Seriously though, all the sniping that goes on at me - and sometimes at my opinions - really reinforces my native cynicism too much. Not to mention that Lemmy is perfectly capable of defending his own posts.

    Yeah, when I read posts like Ironthruth's (above), and most of yours (everywhere), it makes me think of what Bill Maher recently said. And since he said it best:

    Bill Maher on Liberals

    You have a process you repeat regularly

    1) remove context
    2) add value judgments that weren't there
    3) attack those value judgments

    Am I supposed to take you seriously when you literally invent meanings for other peoples posts and act like you're some sort of righteous crusader of debate?

    The answer to that rhetorical question is "no" btw. Yes, I do find some of your opinions to be out there, and potentially even ridiculous. But it's really your style of interacting with people that I find almost completely lacking in substance. The reason there's no substance is that you invent things for other people to say out of thin air and then proceed on as if they were Newton's Laws.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Quark Blast wrote:
    Lemmy wrote:
    Also, pretty much everything bad has higher chance to happen to low-income people, since a higher income gives you more means to avoid the bad stuff.
    Wait, are you saying that pornography is bad stuff? If so, one more for the Destructive Entertainment camp.

    You put words into people's mouths almost as well as Peter North puts.... you get the idea.

    Chemlak wrote:
    Is speaking to God on the Great White Telephone a free action?

    Not if the Great White Telephone is a material component, or focus, for a Contact Other Plane spell.

    Krensky wrote:

    While I suspect you're right, it's also worth remembering that a LOT of your (generic you) neurology can't tell the difference between reality and non-real visual stimulus. I don't mean your brain thinks there's little people in the box, but think about all optical illusions (including video itself) that you encounter all the time and how they work. See the Checker Shadow Illusion for an example.

    This is, of course, different than thinking that Gilligan's Island is a documentary, but still interesting.

    Visual illusions rely on aspects of the brain that are entirely separate from what we use for our social understanding. We don't rely on the visual center of the brain that is tricked by illusions to make decisions in social situations. We might use the information the visual center has given us, but a different portion is where that decision is made.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Sissyl wrote:

    And yet... The japanese are still HUMANS, so for some odd reason they like sex and like pictures of sex. Who knew, right?

    Indeed, porn does not cause rape. Nor does violent movies cause violent crime. The "monkey see, monkey do" crowd has very little going for it these days. The expansion of the internet into various areas of the US has correlated with falling sexual crime statistics in said areas. Interestingly enough, there is a study that says that teenagers and young adults are quite a lot safer during their sexual debuts since the internet came. It is not so odd either. Before the internet, people were put in the situation that rl interaction was needed to begin experimenting. After, they have had many more options. It also seems to be the case that watching a violent movie, one about violent sex, or the like, actually dampens the person's impulse to do such things themselves.

    I think there is some truth to the "monkey see, monkey do" theory, but it doesn't apply to movies/books/etc. Rather it applies to actual human interactions.

    When people think about movies/books/etc intellectually, they seem to have a harder time separating them from real world experiences than our brain has in separating them in our own lives (sounds like an odd distinction but stay with me).

    This has been shown to a degree with infants. If you put an infant in the care of someone who speaks a language, the infant starts to learn it. If you put the infant in front of a TV with someone speaking a different language, they learn very little, if any, of that language. Video education can work with older children, but it requires a bit of brain development first.

    Our brain is better at recognizing these false images and sorting between real and fantasy better than we give it credit. At the same time, we are heavily influenced by those around us, so if you aren't prepared to give the brain its due credit it's very easy to come to the conclusion that movies/books/etc should influence the same as interactions with people in our daily lives.

    I don't disagree with you, just pointing out my theory on how that theory develops.

    DualJay wrote:
    Irontruth wrote:

    You want to strip out protections for people who are discriminated against.

    For example, in the 50's and 60's, you would be siding with the businesses that refused to allow blacks to eat there.

    Is that really where you want to stand on this issue?

    This is a straw man. You do not know where I would stand on the issue of discrimination against African-Americans in the 50s and 60s, as the issues are not directly equivalent, no matter how much one may treat like they are.

    You are trying to evoke an emotional reaction, which is not suitable for a conversation that should be thoroughly rational.

    And here's a key point: People can be wrong. I support their right to be wrong. I do not support being wrong. They are free to be wrong, but that does not make wrongness right. Do I make myself sufficiently clear?

    No, they are equivalent. You are supporting a legalized form of discrimination, saying that businesses can choose to refuse anyone they want based on religious reasons. If you don't remember, there were lunch counter sit-ins at private businesses that refused to serve African-Americans.

    Why are Muslim-Americans different? (or Jewish/Christian/Mormon/Atheist/etc) Why do these people deserve to be discriminated against?

    You want to allow discrimination. You say you don't SUPPORT it, but you want to ALLOW it.

    I fail to see any benefit to our society by allowing discrimination, all it does is create divides within out society, increasing rifts and distrust. These are not beneficial things for our society.

    Second, I find it fundamentally violates the concept of freedom of religion (the first amendment concerns the government, I'm speaking more broadly), because it gives tools to people who want to force their religion on others. If the people of one religion have more money than another religion, they can effectively buy out that religions businesses and create a religious monopoly in a region creating pressure to bow to their religion. I find that prospect to be just as disgusting as the first portion.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    DualJay wrote:

    While I can see where the Gen Con admins are coming from, and fully support their right to move in response to the signage of the bill, I have to say I support the bill itself. After all, private businesses are or at least should be free to practice any non-directly-harmful policy they desire.

    If the policy hurts them economically enough that they can't continue it and stay in business, then that'll weed it out one way or another.

    You want to strip out protections for people who are discriminated against.

    For example, in the 50's and 60's, you would be siding with the businesses that refused to allow blacks to eat there.

    Is that really where you want to stand on this issue?

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    75. Cookies

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    If a rules interpretation creates inane possibilities that don't make any sort of sense, then that rules interpretation is incorrect. I don't care how you justify it.

    If I can stand up (move action) then it's ridiculous to assume I can't go prone (free action). If your interpretation doesn't account for this, it really has to be assumed that it's wrong.

    Also, I spent 8 years in the US Navy. I've had plenty of conversations while vomiting and/or with other people who were vomiting. The conversation was slower, but it still occurred. I'd very much allow Nauseated characters to say 1-2 words per round. Examples:

    "oh gods"
    "here it..."
    "help me"
    "oh no"
    "not again"

    The Departed (remake of Infernal Affairs)

    If you haven't seen Infernal Affairs, I still recommend it. If you watch the two soon enough to remember specific scenes, you will see shot for re-shot of certain scenes. The Departed just has better actors (for an American audience at least). The ending to Infernal Affairs is better though.

    I was in San Diego a couple weeks ago very briefly. It had snowed in the mountains that day and people were selling bags of snow collected from the mountains for like $100.

    I used to visit SD a lot, but since I was young and in the Navy, my knowledge mostly concerned bars centered around the gas lamp district, and is 10+ years old anyways.


    When I play an archer, I like the hunter/commando style of character which is easy to accomplish with the Ranger due to their combination of skills and spells.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Garmarna - Herr Mannelig

    Recently got turned on to them. I particularly enjoy the darker sounding songs, they have a nice ominous vibe to them and might actually employ them as mood music for some games.

    This song is about a mountain troll proposing marriage to a young knight, promising wealth, land and weapons to conquer his enemies. The knight turns her down, at which the troll laments that her curse will never be lifted.

    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    Killer_GM wrote:

    Anti-depressants aren't addictive. Some of the anti-depressants have 'withdrawal' effects when you go 'cold turkey' and stop taking them without tapering off. SSRI's (Prozac/Paxil/Zoloft) are examples of this. Having unpleasant physical effects when you cease a medication doesn't meet the definition of 'addiction.'
    That seems kind of a fine distinction to make. Whats the difference between an alcoholic who will get the shakes if they go off of alcohol and that?

    Food has an unpleasant side effect when you stop taking it, as does oxygen and water.

    I think unpleasant side effects when you stop taking something might be too liberal of a sole criteria to consider for "addiction" to have a useful meaning.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Your analysis of the economy fails because you are reliant on one cause to explain something that is exceptionally complex with many influences.

    Your analysis completely ignores multiple facets of economics and history.

    You're right, the Fed has pumped massive amounts of money into the stock market. But that is NOT the only factor, or probably even the largest factor, on why wages are stagnant. In fact, if trickle-down does work, it actually disproves your theory that that is why wages are stagnant.

    Your theory is actually mutually exclusive to itself.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Killer_GM, there's a video in the OP. About the 17 minutes mark he starts explaining his theory for why schizophrenia is something that's purely made up, and caused by, psychiatry.

    Something else to consider, what is the character's motivation for ascending? That should inform the how quite a bit.

    Power mad sorcerer? kills for it/steals it
    Servant of higher power? through great deeds, or to replace said power if it falls
    Destined? By achieving said destiny

    There's the simple concept of stealing it. Killing a lesser deity or demi-god and using that death as part of a ritual to ascend seems pretty straight forward as a concept. You'd want to build what that ritual looks like and means with your DM (what kind of components for example).

    Another is tapping into some sort of arcane source of power, or the source of your bloodline as a sorcerer.

    The fact that you have to debate me on it's definition implies that the definition is not as set in stone as you would like it to be. My point stands, video games that defied your definition immediately jumped to mind, making your definition counter-productive to your point.

    I honestly think we'd be better off leaving video games out of the discussion entirely. I'm sure you'll disagree and pull us further into this tangent though.

    Yeah, it's really the rules of Craft that don't apply. The short paragraph for "Practice a Trade" can work, but that equally applies to Profession and Perform and is basically the same rules. The longer portion of Craft, involving materials equal to 1/3 the cost of the base item is what doesn't apply.

    Profession for writing the play.
    Perform for acting/directing the play.

    Unlike some other professions, it might be that you don't get paid as regularly, so that you make several weekly checks to write a play, but get paid at the end when it's finally done (negotiated between you and the DM).

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Please don't bring "video gamey" into this, because I will just give you a list of video games where you don't get to heal up between fights, or games where healing to full is a luxury.

    It's not "video gamey" it's "resource management". Going into a fight at low HP is basically suicidal if the fight is remotely party level appropriate, because the CR system assumes that people will be roughly at max HP. The CR system assumes that you are using resources during and after the fight to recover. Removing resources available to the party effectively reduces the parties abilities to handle CR appropriate challenges (or at least multiple challenges in a day).

    One of the things I really like about 5E and 13th Age, when you rest you get everything back at max. You don't have to do math and manage resources, the rest is a reset on your resources. The management of resources is in deciding what to use during a fight and knowing how many fights you might have to deal with.

    My question for the OP: what specifically is it you don't like about the wands? Is it the healing? or the wands themselves?

    If it's just the wands, and not the healing, give them an alternate way to heal that's efficient and tell your players you're removing CLW wands. For example, if channeling out of combat provides max value (say it takes 2 rounds to do a channel like that and can be interrupted), that puts the focus back on healing classes and not the wands without reducing available resources.

    You're using a d20 to assign the value your character sees in other characters?

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Cliches and tropes work for a reason. They aren't bad in and of themselves, but rather in their execution.

    I run some games that are very high on their creativity strain. I often tell people as I'm teaching them to go for the obvious. Don't kill yourself trying to be uber creative, keep the flow going and do the obvious thing. What happens is that once you start the cliche creative endeavor, you spend your energy changing it and making it non-cliche, giving it individual detail.

    A recent movie example would be John Wick. A very cliche and trope filled movie. I thought they did just enough twisting of those cliches and tropes though to keep the movie moderately interesting.

    Players rarely ask to look at an economic analysis of a region/city. They might ask obvious questions, such as "where do they get food from?", so have answers for that, as well as any other natural resources they appear to be using.

    To give the sense of isolation, you want to consider some aspects of the city that are backwards, or have evolved strangely. Think about a real world isolated location: Cuba. They spent decades without the ability to import cars, so they fixed up their old cars repeatedly, making spare parts out of whatever they could manage.

    Pick a couple of basic resources that they lack and imagine how the city would be different for not having them (like wood for instance, which is an incredibly efficient crafting material). Also, consider some technological innovations, or even magical innovations of the outside world and how these guys don't have them. For every 4 things they lack, create a strange thing they made themselves, it could solve a problem in a different way, or be unrelated.

    I currently co-DM a game with 8 players. We just finished our second year and currently on break (picking the campaign up again in a couple months). It's been very enjoyable.

    The biggest thing is not bearing the creative burden alone. Having another person who is supposed to know all the things you know to bounce ideas off of and share things with is very nice.

    We tend to not really split the party, but the few times we have it's been handy. Also when in cities and the party goes a dozen different directions we get things done twice as fast, which is nice.

    What do you want to accomplish by writing the play?

    I get what your concept is, but when you roll to write a play, what is the goal? Define your objective and the skill necessary should become clearer.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Summation of article: Obama's a nerd, nerds suck.

    He even provides that same summation near the end:

    a sizable portion of Trek fans, and of nerds in general, that identifies with Spock’s neuroses, his hang-ups, his self-loathing, that are attracted to the cold soulless abstractions through which he views life

    To top it off, it's poorly written. This editor needs an editor.

    Orthos wrote:
    Muad'Dib wrote:
    What grinds my gears is the avalanche of search checks once one player rolls a check.
    I'm assuming by this that you mean "once one guy rolls a check, if he rolls low or finds nothing the rest of the party suddenly wants to roll". I usually don't allow that unless they've previously stated they're assisting with the search. Granted I usually don't have players who try to force the issue either.

    Another way to rule that is they can examine what has already been found, in an attempt to find more detail about it, but they can't discover separate things.

    Ex: A player rolls perception and fails to find a secret door under a statue, because they rolled low. Someone else rolls, they could examine the statue in further detail, but would not reveal the secret door.

    Haladir wrote:
    You will EAT that dish of Cherry Garcia and you will LIKE IT, you philistine!

    I'll eat it when I pry it from your cold, cold hands.

    They'll be cold because you've been holding ice cream with your bare hands.

    Ravingdork wrote:
    I just thought I'd add some of these beauties.

    Epic Loot Furniture

    Board Game Tables

    I've seen at least one more source of manufacturer, but can't find it at the moment.

    If you hate/love ice cream, the terrorists win.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    More on topic, "being relevant to the story" is a huge, vague space. Not everything has to be strictly central to the story. Some things are included in descriptions to help build mood/theme/context for other things. Just because a detail has been revealed doesn't mean everything about it has been revealed.

    One thing I do as DM is ask players what details they remember from session to session. When players remember details, I include them as relevant, which achieves several purposes:

    1) it ties the story together well
    2) the player feels clever for remembering
    3) I keep the game interesting because I'm focusing on the things they're paying attention to

    I'm not afraid to rewrite my plot mid-session to incorporate cool ideas my players have, and I don't just mean cool ideas for actions they take, but cool ideas they have for the villains to be doing. If a player says "Oh man, it'd really suck if the bad guy was planning to do....." I often incorporate some element of that into the plan now.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Arturus Caeldhon wrote:
    Ravingdork wrote:
    You really should describe WHAT Chekhov's Gun actually IS in the opening post, for those not in the know. It would allow for more people to participate in the discussion.
    I was hoping for opinions from those well versed in the concept, not gut reactions from those just learning about it. I wanted experienced, tested opinions, not nascent ones. I am struggling with the idea, because I am a novelist and also a DM. In my books, I adhere very strictly to Chekhov's gun. In my games, however, I want to describe every room in great detail, but not everything is important. I want to add details that are interesting and give the world life, without them necessarily becoming plot points. But oftentimes the players will latch on to something and then drive the plot in that direction, and I would have to stumble to keep up. So if I adhere to Chekhov's gun in the first place, I won't have that issue, but I feel my game will suffer from a lack of detail. I think there is a line somewhere and I was hoping it was more well defined. However, it seems there is a number of different approaches, which have given me cause for thought. So, thank you! And continue, please :)

    Internet forum discussions will always be better when you give everyone participating the chance to be informed. People are going to comment whether you inform them or not, so by not providing basic information, you get more comments that are uninformed. I don't want to get in a long debate about this, just pointing out something useful for future discussions.

    We recently went back to XP. We have an old system we use, I won't get into details, but we've adopted two new rules which I like.

    1) Anytime someone earns XP, everyone earns XP. If player A gets a bonus for roleplaying and entertaining the table, everyone earns the reward.

    2) Whoever has the highest experience total earns XP normally. Anyone below that total earns double XP until they catch up. This has made it easier for our friends who show up less often, or can't make whole sessions, stay relevant to the party.

    I'm not huge on XP, but these changes have made it better for us IMO.

    I like Ellison a lot. He's got a nice bill he introduced recently HR 1098 that gives back a lot of consumer protection. I doubt it'll go far though.

    Heroism is a Barbarian's best friend.

    There were old proposed rule changes. John Oliver complained about them. The FCC did not adopt them.

    Instead, they adopted something closer to Net Neutrality.

    Oliver's piece is still valid, but it was about the problem as it existed at that time. Things have since changed. The core concepts are still relevant, but details are different.

    1 to 50 of 5,167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.