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

James Risner's page

RPG Superstar 7 Season Marathon Voter, 8 Season Marathon Voter. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 6,734 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 11 Pathfinder Society characters.

Owner of D20 Hobbies


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,734 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies

SillyString wrote:

) If I have wis of 12, then cast owl's wisdom on myself, can I use it 4 times a day, or 6 times a day?

2) If I have wis of 16, then drink a dexterity mutagen (-2 to wis), can i use it 6 times a day, or 5 times a day?

3) If i'm a cleric, with wis 10, but someone casts owl's wisdom on me, can I cast upto 4th level spells or not?

4) If i'm a cleric with wis 12, then I drink a dexterity mutagen (-2 to wis), can I cast upto 2nd level spells or not?

So to summarize, based on developer comments, FAQ, and the rules the answers would be:

1) 4/day (no benefit for the temporary bonus for /day abilities.

2) 6/day (penalties don't reduce your effects)

3) no additional spells for temporary bonuses

4) no reduction on your spells for temporary penalties

Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jared Thaler wrote:
Ask yourself "would my method let me cast blood money" (a banned spell). If the answer is no, then it also won't let you cast a racial spell. If the answer is yes, you have read it wrong, or it needs to be errated.

+1

Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies

Looks like Pathfinder has a considerably cleaner framework of rules and much of my understanding came from 3.5 Sage advice rulings (irrelevant for Pathfinder.)

Here are some notes showing that /day things a rounds/day do not increase, but things that use the ability do like selective channel, plus anything that uses it in a die roll or as a measurement like encumbrance.

Abilities don't count for Feat Prerequisites and are treated in unspecified other ways differently.

Preventing a temporary bonus from being used as a consumable is more important than treating it just like a permanent bonus in every way.

Initial design of Barbarian would have temporary Con bonuses won't increase rounds of rage.

Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
The only thing that "compares" to a ring of lead blades is the impact weapon enchantment, which costs a +2 bonus. That's hard to translate to gp directly, but it would be expensive.

+1

Going to the chart is a bad idea on something like this. It will, without doubt, be lower in cost using the chart than it should be by the guidelines.

Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

Nikolaus Athas wrote:
Casting Shadow Conjuration is not casting the spell. It is casting a spell that is able to mimic the effects of the spell Gloombolt.

I get that. The same for a Limited Wish to emulate the spell. None of them should work for racial spells not of your race.

But another way to effectively cast the spell was described by John as a way to "effectively defeat the exclusivity of race-specific spells."

The spells are designed to be exclusive to the race. Are you the race? Then you can use them. Are you not? You can't use them in cute ways designed to defeat the exclusivity. Does that make sense?

Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

Nikolaus Athas wrote:
my hope that some clarification comes out - even if it is like James states above a big no.

I'm especially curious on this. So we have language that directly states it isn't allowed and that doesn't sway your opinion that it shouldn't be allowed when using a method to obtain it?

Why do you think this should be permitted when sharing the spell with a human when the human plays with a fetching wouldn't be allowed?

Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

Murdock Mudeater wrote:


Sounds entirely reasonable from my stance, provided you have the book it comes in and the spell is a PFS legal spell. The caster isn't casting Gloomblind Bolt, they are casting Shadow Conjuration and Gloomblind Bolt meets all of the requirements for that spell (Unless John has disagreements...?).

Pretty sure this isn't how it should work.

Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies

Saurian modifies Nature Bond, Wild Empathy, Wild Shape, venom immunity

Goliath modifies Class Skills, Bonus Languages, nature sense, nature bond, wild empathy, resist nature’s lure, Wild Shape, venom immunity and a thousand faces.

So absolutely all of Saurian's abilities conflict with Goliath.

Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies

SillyString wrote:
I'm very open to the possibility of being wrong, I just like to be shown why, rather than just told so without supporting evidence, apologies if this is a frustrating stance to have, I mean no offense.

You seemed to have a preconceived stance and you seemed to be unwilling to accept any evidence to the contrary. If you had that stance, it would be very frustrating. Many of these discussions fall into the frustrating model. An example would be the hundreds of threads still saying you can gain Sneak Attack with a ranged weapon by being in "flanking" position despite the Gang Up FAQ saying you can't. We never got a new FAQ but we did get a PDT post saying no and they wouldn't be updating Gang Up since it is clear as is that ranged attacks can never be flanking. It still doesn't stop many people from saying that position isn't "RAW".

---

Getting back to the topic at hand, the FAQ makes it clear that temporary bonuses

PDT FAQ wrote:

You're usually not using the spell for a 1 min./level increase in your carrying capacity, so that isn't mentioned there

A temporary ability score bonus should affect all of the same stats and rolls that a permanent ability score bonus does.

So everything that uses the store temporarily uses the new higher score.

Sean K Reynolds while on dev team wrote:

The shortest version probably is: any *rolls* based on that ability use the temporary or permanent ability modifier.

You don't roll bonus spells, bonus hit points, rage rounds, numbers of uses of channel energy, and so on. You do roll ability checks, skill checks, break checks, damage, saving throws, attack rolls, and so on.

This confirms the FAQ and goes on to give us semi-reliable way to separate out what may be a way to separate things that are improved vs things that are not.

In various posts over time, things like "spells per day" have tended to fall into the "temporary bonuses don't last long enough" to work. Any other "get your uses once per day with an action" tend to fall into that mold. But things that say "CHA targets excluded" or "CHA uses per day" and "CHA rounds per day" with no pre action, tend to be allowed.

Since there is no agreed upon RAW interpretation that is universal, any discussion on the topic is moot. It will result in table variance if there is a disagreement on the RAW.

Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies

SillyString wrote:
base my understanding on RAW rules directly from the RBs, FAQs and developer intervention.

If that is your actual intent, then follow my suggestion.

Otherwise, you will run into people who don't agree with your interpretation. When that happens, there is no amount of "but this is the only interpretation" that will sway someone that reads a different interpretation than you.

Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies

In short, SillyString, you are going to get table variance on your interpretations.

Mine is based off of years of rules, FAQ answers, and developer quotes.

Pretty much the whole point of the rules, the FAQ, and the various developer quotes is to prevent utilising the buffs in an overpowered way (and thats my style).

Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies

Easiest way to understand the rules and how this works, is to track daily uses separate from "current uses per day".

So if you have normally 4/day and have used 3 today, then adding +4 to an ability would raise your uses per day to 6/day. If you then use 2 more for a total of 5/day then lose the +4 your daily use is back down to 4/day and you have used 5 today. So you don't have any more to use. You still don't if you add +2 to your ability, as that is 5/day and you have used 5. If you again add +4 you are back to 6/day and you have used 5.

No temporary increase will change your spell slots per day, so none of this matters for spells you can cast.

Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

That all sounds horribly wrong. I'd recommend not playing with them

Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies

1) you only get their natural weapons that are not from supernatural, spell like, or extraordinary abilities.

2) no, but I guess you'd see table variance? I'm not sure why but I guess so.

Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies

Derklord wrote:
No. No, no, no, no, no! To follow the spirit not the latter is not RAW. That is "rules as intended", RAI. RAW is short for "rules as written".

That's your view. Raw is rules as written, which requires interpretation and we have been told the general rule is that things from the same source don't stack.

If we follow your interpretation, they could spend years naming all the items that shouldn't stack (orange iounstone) among other things.

Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

2 people marked this as a favorite.
UndeadMitch wrote:
They shouldn't be writing in the PFS number in where the boon is assigned. They should just write something to the order of "Originally assigned to [YOUR PFS NUMBER HERE]" down in the big blank section down below the text of the boon.

+1

If you hard code in the PFS section, you make it hard, strange, weird, untradeable, etc.

Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

Finlanderboy wrote:
But what about those DMs that want you to permanently change other people's characters that play at their tables.

Don't play at their table?

Can you describe an example?

Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies

Crossblooded Rager modifies:
Bonus Feat, bloodrager spells, Bloodline Powers: At 1st, 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th levels, bloodrager rage.

Urban Bloodrager modifies:
Weapon and Armor Proficiency, bloodrager rage, blood sanctuary, bloodrager spells, damage reduction.

So two things conflict, so they don't stack.

Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies

j b 200 wrote:
the problem is that you are counting your levels twice. you have 10 levels of Ninja , gives you Monk level of 6

+1

Counts as won't stack with is.

Yamiten wrote:
I would like to see an official answer or explanation of a similar situation before hassing my GM on it

You have an extremely low chance of getting an official answer this year. Your best bet is to make a succinct question and get 30-60 FAQ clicks on it.

The fallback plan is to post in Ask James Jacobs or Ask Mark threads. Neither of them are designed for rules questions, but both of them give off the cuff answers.

Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies

Tacticslion wrote:

"It's important to note that it's not actually written down the way you imply, and the quote given doesn't support the argument you claim it does without a person taking substantial liberties. That's not how rules work."

This doesn't make it any more RAW than noting that ability scores are a source... which some took to be, but were not supported by the rule set itself until the FAQrrata

Well written understanding of the issue, RAW should be "follow the spirit not the letter" or you risk running into FAQ that doesn't change the text but does change your permitted interpretation.

Some examples of things they do not plan on changing the wording, but do they do expect you to reach the same interpretation as they have or you should alter your interpretation:

  • Gang Up demonstrates that flanking is only relevant when making a melee attack and one can never gain the flanking bonus of sneak attack from flanking when not making a melee attack.
  • Same Source stacking considers the ability a source when stacking the same ability twice.

  • Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

    Drogon wrote:
    WaningMoon wrote:
    I'm honestly mostly interested in the Aspis Defector.
    Is this a thing? I thought that was a one-of-a-kind charity auction boon that went for several hundred dollars.

    If it is the "play an aspis agent, then yes. IIRC it went for hundreds if not a couple thousand.

    Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

    Lucy_Valentine wrote:

    the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost

    how does it work in PFS? Does this mean that a polymorphed IUS build can expect some tables where their build falls apart has to stop using polymorph and just IUS at full size?

    It's why I said if you are a GM that nixes IUS in polymorph forms, you need to tell your players before they play at your table.

    Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies

    Derklord wrote:
    You say a lot of things yet back them up with absolutly nothing
    FAQ wrote:
    Generally, effects do not stack if they are from the same source...

    Generally as long as you keep saying "there is no rule", I'll keep saying you are ignoring the "same source" rules in the spells and magical effects section. A rule, that the developers use in other FAQ as a reason for non-spells stacking issues from Orange Ioun Stone to Charisma to AC.

    Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

    WaningMoon wrote:
    *: Due to new policy in my lodge both of my gm boons and one of my Expedition Manager boons have my society number on them already. They have not been applied to characters yet.

    Is this supposed to happen? I had this happen to one of mine for a con, and I've not wanted to trade it because it looks shady.

    Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

    This is an awesome idea.

    Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Nikolaus Athas wrote:
    Could a caster using Shadow Conjuration or Shadow Evocation (of the appropriate level)be able to duplicate a racial spell?

    I struggle to understand why this is a difficult question.

    It might be easier to think of the spells of a different race as if they didn't exist in the game even for those races.

    So you can't copy them from a race owning a spell book, because they don't exist for you.

    You can't shadow conjuration them because they don't exist for you.

    Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies

    Derklord wrote:

    where my "position" is not simply what the CRB says.

    No need to misuse and significantly alter the spell rules

    The cool thing about English is that none of us get to dictate what the language means.

    While making things clearer is a good thing, I don't think any of the developers thinks that using the stacking rules to block stacking is misuse. It is just that it is more narrow interpreted by some to be restrictive.

    Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies

    Derklord wrote:

    this is the "Rules Questions" forum

    "stacking effects" section on the same page, in a sentence that explicitly only applies to spells. Since a dodge bonus from a feat or rogue talent is neither a spell (or other magical effect) nor an untyped bonus, I see absolutly no possible way to interpret the rules as written

    Yes we are talking RAW and yes the developers don't entirely agree with your position that the rules don't apply. They gave you a nod by saying the rules foundation wasn't as solid as you'd like it to be. So either this ability is likely to be errata to make it easier to interpret to match the RAI or they may expand the spells and magical effects to non magical things such as feats and rogue talents.

    None of this involves house rules.

    Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    wraithstrike wrote:
    I am not going to try to convince anyone of the correct answer, but what I did do was press the FAQ button on the opening post so that this can finally get an answer. :)

    +1

    Me too.

    As is often in these things, the two sides can't convince the other side that their interpretation of the rules is the "right one".

    Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    CBDunkerson wrote:

    "You also lose any class features that depend upon form

    Exactly as I have been saying.

    Not the first person to post that passage in this thread, and that passage says the exact opposite of what you have been saying.

    It says that things that depend on form may be lost, say like:

    Quote:

    Wings (Ex)

    Benefit: The alchemist gains bat-like, bird-like, or insect-like functional wings

    This is a class feature that alters your form, which you would lose when you polymorph.

    Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    You are making the subjective call that creatures without fists cannot make unarmed strikes
    Core wrote:
    Some creatures do not have natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes just like humans do. See the natural attacks by size table for typical damage values for natural attacks by creature size.

    There is even a rule saying creatures can.

    Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

    CBDunkerson wrote:
    those apply only to "fist, elbows, knees, and feet"

    I see. Well, yes. Because that line isn't intended to be a limiting line, but rather an expanding line to address the "I have my hands full" argument.

    Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies

    Authoritative Flinn wrote:
    Okay, so how about they invest downtime in training them? Would it be too overpowered for them to let those dogs get the advanced template or somesuch?

    Give them the Nature Soul/Animal Ally as bonus feats.

    Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies

    graystone wrote:

    That is 100% incorrect as the member of the PDT himself said that the rules they where using where unwritten. It was brought out in the 'hands of effort' FAQ thread.

    I recall a protracted debate I had with Baker

    I'm aware of that thread. I'm also aware that when having a debate on how a rule works if it becomes a protracted debate humans tend to fall back to non-debatable things. Things like "fine it's an unwritten rule" or "fine I'll rule 0 it away". Whether or not it's unwritten in truth depends on your interpretation.

    Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies

    Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
    at the very least implies that even without the feat, I can repeatedly Dirty Tricks someone and make that condition that I applied last and last for as many rounds as I care to muster (or until they remove it themselves with a Move or Standard Action).

    Got a rule for this? Like a general rule that conditions stack for duration purposes?

    Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Tacticslion wrote:

    That's the point: RAW is, on occasion, ambiguous, because English is ambiguous as a language - sometimes even and sometimes especially when you try to avoid that thing.

    What it's talking about is the difference between RAW and RAI.
    I'm not arguing that anyone is wrong to choose to interpret things in a given way... I'm arguing the opposite.

    That was a wonderfully funny and helpful post. Thank you. I especially like the humorous words video.

    Now, it seems we have nearly identical views on everything related to this.

    I agree that RAW isn't one time, but many interpretations. Especially enhanced when humorous words or even more specific words are used. More straight forward thing have less interpretations, often just one. Like Longsword deals 1d8 if made for Medium.

    I don't like to see a person assert that they are in possession of the only way to interpret a rule, especially one with an existing FAQ.

    I believe I witness this when I seem someone point to a FAQ that references a rule and someone asserts there is no such rule. This is often done by saying the FAQ is bad, wrong, using a house rule, using an unwritten rule, dumb, stupid, or just bad. This is usually something I speak out against.

    Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies

    ShieldLawrence wrote:
    Is that an official definition somewhere?

    Depends on your definition of official?

    If you go with "they have said so ad nauseam?" Then yes.

    Developer saying Supernatural Abilities should be rays

    Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

    CBDunkerson wrote:
    Trees cannot perform acrobatics. Snakes cannot strike with the limbs they do not have. Earthworms can neither speak nor make hand gestures.

    While every thing you say "in general" I disagree. When I get specifics from you I agree with everything except unarmed strikes.

    Trees are not mobile, so can't move (check)
    Snakes can unarmed strike as they can use any part of their body such as tongue, tail rattler, body, head (disagree)
    Earthwords can't speak which would be in the Bestiary as a language line so they can't speak (check)
    Earthworms can't make somatic movements because they are Animal and not a listed type that has somatic movements (check)

    So it seems the only thing we disagree on is unarmed strikes?

    Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

    CBDunkerson wrote:
    Earthworm Wizard. Snake Monk. Tree Acrobat.

    I doubt you are using that interpretation at tables, or if you are you really need to tell everyone who sits down as a player at your table how you rule your polymorphs so they don't bother playing anyone with poly abilities at your table. Including things like Totem Transformation shutting down all their Unarmed Strike abilities.

    Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Not everyone gets the rules right all the time. I've played a Bonekeep I session with a GM who refused to allow "take 10" when not in combat to search an area. So I had to roll d20's for each square. We stop watched the rolling, and it took up a little over 45 minutes of our 5 hour slot rolling 20 sided dice out of combat.

    That is an example of the GM not following the rules as we read the RAW, but the entire table coped with the issue and worked within the GM's RAW.

    Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

    CBDunkerson wrote:
    So... a monk polymorphed into a large immobile rock would retain the ability to perform a flurry of unarmed attacks? And fast movement? A wizard in large rock form could cast spells requiring verbal and somatic components?

    immobile rock? What rock? Earth Elemental?

    If so, yes he can flurry, yes he can fast move, yes he can cast (because they have a language line), and yes he likely can perform somatic components (ask the GM to be sure) since he has arms in the picture.

    Also, note. I didn't say I'd argue the rule with you at the table. I said I was fine with your ruling. I'd just change characters.

    Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

    Kalindlara wrote:
    To be fair, I've heard the "everyone else lets me do it" argument from someone whose LG aasimar monk had the Serpentine Squeeze religion trait, among other things.

    This whole thread is about "some times people's rules interpretations are incorrect".

    Ydersius is Chaotic Evil and Lawful Good is pretty far from that.

    Considering that d20pfsrd doesn't list Ydersius as a requirement, you could chalk that up to "he didn't know". Especially if you ask him if he used the book or d20pfsrd to build.

    Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    Jean-Marc Comeau wrote:

    Polymorph.

    PRD wrote:
    depend on your original form

    No. A class ability by definition does not depend on your original form.

    A good example of the purpose of that line is darkvision, a race ability.

    Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

    CBDunkerson wrote:
    That's... rather surprising. I'd have thought it was obvious.

    If by obvious, you mean that someone who has played two polymorph characters to 11th and 12th level (60+ games) and never one time even remotely had anyone player or GM blink an eye to my using all class abilities and feats including unarmed strikes while polymorhed?

    Then no, your view has never been expressed to me in person by a minimum of 360 people.

    Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

    Kalindlara wrote:
    That seems like a rather... extreme reaction.

    Generally happens when a rather extreme nerf to all of the PC's abilities happens? No?

    I should also point out, that in the over 300 games I've played and GMed combined, I can't hardly remember more than a couple incidents that are extreme. So while my reaction might be extreme, people don't behave in a way that deserves extreme reactions in practice.

    Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

    CBDunkerson wrote:

    I think "abilities that depend on your original form" should be read as, 'abilities which are possible in your original form but not the new form'.

    Thus, a polymorph effect like 'Fey Wings' likely wouldn't remove any abilities

    Ring of the Seven Lovely Colors ... removing the unarmed strike ability from a monk polymorphed into a bird.

    Suffice it to say that your view is something that will result in significant table variance. To be frank, I've never seen your view at a table I've played or GM-ed.

    I'm ok with your view, I'll just make sure to only play a sunder build, trip build, or magus, or wizard/sorcerer/cleric at your table. This is also something you need to either be telling people up front or be fine with someone swapping characters mid session.

    Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

    Jean-Marc Comeau wrote:
    But I am not sure how you are seeing the from comment as a nerf to all classes. Are you seeing a lot of polymorphing? Besides Wildshape (where the druid uses the animal attacks)?

    There are a lot of classes that grant polymorph effects, beyond Druid Wild Shape.

    Scarab Sages **** Owner - D20 Hobbies

    @Jean-Marc Comeau, while I agree with your Fly skill comment, we differ on the form comment.

    FoB, SF, FM, US, PoB, and WoB don't depend on form.

    Things like:

    Quote:
    Fey Wings (Su): At 15th level, you can grow insectlike wings from your back and become one size category smaller

    Since the Polymorph school leaves it to the GM, I'll be fine sitting at your table nerfed and I won't call you out on the nerf. But it effects all polymorhph abilities from all classes as a nerf.

    Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies

    Weapon like in spells or effects are things that deal damage and take attack rolls. For example, Sound Striker bard ability is weapon like. It isn't a spell.

    Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies

    Rylden wrote:
    If I were to create a magic item, with a 5/day spell of 3rd level as a Magus, what am I looking at for cost?

    Don't make 3/day or more effects that "work for all combats" and work as well as at will. Just make them at will.

    Don't make items of "spells" in a can.

    Look at the spell you want and see what effects it provides, and price based on the effects and not the spells.

    When you make the initial pricing, do so by comparing it to other items first.

    Second, compare it to how much would be close to the maximum someone would pay for the effect.

    If you are lost at the start, use the chart then jump back to comparing the price to other items.

    The general wisdom is the item should be a hard choice between other items in the same slot for any given PC.

    1 to 50 of 6,734 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.