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

JiCi's page

1,435 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,435 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

logan grayble wrote:
A straight up combination of Gunslinger and Alchemist would require a lot of compromises. Assuming that by "gun focused" you mean it has a grit pool and deeds, what would you be giving up from Alchemist? You'd probably need to give up a little more than just your Poison Resistance if you catch my drift.

The Mutagen, as others suggested, seem to be a decent trade for deeds... as well as any firearm-related class feature.

Echo Vining wrote:
I had a player just straight-up multiclass alchemist and gunslinger. He primarily played it like an old-west bartender, all his extracts were whiskey.

You... basically brought up the reason I asked for an archetype: I hate multiclassing with a passion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:

LazarX is right guys. You can't just slap guns onto other classes.

It's not like Paizo made a Holy Gun archetype for Paladins, or a Musketeer archetype for Cavaliers or a Spellslinger archetype for Wizards.

Stop being so 'silly'.

and the Steel Hound for the Investigator...

and the Savage Technologist for the Barbarian...
and the Musketeer for the Swashbuckler...
and the Trophy Hunter for the Ranger...


doc the grey wrote:

"Instead, they plod forever forward, challenging themselves with new languages, cultures, spells, and the constant frustration of humanoid stairs."

Centaur outcast entry

God that made me laugh way harder than it should have.

Wait until you get to the "Centaurs hate horseshoes" part :P


LazarX wrote:
No... there is no gun toting archetype of the alchemist.

Hmmm.. so I'm not crazy then...

Doesn't like a big game-breaking idea either... unless making a gunslinger focused on using dangerous chemicals would cause imbalance...


As much as many hate it, the Two-Weapon Warrior archetype does reduce the penalties by a lot.


Sure, I can have a regular Alchemist (or an archetypical Grenadier) using a pistol or musket with the Explosive Missile discovery, but...

Did Paizo release a bonafide archetype that relies a lot of the use of firearms?

(I'm asking because 1) that sounds like a no-brainer for a class that uses bombs, 2) many other classes got firearm-focused archetypes... and 3) maybe I missed it...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gars DarkLover wrote:
Any info on the (Most Wanted) Centaur Cavalier Archetype?

Charger:
-You're considered mounted for the purpose of charging, handling lances and having the Mounted Combat feat. Ride is substituted for Acrobatics.

- You deal more damage with your hooves.
- You move faster and can ignore difficult terrains for a short while.
- You can make an overrun attempt against every opponent in a single line of charging.


TBH, I thought at first that I could select multiple specializations, because combining sounds like a great idea... expect that you're not allowed to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

OK, finally got my hands on this ^_^

The bad (let's get this out of the way first and foremost)
- The Monster Index is sorted alphabetically; personally, I would have prefered to be sorted according to the CR, from lowest to highest.

- Could have used more traits, items, archetypes and so on...

- No associated monster; That's a little missed opportunity here. I could have seen a variant centaur (aquatic, zebra, unicorn, nightmare), an ape-based Charau-Ka variant (the current ones are mandrill-based) a two-headed cyclops, a derro failed experiment, a gillman-merfolk crossbreed, a new scorpion-like vermin and a labyrith-insane template for Minotaur victims.

(I feel like 2 pages, one for more stuff and one for a monster, could have been added for each monster.)

- Lack of chieftain figures; the Charau-Ka, Cyclopes, Derros, Gillmen, Minotaurs and Strix don't have an entry that defines a tribe's leader... unless some of them are and that I misread. I know that many of us have a different take of what classes make a tribe's leader, but to me, some of them seem to not fit with the monsters. For instance, a Charau-Ka ranger or hunter would work, but the Trickster makes it an odd choice. BTW, I left out the Ogrekin for a reason: it's a template using base races , not an "actual" race.

- Little errors here and there. Bah... it happens... and an errata can be done.

- The title hides the Charau-Ka on the cover. Come on, couldn't you made it a little lower on the page :P ? Ok, fine you get the logo-less cover at the end, but still...

That's... pretty much it really.

The good
- More NPCs for me to use
- Great artworks
- Great choices of classes; yeah, yeah, I mentionned that some don't reflect an authority figure... but these same entries work great for other roles.
- Great choices of monsters; the more the better ^_^
- Great intros
- Great extra materials

Overall great book ^_^


Samasboy1 wrote:

Aasimar Cavalier 4/Lunar Oracle 10/Falconer 6 with VMC Druid would have

Druid AC at lvl 20 (say a hippo)
Cavalier Mount at lvl 20 (horse)
Oracle AC at lvl 19 (big cat)
Ranger AC at lvl 10 (bird)

Using Horse Master, aasimar oracle FCB, and Boon Companion on the oracle and ranger.

Too bad you can't layer Animal Ally on top of it :P


Can someone explain me this?

Look, I lost track of the whole thing...

Is the book already available, with all of the content funded?


John Compton wrote:
You're right that most of these creatures are ones that appear in setting-neutral books already. One of the particularly compelling reasons why many of these creatures appear in Inner Sea Monster Codex is that each has a particularly deep, fun, and exciting role that it plays on Golarion. Strix and gillmen appear in the Advanced Race Guide, yes, but they're also key players in their respective regions and have helped to shape history and politics in parts of Avistan and the Inner Sea. Cyclopes and derro predate the Pathfinder Campaign Setting line, yet one was a key species across several ages of Golarion's history, and the other is well worth examining more closely to understand their role beneath noteworthy cities. Each of these creatures hits a lot of those same buttons (of why this setting-neutral creature is great on Golarion), shows up in substantial numbers, and also triggered some serious cool factor responses while we were brainstorming the list.

I see, you're going with with region-specific ideas. I understand... not that I was disagreeing with it anyway :P

John Compton wrote:
And even for those using these creatures in other campaign settings, the write-ups can inspire GMs to incorporate these monsters, the additional character options, and the fully detailed stat blocks into other worlds in compelling ways.

Bah... pretty sure that no one had trouble with that in the past XD


Alexander Augunas wrote:
JiCi wrote:

I do not want to sound rude or anything, but...

any reason why this booklet is "exclusive" to the Campaign Setting instead of being 50% of an upcoming 2nd Monster Codex for the general rules?

Aside from the Charau-ka, all other monsters were presented in Bestiaries and the Advanced Race Guide (strix, gillmen), so to me, the exclusivity seems a little... odd... even if it's "not that hard" to adapt these to your liking.

If all 10 races were described solely in APs or other Golarion-related books, I would have understood... but I've seen derros, centaurs and cyclops in other general books... UNLESS some of the races presented DID start as Golarion-exclusive before being brought to the mainstream game.

I'll buy that Day 1 for sure, but I felt that I needed to ask :P

Considering that this year's Q3 book is Bestiary 5, I would rather get half a Monster Codex 2 now and then a whole separate Monster Codex 2 sometime in the future. But that's just my preferences. ;-)

Well, that could work too, but... it's still weird that they are making a Golarion-exclusive Monster Codex... with monsters that aren't necessarily Golarion-exclusive.

- Gillmen and Strix? Sure, as stated that they started as exclusive races in APs and the World Guide, even if they were made mainstream with the ARG.
- Charau-ka? Sure, they are still an exclusive race in the World Guide, with no reprint in a general rulebook... yet.
- Androids, Ghorans, Monkey Goblins, Lashuntas and Syrinxes? Sure, as presented in the Inner Seas Bestiary, as exclusive races, again with no reprint.

Centaurs, Cyclopes, Girtablilus, Ogrekins and Derros however? They... all appeared in Bestiaries already, withtou being in Golarion books prior to it, not to mention that some of them are rather iconic to the standard game.

Like I said, that's not a bad thing, but you have to admit that it doesn't "follow" the same rules as other Golarion products. Granted, rules are made to be broken, but still...

Oh BTW, I use the term "exclusive" simply to differenciate things from the general rulebooks and Golarion books, this isn't used as a prejorative word... at all, just to be clear ;)

Kalashtars, Shifters, Changelings and Warforged were exclusive to Eberron, for instance.


I do not want to sound rude or anything, but...

any reason why this booklet is "exclusive" to the Campaign Setting instead of being 50% of an upcoming 2nd Monster Codex for the general rules?

Aside from the Charau-ka, all other monsters were presented in Bestiaries and the Advanced Race Guide (strix, gillmen), so to me, the exclusivity seems a little... odd... even if it's "not that hard" to adapt these to your liking.

If all 10 races were described solely in APs or other Golarion-related books, I would have understood... but I've seen derros, centaurs and cyclops in other general books... UNLESS some of the races presented DID start as Golarion-exclusive before being brought to the mainstream game.

I'll buy that Day 1 for sure, but I felt that I needed to ask :P


Barathos wrote:
nate lange wrote:

I really love that alchemist archetype that lets them use guns effectively- of all the classes you could give guns to that is by far the one that makes the most sense, and the flavor is just so good.

huh? they what? why on earth wouldn't you...

Which alchemist archetype gets that? I know there's an investigator archetype that's firearm related.

The Steel Hound archetype is the investigator's archetype that focuses on firearms, but I've never heard of an alchemist's archetype that uses firearms though...


From my understanding...
1) Yup

2) Yup... but they still remain artifacts.

You can have magically-enhanced technological gear, you just need to follow the standard rules.

A +1 Flaming Burst laser pistol is possible, so can be an Intelligent Powered Armor.


Any other opinion?


I asked that question a while back... no answer :(


Alexander, could you tell me something?

The witch has patron spells, which are similar to mystery spells or bloodline spells, so...

Can your archetype be applied to the Witch, replacing the patron spells by the feats?


Joynt Jezebel wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Joynt Jezebel wrote:

Taking the Nine Tailed Mystic Achetype Sorcerer may be a power option if allowed.

You get your tails for Bloodline Spells not feats. And you still get a bloodline, which you can use to expand the range of beings you can enchant. It could be real powerful.

True, but the Tails offer you SLAs, so...
Not sure what you mean.

You trade spells for spell-like abilities. You swap your spell list by the Kitsune's spell-like abilities.


Joynt Jezebel wrote:

Taking the Nine Tailed Mystic Achetype Sorcerer may be a power option if allowed.

You get your tails for Bloodline Spells not feats. And you still get a bloodline, which you can use to expand the range of beings you can enchant. It could be real powerful.

True, but the Tails offer you SLAs, so...

Sorcerer or Oracle using that archetype is possibly the best way to get all 9 tails.


Let's say you want to play an oracle and must select a curse, which one is the least damaging for you, mecanically?

I keep thinking that the Tongues curse doesn't hamper you... at all. By 10th level, you're... pretty much clear. Why? Because if your allies want to warn you, you understand them. You can't answer back unless they understand you, but... let's face it, what's so complicated for the other players to invest 2 skill points to learn your selected language anyway?

That's my opinion though. What's yours?


Qstor wrote:
JiCi wrote:


We might not be seeing Beholders, Displacer Beasts and Mind Flayers anytime soon, but the Ravid is still a possibility.

I think WotC considers beholders and mind flayers their IP.

There's no "official" version of the Ethereal Filcher either.

Yep, the sad truth :( A few monsters are still under WotC's control... rightfully so whether you like it or not. I mean, it was THEIR decision to make their system available to everyone, but also THEIR decision to make some elements exclusive to them as well.

If you ask me, the omittion of the Displacer Beast is questionnable. Beholders and Mind Flayers have been used as manjor antagonists in the past D&D adventures, but a six-legged panther with tentacles???

Yeah... odd...


Can't GMs simply allow more companions anyway? That doesn't seem like a game-breaking house rule.

If druids can have them, so can rangers... and you've equalized the class :P


Ok... NPCs follow a "rule" based on their wealth, as in that a NPC has a specific amount of GPs to spend to be at the current CR listed.

What if I want to make them richer than usual, thus making them stronger than usual?

Is there a rule of thumb about that, like "+1 CR for every extra 10,000 GP" or something?

I do remember seeing NPcs with the following [paraphrased] note: "[This NPC] has stronger gear than usual, thus is considered 1 CR higher." However, they don't specify what items make that NPC better than usual.


Kalindlara wrote:
Delvers and tojanida at least made it into Misfit Monsters Revisited. ^_^

Delvers could be in B5 as well. It's not like Paizo doesn't have a backlog of monsters anyway. Just check the huge lists of monsters from APs and such that I've made :P


Myth Lord wrote:
Digesters say hello.

I said "one of the few monsters". Pretty sure a few more could be converted.


Kalindlara wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why is everyone so excited for the ravid?

Seems like one of the few monsters that are still not in Pathfinder yet, but are still OGL.

We might not be seeing Beholders, Displacer Beasts and Mind Flayers anytime soon, but the Ravid is still a possibility.


Milo v3 wrote:
Paizo didn't make psionic material because DSP already has a monopoly on that market and it would be stupid for them to try and take it. Most the psionic rules are upon the OGL and can be taken by anyone, only things that aren't are basically from Complete Psionic... which no one wanted in the first place.

I agree that Complete Psionic was a major letdown...

However, I don't think that Paizo "let" DP publish psionic materials. I see it that DP just wanted to convert the whole thing for PF and did it. Paizo? I could have sworn that I've read an answer saying that they didn't have plans for psionics... at all...

You could say that DP beat them to it, but I say that Paizo never intended to make psionic materials. Beside... good luck including THIS into Golarion.

It was easy for WotC's Eberron due to Sarlona and the Kalashtars, but in Golarion? Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure...

"Occult" is very easy, because the world's cultures make it so. Same goes with alchemy, eidolons and firearms. Psionics however? No idea where to even introduce them if it was the case.

Then again people... Occult Adventures has the Kineticist... that can become a telekineticist with blasts, flying and even a "mind blade" using the Kinetic Blade talent.


Dragon78 wrote:
It doesn't mean those creature abilities will not be altered to fit psychic magic rules instead of psionics.

Oh... point taken...


Duiker wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Mechagamera wrote:
Creatures that can warp the minds of their victims, including the caller in darkness, thought eater, and the bizarre brain mole

Woaw, woaw, woaw, woaw... time out here...

- Caller in Darkness: psionic incorporeal undead creature made from the soul of a tortured victim.
- Brain Mole: psionic rodent which can transmit a disease that drains power points.
- Thought Eater: psionic skeletal avian creature from the Ethereal Plane which feed on people's thoughts... or power points...

See the common link here? Yeah... me too...

Aren't psionic creatures, as well as the whole psionic mecanic, WotC's IP? How did Paizo get its hands on that?

Oh, and don't point to Dreamscarred Press and their psionic books. That doesn't count, because these guys at DP are 3rd-parties, unlike Paizo. 3rd-parties MIGHT have an easier time dealing with exclusive stuff, but Paizo, as a 1st-party, cannot.

Good for them if they did, but... to me, that strikes me as shocking O_O

They were released under the OGL. It takes thirty seconds on google to find them in the old d20 srd.

Oh... nevermind...

Wait, even the rules???

I thought Paizo said that they couldn't make psionic material due to being under WotC's control or something.


Neal Litherland wrote:
Android PCs have been pretty popular, and I love the idea of being allowed to play one. A lot of the gamers I've spoken to, however, feel that androids should only be allowed to take levels of certain classes. That's why, for this week's Table Talk installment, I decided to set forth the details of my idea for an android barbarian.

I'm not gonna go into the mecanical details, but only from a concept view here.

Androids should be able to take any classes their wish. They just need a good... reason to explain certain features.

- A Barbarian's rage could be an overclocking setup.
- A Sorcerer's bloodline could be a set of nanites exposed to arcane residual energy
- A Cleric's faith could be... anything really.

Iron Gods:
There's an AI that calls itself a deity and can grant domains and spells. Yeah... if an Artificial Intelligence can be considered religious, pretty sure an android can be a faithful zealot.

- An Oracle's curse could be a malfunction
- A Kineticist's specialization could be a battery.

Everything can be explained via a gadget or setup :P


Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Any objection that I wait for the complete version before downloading it?
No objection here.

Ok, just to make sure ^_^


Mechagamera wrote:
Creatures that can warp the minds of their victims, including the caller in darkness, thought eater, and the bizarre brain mole

Woaw, woaw, woaw, woaw... time out here...

- Caller in Darkness: psionic incorporeal undead creature made from the soul of a tortured victim.
- Brain Mole: psionic rodent which can transmit a disease that drains power points.
- Thought Eater: psionic skeletal avian creature from the Ethereal Plane which feed on people's thoughts... or power points...

See the common link here? Yeah... me too...

Aren't psionic creatures, as well as the whole psionic mecanic, WotC's IP? How did Paizo get its hands on that?

Oh, and don't point to Dreamscarred Press and their psionic books. That doesn't count, because these guys at DP are 3rd-parties, unlike Paizo. 3rd-parties MIGHT have an easier time dealing with exclusive stuff, but Paizo, as a 1st-party, cannot.

Good for them if they did, but... to me, that strikes me as shocking O_O


Dragon78 wrote:
I wonder if the Dream Dragons will be the next set of 5 true dragons will be or are they something else.

Well, they've been adding true dragons in every Bestiary so far, I'd say that it's possible.


Here's the confirmation for dis-believers :P

Fall 2015 for the release apparently.


Why are you guys requesting more lycanthropes... when you can make your own pretty easily?

Were-serpents, were-ravens, were-foxes and were-jackals can all be done normally with the template at hand, all you need is the right base animal for it. Furthermore, no lycanthrope has their own set of rules, so... no fret about missing an ability or two.

I dunno, but I feel like it would be a waste of spots to add more lycanthropes in the book when people can already create their own versions.

Were-vermins on the other hand...

On topic... how about "physical manifestations of magic"?
- a spirit of evocation magic
- a spirit of abjuration magic
- a spirit of conjuration magic
- etc...

A spellcaster dies, his spirit gets reborned as a living eldritch creature. That would be a nice set of creatures.

Also, I don't know HOW it would be doable, BUT... I'd like Huge, Gargantuan and/or Colossal creatures and/or classes of creatures, but at a low CR, like below CR 12, 10 or even 8. I want to give PCs a challenge against bigger creatures WITHOUT having to wait 10 levels to be a suitable encounter.

I dunno... a new race of giants, a species of sand worms, a group of drakes, name it... Pretty sure you can get Huge, Gargautuan and Colossal creatures without having to go into high-level play.


Is this gonna work like eidolons or iron titans, where you purchase abilities using points and customize your dragon as you see fit?


Barbarian: Mounted Fury
Bard: Archaeologist
Cleric: Undead Lord
Druid: Goliath Druid
Fighter: Two-Weapon Warrior
Monk: Zen Archer
Paladin: Divine Hunter
Ranger: Wild Stalker
Rogue: Swordmaster (Tengu)
Sorcerer: Wildblooded (Sage) / Battle Sorcerer (conversion)
Wizard: Spell Sage
Alchemist: Grenadier
Cavalier: Musketeer
Gunslinger: Pistolero
Inquisitor: Spellbreaker
Magus: Bladebound / Kensai
Oracle: Warsighted
Summoner: Evolutionist
Witch: White-haired Witch
Ninja: -none- (how come no archetype have been done for it yet?)
Samurai: Sword Saint
Arcanist: White Mage
Bloodrager: Bloody-Knuckled Rowdy
Brawler: Shield Champion
Hunter: Verminous Hunter
Investigator: Steel Hound
Shaman: Witch Doctor
Skald: Herald of The Horn
Slayer: Bounty Hunter
Swashbuckler: Picaroon
Warpriest: Sacred Fist


Nefreet wrote:
Polearms do not need any feats in order for you to threaten with them.

To threaten reach, no, to threaten a range shorter, like 5ft instead of 10ft, yes.


Segovax wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
So, it is the only One-Handed Reach weapon, that I don't need a feat tree to threaten with?

Correct.

Any assumptions people have about swift action this or that is still just an assumption, and therefor has no bearing in PFS.
A weapon with reach given in the qualities and no stipulations in the description threatens at 10 feet for small and medium characters. Since the flickmace has no description, this is how the weapon functions in PFS unless an errata changes it.

I know that the whip needs a feat or two to threaten reach, same goes with polearms... but if you don't need a feat to threaten reach with a spiked chain, pretty sure you don't need one for the flickmace.


Ravingdork wrote:
Why would you ever have it in mace form then?

Couple reasons:

1) Concealment; having a reach weapon "hidden" is a pretty good strategy to surprise your opponents.

2) Tripping; you can trip, but can your opponents if you fail.

3) TWF; unless you have 2 flickmaces, good TWFing someone with a flickmace and shortsword... when you can't reach the opponent with the sword. Even if it's unraveled, what's the point of the reach quality if you threaten the opponent with the short sword anyway?

4) Disarm; a reach weapon can be disarmed like any other... except that when it does, it lands further away from you than a non-reach weapon.

5) Enhancements; some of them might not work for reach weapons.

6) Feats; see enhancements above.


My understanding:
Works normally as a regular heavy mace; becomes a one-handed flail with the reach and trip qualities as a swift action; becomes back a heavy mace as another swift action.

The reach works like spiked chain: normal reach, but with the ability to hit adjacent opponents.

Think about it: polearms are... kinda stiff; flails and chains are not.


Kinda wished that the flickmace and switchscythe were added to the Melee Toolbox :(


NG, NE, N, LN and CN dragons... basically alignment/balance dragons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Myth Lord wrote:

NPC Codex it will be, mark my words, everything leads to it.

Bleh.

And most humans seem to want more humans instead of another awesome bestiary.

I'm not a fan of more lycanthropes, I think the ones we got really cover the most needed ones.

You're still harping on that? Dude, if you cannot take it, then just get out already! Geez...


Any objection that I wait for the complete version before downloading it? It's listed, so I can check out its progress easily.


Lorathorn wrote:
I would guess that a desire for a more interesting Kaiju-fighting vehicle would be sated by converting Dragon Mech material, but that's just a stab in the dark.

The problem is that the Dragonmech rules for mechs... aren't easy to grasp.

- To move, you need a pilot.
- If the pilot isn't "proficient" with mechs, he needs a gunner to attack.
- The mech cannot attack AND move in the same round, unless the pilot has a feat.
- For each weapon, a gunner is needed.
- The pilot needs another feat to make use of the weapons on board

In short... it isn't as simple as simply controlling a Gargantuan creature...


Justin Sluder wrote:
JiCi wrote:

Ok... upon a second reading, there's something... off about Taurosu: it's a Kaiju-killing Kaiju... that deals Con damage upon hitting with its natural attacks... that will not work on Kaijus due to them being immune to ability damage.

Huh... yeah... kinda of a pointless ability... unless Kaiju Bane makes it possible for Taurosu to deal ability damage to other Kaijus...

Care to enlighten me on that issue here please?

Thanks in advance ^_^

It's simply an oversight. Kaiju should take Con damage as listed from Taurosu's attacks.

Thanks for the info ^_^


Maybe some clarifications here:

I can get an Intelligent Item to cast at will an empowered intensified shocking grasp (4th-level) or an empowered maximized intensified shocking grasp (7th-level)... but not a regular shocking grasp (1st-level).

Furthermore, an Intelligent Item can have a different purpose than the ones suggested, such as "obey your wielder without question", meaning that its wielder could utilize the dedicated power without any kind of restriction.

An example: I could make a female Android magus/techomancer who crafted 4 Intelligent arc pistols, which can fly at a speed of 30 feet... and could cast disintegrate at will... since the purpose could be either "defeat whoever challenges the wielder" or "obey your wielder".

So yeah... the omittion of lower and higher spell levels is weird, because 1) lower levels would be good for low-level characters and 2) higher levels would be good for artifacts and mythic items.

1 to 50 of 1,435 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.