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

Kazaan's page

4,545 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 4,545 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Fist2Jaw wrote:

I think I need another feat to throw two weapons at once. I had a similar question when I was using a two-weapon fighter wanting to know if I could throw two-chakrams as a full round action, but apparently rules state that when you're throwing a weapon you can only throw one thing at a time.

That being said I am carrying two bastard swords: one to throw and the other one for melee two-handed.

What exactly do you mean by throwing "one at a time"? If you have a chakram in each hand, and you have at least BAB+6, you can throw both Charkam, one as your BAB+6 iterative and the other as your BAB+1. You could also use TWF rules to throw one as an off-hand attack, though you take attack penalties in doing so. It's only if you have 3 or more iterative attacks that you'd have problems, unless you have Quick Draw or you're using thrown weapons that can normally be drawn as free actions (ie. Shuriken).

That having been said, if you have EWP for it, then you can throw a Bastard Sword in one hand, and subsequently make your attacks with the other in two hands. This does not count as two-weapon fighting so you don't even take attack penalties.

_Ozy_ wrote:
Yeah, attack an 'invisible' person in an adjacent square. Who knows, there could be one there.

You can attack a vacant spot. You don't really need to even "suspect" an invisible creature is there. Effectively, you are spending a standard action to "brandish" your weapon at nothing in particular, but keep it active so you can defend yourself. Arguably, you could also attack defensively while doing so and get additional defense, but you're not going Total Defense so you still get to make AoOs (though the penalty for both CE and defensive would apply). Honestly, I would have made it such that such a brandishing move is a move action rather than standard; spend a move action to gain the effect as if you had used the Attack action to fight defensively, but you aren't targeting anyone.

The AC bonus wouldn't kick in until he actually makes the action he is readying and this attack would occur immediately before the triggering action. Lets look at some scenarios:

Characters A, B, and C; A is a PC while B and C are enemies. Initiative is as follows: A-30, B-27, C-20. A got highest so he takes his turn first. He readies an action to attack when someone attacks him and plans to use Combat Expertise. B goes next and he makes a ranged attack. This would be a valid trigger, but A can't reach B so A never gets to trigger his readied action. He hasn't declared his Attack yet; he has only declared a readied action. Thus, he gets no AC bonus. Now C walks up and attacks A in melee. This triggers the readied action which occurs at initiative 20 just before character C. A makes his attack, using Combat Expertise, and now has the bonus AC. Then character C completes his attack against A and A gets the AC bonus against this attack.

Now lets look at a slightly different order: Everything is the same, except A gets a 20 on his initiative roll and, since his initiative modifier is +5 and C's initiative modifier is only +3, A goes before C, but they both share the same initiative count (20). B attacks A. A has not yet set up his readied action so this attack simply goes through. On A's turn, he readies his action. Then C triggers A's readied action. A still didn't get the benefit of Combat Expertise when B attacked him because A hadn't yet made his attack. The result is the same, as it should be; A didn't actually attack until initiative count 20 and, consequently, doesn't get the AC bonus until that time.

Gisher wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Quarterstaff Master lets you treat a Quarterstaff as a 1-h weapon instead of a 2-h weapon. But even a 1-h weapon can be wielded in two hands for extra Str to damage. You still can't use it as a double weapon if you've decided to treat it as 1-h for that round, but that doesn't prevent you from using it as a 1-h weapon wielded in two hands.
I think it does prevent that. The feat doesn't say that it lets you "treat a Quarterstaff as a 1-h weapon" in all respects. What it does is let you "wield a quarterstaff as a one-handed weapon" with some specific restrictions on what that means.

Six of one, a half dozen of the other. "Treat a Quarterstaff as a 1-h weapon" and "wield a quarterstaff as a one-handed weapon" functionally mean the same exact thing. Granted, you still can't wield it as a 1-h weapon in 2 hands during Spell Combat because of SC's specific limitations, but after you finish your Spell Combat action, you can use your other hand and you're, effectively, wielding a 1-h weapon with two hands, meaning you get 1.5x Str on AoOs (and higher Power Attack bonus if you're using Power Attack). That's the only real benefit and it's an insignificant one at best; but it is most certainly valid.

Shadow on the Wall wrote:

Where is Scion of War?

It's in Inner Sea Guide. The actual feat name is Noble Scion, but it has several options to choose from and the War option is typically just abbreviated Scion of War

d20pfsrd wrote:

You are a member of a proud noble family, whether or not you remain in good standing with your family.

Prerequisites: Cha 13, must be taken at 1st level.

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus on all Knowledge (nobility) checks, and that chosen Knowledge skill is always considered a class skill for you.

When you select this feat, choose one of the benefits listed below that matches the flavor of your noble family. Work with your GM to ensure that your choice is appropriate.

Scion of the Arts: You gain a +1 bonus on all Perform checks, and Perform is always a class skill for you. If you have the bardic performance ability, you can use that ability for an additional 3 rounds per day.

Scion of Lore: You gain a +1 bonus on all Knowledge skills in which you have at least 1 rank.

Scion of Magic: You gain one of the following languages as a bonus language: Abyssal, Aklo, Celestial, Draconic, Infernal, or Sylvan. Once per day, as a free action, you can gain a +2 bonus on any Spellcraft check you make. You must spend the free action to gain this bonus before you make the check.

Scion of Peace: Whenever you take 10 on a Wisdom-based skill, treat the result as if you had rolled a 13 instead of a 10.

Scion of War: You use your Charisma modifier to adjust Initiative checks instead of your Dexterity modifier.

You'll need to take it at first level so you'd need to delay one of your other feats.

Question: Shade says you must be non-good while Paladin requires you to be LG. How are you reconciling this? Presuming you have taken this into consideration, I'd say maybe pick up 1 level of Oracle of Nature to grab Nature's Whispers; it lets you use Cha in place of Dex for AC. Also grab Scion of War to get Cha in place of Dex for Initiative and Paladin's Divine Grace adds Cha to all your saves. With this, you can disregard Dex altogether. Throw in a few levels of Bard and your Versatile Performance can sub Dance in for Acrobatics and Pageant of the Peacock can let you sub Bluff (Cha skill) in for any Int check or Int skill (uses 1 round of Bardic Perform per 10 minutes of effect). With this, you can disregard Dex, Int, and Wis and only rely on Str, Cha, and Con.

Sandslice wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I'm pretty sure that the opposite of NG is NE. It's not that there can be no neutral component after the change, it's referring specifically the True Neutral alignment that must become one of the four extremes (LG, CG, LE, CE), but NG and NE are opposite pairs, as are LN and CN.
That's what I'd think at first. But it also says "as different as possible from the original alignment" --- and a three-step change (NG to LE) is more different than a two-step change (NG to NE.)

They're all two step changes because diagonals.

Kwauss wrote:
So you can spellcombat a spell in your off hand, then two hand your longsword and whack someone with it? This doesn't violate 'hand economy'?

Spell Combat requires the hand to be free throughout the duration so no, you couldn't do that. However, if you were not using Spell Combat, you could cast, say, Shocking Grasp just as a Standard Cast a Spell action with a weapon held in one hand (1-h or 2-h, it doesn't matter) and then two-hand it for the delivery.

Quarterstaff Master lets you treat a Quarterstaff as a 1-h weapon instead of a 2-h weapon. But even a 1-h weapon can be wielded in two hands for extra Str to damage. You still can't use it as a double weapon if you've decided to treat it as 1-h for that round, but that doesn't prevent you from using it as a 1-h weapon wielded in two hands.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In Sumo, the senior referee carries a knife with him. Presently, this is merely an archaic prop, but the historical reason for this is that if the referee makes an incorrect ruling, he'd perform seppuku (in present day, he'd be expected to tender his resignation). Introduce a rule like this, and I think most GMs would drastically polish up their game and their rules mastery and the instances of "the GM doesn't know what the rules are" would drastically decline.

Paladin 2 gets you Divine Grace which gives Cha to all saves.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Vycamros Chandler wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The good rules lawyer speaks up once, then shuts up when the GM makes his decision.
No. No, absolutely not. The GM is subject to the rules too. If he's changing something that you inherently expect then you have players with mismatched preconceived notions. I can forgive it if the GM is upfront about what will be different during their game, but the GM is subject to the rules like any other player. Throwing a player a curve ball when there's existing rules for something is just going to start a fight. I know this concept of the GM as the final decision maker on the rules has been well-established in this hobby but it's a silly concept. I don't afford a GM any special treatment just because they're the GM. At a table all the players need to be on the same page about what they can and can't do. And if you're arbitrarily making decisions on rules as opposed to figuring out how they really work you're doing everyone and yourself a disservice.

^ There we go. That's a bad rules lawyer. Particularly when that attitude and approach is holding up the game.

Sometimes, at a certain point, even if it kills your character, even if the GM is wrong, you need to shut up and accept what has been ruled. Or leave the game.

There is such thing as a bad GM. That doesn't actually have any relevance on whether or not you are being a bad player.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" -Edmund Burke

All Power Attack requires in this case is a one-handed weapon wielded with two hands. Case in point: a Monk making a Flurry with a weapon in two hands only gets 1x Str to damage because of Flurry rules, but still gets -1/+3 Power Attack ratio. Arguably, this also applies to the Rapier; you can't two-hand it for added Str to damage, but it doesn't say you can't two-hand it for increased Power Attack.

Relevant rules texts:

PRD/Getting Started wrote:
Creature: A creature is an active participant in the story or world. This includes PCs, NPCs, and monsters.
PRD/Bestiary wrote:


This type comprises vegetable creatures. Note that regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens and fields, lack Wisdom and Charisma scores and are not creatures, but objects, even though they are alive. A plant creature has the following features.

So being alive doesn't necessarily mean you count as a creature (mundane plants) and being a creature doesn't necessarily mean you count as being alive (constructs and undead). The rules don't strictly define what "being alive" is, but spells like "Raise Dead" which bring creatures back to life specifically state they target "dead creature". It also doesn't define what an "object" is, but if it is not an active participant in the world, it would be reasonable to say that it "defaults" to being an object based on the line from the Plant type. Thus, a Ficus has the following qualities: Object, (not)Creature. Arguably, anything that has tangible form is an Object so even a living creature isn't (not)Object, though an incorporeal creature would be (not)Object. Hence, a dead body is an object due to the fact that even a living body is an object. The dead body also counts as a Creature due to spells like Raise Dead being functional; if a dead body didn't count as a creature, then they could be a "dead creature" and thus, not a valid target for Raise Dead. Ergo, dead creatures count as creatures. Ergo, a spell like Chill Touch (target: creature(s) touched) can damage a corpse. This is pertinent as it can reduce a dead creature's HP further which makes them harder to raise via Breath of Life, but not much beyond that.

Points to keep in mind:

1) The table is not exhaustive. It lists actions based on action economy (standard, move, etc.) but does not list all acts that may provoke.

2) Provoking AoO is listed separately in some cases. For example, under Cast a Spell, Making a Ranged Touch Attack is explicitly called out as provoking despite not being its own action (it is a part of the Cast a Spell action). The FAQ clearly establishes that it's "acts" in a more general sense that provoke, not "actions" from the action economy perspective. Moving, for example, is considered a single "act" and the rules explicitly state that moving through multiple threatened spaces do not constitute multiple provocations. It doesn't matter if the movement is from the Move action or if it is a result of some other action (Charge, Withdraw (after the 1st square), etc). There is only one provocation and the only option the threatener gets is in which square he chooses to administer his AoO.

3) The Sword & Pistol feat clearly states the normal precedent:

PRD/UC wrote:

Benefit: When you use the Two-Weapon Fighting feat while wielding a melee weapon and a crossbow or firearm, your attacks with the crossbow or firearm provoke no attacks of opportunity from foes that you threaten with your melee weapon.

Normal: Making a ranged attack provokes attacks of opportunity.

There would be absolutely no point to this feat at all if making ranged attacks during a Full-Attack (rather than as a standard Attack action) didn't provoke. It clearly states that making a ranged attack provokes.

Conclusion: It's the act of making a Ranged Attack (or any other provoking act), not just the Standard Attack action used to make a Ranged Attack, that provokes. This has been clearly reinforced by both FAQs as well as the rules at hand. The PRD was kind of a rush job so they may not have stated it quite as clearly from the beginning, but everything published thereafter indicates that this was the original meaning. Thus, this is the most logical default position and, if this is incorrect (which I highly doubt), then an official change must be issued by Paizo.

The light crossbow is fired as a light weapon, but when used in one hand, you suffer a -2 penalty to attack. So it ends up that TWF using a pair of light crossbows gets to -4/-4 anyway and they didn't want to make using a pistol outright better. Not to mention a pistol will have more of a kick. Now maybe I could see a Coat Pistol (effectively a Derringer) used as a light weapon for TWF, but that's where I'd draw the line.

Matthew Downie wrote:
A good rules lawyer is one who knows when to let it go. If the GM allows someone to take Power Attack when they're not supposed to be able to take Power Attack, it doesn't do any real harm to the game. If you spend several minutes trying to persuade the GM he's wrong, it does harm the game.

Few people will argue too hard when the PCs are given a benefit they otherwise wouldn't have had. That can easily be reconciled; Oh, he figured out a way to Power Attack without needing 13 Str because of his superior techniques, yadda yadda. The problem comes up when someone is due something and the GM tries to shut it down. The problem is when the GM says, "Oh, well, I know you're flanking, and that would normally give you sneak attack, but that's bad for me so I houserule that this creature is really good at watching you and is immune to sneak attacks." Or, half-way into a campaign, "Oh, btw, did I mention that I houserule that you can totally TWF with a 2-h weapon and armor spikes? I didn't? Hmm, wierd... well, here comes an Orc Ranger with a greatsword and spiked armor. No one likes to be gypped or for the GM to abuse their position of authority and treat it as a "GM vs Players" game.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Covent wrote:

I would say... His "Best By" date!

*Ba-Dum, Chesseh!*

Boooo, get off the stage!

We're all pretty sure we know what they intended; the problem is that it isn't written that way, neither explicitly nor implicitly. FoB lists out a specific -2 to all attacks and lays out a sequence of attack growth based on both BAB and virtual TWF feats. Brawler's Flurry, however, is written significantly different due in part to the Brawler already having full BAB (compared to Monk only getting full-BAB equivalent during Flurry). They should have included a clause that you take -2/-2 penalties as if fighting with a light off-hand regardless of what weapon you use. It's not really a debate at this point, more a matter of FAQing it to bring the oversight to their attention so they can correct it.

Kchaka wrote:

What you want is a quote from a official book saying specifically something like "you can't make off-hand attacks if you have already used your regular attacks to attack with a 2h weapon".

It's true, there is no such specific official quote, but what I could do is quote Every Single Rule About Two-Weapon-Fighting, Two-Handed Weapons, One-Handed Weapons, Light Weapons, etc, and if you read and understand most of it, it should be clear, in the rules, why you can't attack like that. It's as clear as a US$ 10,00 bottled water.

So, no, they did not pull that out of the blue, this rule was already there, in the context of rules as a whole, just not explicitly written. You can say it's based on unwritten rules, but you can't say the FAQ is not supported by RAW, it's the opposit, that FAQ IS supported by RAW, just not explicitly.

That's basically the problem people have; they can't distinguish the difference between RAW/RAI from the difference between explicit/implicit. They conflate Explicit with meaning RAW in the same way people conflate "attractiveness" with "appearance" when considering the Charisma ability score. Just because it isn't explicit doesn't mean it isn't written. Implicit meaning relies on what is actually written, it's just written in an implicit manner rather than an explicit manner. It isn't explicitly written, "A dead character cannot take actions" but it is implied because a dead character takes on the unconscious condition and an unconscious character cannot take actions. Likewise, while it isn't explicitly written that making an attack with a weapon wielded in two hands (either a 2-h weapon or a 1-h in 2 hands) subsumes an off-hand attack, it is fully implied by how the various TWF rules are written. The only thing the FAQ did was take the implicit message of those rules and explicitly state it for the benefit of those who failed to grasp the implied rule. By "unwritten", what the Devs really meant was "implied"... they just used a term that they felt wouldn't be so hard to understand; "implication" might not be in the functional vocabulary of the intended audience.

You know... it doesn't specify the penalties you take like Monk's FoB does. So yes, by RAW, if a Brawler flurries with anything other than a light weapon for the off-hand attacks, they take -4/-4 rather than -2/-2, unlike a Monk. So a Brawler flurrying with a 2-h weapon is at -4/-4. Might be an oversight, might not. I guess we should start a FAQ request.

The off-hand weapon must be light in order to give you reduced peanlties on TWF. There are some ranged weapons that state they may be counted as light for TWF penalties, but that is an exception to the standard rule. Thus, if the ranged weapon in question doesn't explicitly say it counts as light, then it doesn't count as light.

Regarding the Buckler Gun, an off-hand weapon only has meaning in the context of TWF. So if you make a standard attack or full-attack not using TWF rules elements, there's no such thing as a main-hand or off-hand weapon and the clause for Buckler Gun is moot. The only real logical way to interpret that is that if you are using TWF, you must designate the Buckler Gun as the off-hand weapon. To illustrate, if you have your Buckler Gun and a Shortsword, you can't say the Shortsword is your off-hand weapon and TWF with Buckler Gun in your main-hand. You must use the Shortsword as the main-hand and the gun as the off-hand.

That's no different than rolling the Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting feats into a single feat. Redcap's Heavy Weapons is simply based on a feat that used Monkey Grip as a prereq. It's obvious that the two were rolled into one, meaning that the function of Monkey Grip is now implied by the phrase "without penalty" in not only this ability, but any other ability worded the same. Whether or not it's a 3.5 holdover or not, it works the way it works and, just as with half-breeds, a single mechanical term can't mean two opposite things at the same time (effects related to race). "You can wield for (size) creatures without penalty" cannot logically mean anything other than disregarding both the change in handedness as well as the attack roll penalty. That means that this same phrase cannot mean something different in another part of the rules. That is inconsistent and, therefore, abominable and damnable.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I only said that "penalties" did not cover handedness.

I never said "penalties" was numeric minuses applied to a roll only.

Usually, it is though.

For example, a reduction of available actions, as the Nauseated condition creates, is also considered a "penalty", depending on context.

So, if handedness, in this context, is considered a penalty, then there must be some proof of such.

Just so long as that proof isn't a monster that couldn't wield its assigned weapon if handedness weren't considered a penalty. Gotcha.

Chengar Qordath wrote:
Also a good point; in a place as diverse as your typical fantasy game beauty is going to be very much in the eye of the beholder.

This is Pathfinder; there are no Beholders in Pathfinder.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I would rather have a ruling on the Redcap.

It is likely to be used more often, and would set up a precedent.

Let's look at an ability, that works in the opposite direction:

Bestiary wrote:

Undersized Weapons (Ex)

The creature uses manufactured weapons as if it were one size category Smaller than the creature’s actual size.

Format: undersized weapons; Location: Special Qualities.

Now, that covers penalties, and handedness.

If the Redcap ability were: "The Redcap uses manufactured weapons as if it were one size category Larger.", then it would work, as intended, without a doubt.

Not quite. Undersized Weapons is more of a prohibition than a benefit. A Redcap can wield both Small and Medium weapons equally (same goes for an Oversized Limb Tiefling and Medium/Large weapons). But Undersized Weapons works out such that if you are a Large creature, you only count Medium weapons as being properly sized for you. That is, apparently, not the situation they wanted to establish which is why they didn't use that mechanical structure. But tell me, if "Penalties" is only talking about the -2 penalty per size category, then does that mean you also believe we should wield Double weapons with 1.5x Str to damage on both heads? After all, it only says you take TWF Penalties as if wielding a one-handed and light weapon. By your position, reducing the 1.5x Str from wielding a 2-h weapon down to 1x for the main-hand and 0.5x for the off-hand wouldn't be considered a Penalty. Obviously, since you believe that Penalties can't be things other than numeric minuses applied to a roll, you'd be fine if, in your game, I brought in a character with a Double Sword getting 1.5x Str on all my TWF attacks, right?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Trimalchio wrote:

I recommend a dictionary.

Appearance isn't water wherein someone can have more or less of it, indeed the sentence, 'she has more appearance than you' doesn't even make grammatical sense in English. This is by far your silliest...

It may not make grammatical sense, but it works for explaining the concept to people who cannot comprehend it otherwise. When I need to explain something to my daughter, I don't use the same complex words I'd use for an adult; I need to simplify it and sometimes, I use non-grammatical structuring so that the can understand it better. But it makes far less sense to claim that appearance means beauty because you can't have "more" or "less" beauty since beauty is a subjective measure. Charisma is your force of personality and confidence and it's the greater measure of that quality that, in the mechanics of the game, governs how strongly others react to the character. Quibbling over using "more than" or "greater than" doesn't validate your point; if anything, it reinforces the pointlessness of your argument. Charisma is a quantitative score and it is not a "composite" of different disparate factors, at least not anymore than Strength is a composite of the strength of different muscle groups. It is a mechanical system and many things are abstracted down into numerical values, but claiming "more appearance" = "more attractive" is utterly facetious.

Incorrect. Titan Mauler's ability is written differently.

PRD wrote:
Massive Weapons (Ex): At 3rd level, a titan mauler becomes skilled in the use of massive weapons looted from her titanic foes. The attack roll penalty for using weapons too large for her size is reduced by 1, and this reduction increases by 1 for every three levels beyond 3rd (to a minimum of 0). This ability replaces trap sense.

It explicitly singles out the attack roll penalty, rather than listing "penalties' in general. Same applies to Titan Fighter.

JonathonWilder wrote:
So I'm sorry but it has and can still be argued that Appearance can involve whether or not someone is Attractive. That a high Charsima, through appearance, would naturally and logically often involve being physically attractive not only the character mannerisms and behaviors but 'how someone appearances to another'... which more often then not as often involves how someone looks not only what they say or do.

Lots of things can be argued. That doesn't mean they are correct. If you are attractive, then the more Charisma you have, the more attractive you are. But this effect is due to your confidence and force of personality, not the attractiveness itself. You are not improving your appearance; your increased Charisma is increasing the effect of your appearance. Whether or not you are an attractive person is purely subjective in nature and a numerical Charisma score is an objective measure, not a subjective one. On the same note, if you are ugly, increased Charisma makes others more strongly affected by your ugliness while lower Charisma means they are less strongly affected.

All your side keeps doing is going back to the idea that the words "appearance" and "attractiveness" are the synonymous. They are not. Someone can validly describe themselves as Beautiful with a Cha score of 5. Are they not beautiful? No. But is someone with a Cha score of 30 going to be considered more beautiful? Of course. The low score makes them less beautiful, not the opposite of beautiful.

They have, functionally, the same wording saving only for the fact that each is based on the size of the respective race (Tieflings are Medium sized, so it calls out Large and Redcaps are Small so it calls out Medium, but otherwise, they are identical). The change of handedness is noted as it is bundled into the "penalties" clause. Changing up from a 1-h weapon to a 2-h weapon is counted as a Penalty. Not a numeric penalty, mind you, but a penalty nonetheless. If Penalties were only the numeric penalties, then you can attack with both ends of a Double weapon at 1.5x Str because it is, after all, a 2-h weapon and when you wield it double for TWF, you take the penalties to TWF as if wielding a 1-h and light weapon. If "penalties" truly were just the numerical penalties, then it only affects the TWF penalty to attack, not how much Strength bonus you get to damage as that is not a "penalty" in the mechanical sense. "Monsters break the rules anyway" is never a valid excuse; if they really don't follow the rules, they must either be re-written or the rules must be re-written. The Redcap, a Small Fey, wields a Medium Scythe as a 2-h weapon. That definitively demonstrates that when it says "Penalties" in regards to wielding oversized weapons, handedness is an inherent part of "Penalties". Tiefling's Oversized Limbs, using the same exact verbiage, functions the same way.

As light for the purpose of determining TWF mechanics. Not as light for other mechanics such as qualifying for Weapon Finesse.

Well, given that both a Taiaha (a 1-h double weapon) as well as more standard 2-h double weapons are all treated as one-handed+light for twf penalties, I'd say that the relative size of the weapon doesn't really affect how you fight double with it. Wielding a double weapon for TWF is still wielding a 2-h weapon; it's just that you treat it as a 1-h + light for the purpose of TWF penalties. So our Titan Fighter isn't "not" wielding a Large 2-h weapon just because he's wielding a Large Double Sword and two-weapon fighting with it as a double weapon, therefore Giant Weapon Wielder works just fine for it.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Oversized Limbs doesn't change the number of hands required to wield inappropriately sized weapons. It just removes penalties. A large Longsword would still require two hands to wield.

This part is incorrect. It doesn't specify attack penalty, it just says "penalties" and we have prescient set by the Redcap, which has, mechanically, the same ability, being a small fey wielding a mediums scythe. The handedness change is counted as a penalty so a Tiefling with Oversized Limbs can, indeed, wield a Large Longsword and not only suffer no penalty to attack, but also still treats it as a 1-h weapon.

However, once you go up to Huge weapons, you don't only get a -2 penalty and treat a Huge Longsword as 2-h; it jumps up 2 categories to unwieldable and you can still only wield a Huge Light weapon at -4 as a 2-h weapon.

The rest of what you said, regarding Titan Fighter as well as Jotungrip is spot on.

The argument of "How can I challenge the players if they dump stats that they don't specialize in," is just as spurious as saying, "It shouldn't be allowed for a player to take the Shaky flaw (penalty to ranged attack rolls) if they don't use ranged attacks in the first place." I've actually seen that line of reasoning; saying that he requires a player to pick up a ranged weapon and have at least one feat pertinent to ranged attacks if he is taking the Shaky flaw so that the flaw actually affects the character some. If you aren't able to challenge your players, you need more practice.

Also, Detox is absolutely correct; the game belongs to all the people playing it, not just the GM as JWilder asserted. In fact, that's right in the rules...

PRD wrote:


The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.

The role the GM plays in the game is arbiter of the rules, not owner of the game. He is the referee; that is his job in the game. It is a co-op experience; not GM vs Players. Technically, the GM and Players are on the same side. So never, ever think of this as "just my game" because it isn't; that's against the rules of the game.

Weirdo wrote:
Making an off hand attack (with an off hand weapon) is incompatible with wielding a weapon in two hands, even if you free up the physical hand, per armour spikes FAQ. So you can attack the caster first with the kukri but you cannot get bonus damage from two-handing the longsword. I think someone referenced a Dev comment saying that the off hand is only occupied for the number of attacks you make with your off hand weapon and you could two-hand your last iterative(s) with the longsword, but that's not RAW.

Wellllllll.... for the sake of accuracy, I feel compelled to point out that, based on my discussion with the Devs, you "technically" can TWF using a 2-h weapon and an off-hand... but it is incredibly involved and complex and not nearly how most people think you can do it so they said, as a general rule of thumb, just boil it down to "you can't". However, for those interested...

Each time you attack with a weapon wielded in two hands (either a 2-h weapon or a 1-h weapon in 2 hands), it "eats" your next potential off-hand attack. So if you had GTWF (3 off-hands) and made 2 attacks with a Longsword wielded in 2 hands, you have your last off-hand remaining so you could make an off-hand attack at BAB-10 (you "lost" your BAB and BAB-5 off-hands that round). Conversely, if you make an off-hand attack, you acquire a "main-hand debt" and make a number of main-hand attacks one-handed equal to the number of off-hand attacks you made. So say you have 1 off-hand and 3 iteratives. You make your first off-hand as your first attack and then are obligated to make your first main-hand attack one-handed. However, since you are now out of off-hand attacks to make, you are free to two-hand your main-hand weapon for the remaining 2 iterative attacks.

Caosbot wrote:

Hey people i found this post from Sean:

Click here!

"The "TWF" aspect of spell combat is that your "off hand attack" is actually a spell you're casting, and isn't a weapon attack, and therefore is irrelevant (and distracting) to the question about how many weapon attacks you get when using spell combat."

That was in response to a question asking if your cast spell counts as a weapon attack, regarding how many attacks you can make during Spell Combat. Basically, there was a question whether a Magus with BAB+6 (2 iteratives) could make those two iteratives plus the free attack to deliver a touch spell (3 attacks total at +4/+4/-1), or if the free attack to deliver a touch spell counted against your iteratives (2 attacks total at +4/-1). It was the latter.

Kchaka wrote:

Let me rephrase what I said, Kazaan:

If you are TWFing, then I say you would have to interlace your main hand and off-hand attacks. That means, if you strike with your main hand first, you would have to strike with your off-hand before you strike with your main hand again, and vice versa.

Remember that you would still have to abide by the hightest bonus to lowest order rule.

So, the two possible permutations of someone with BAB +11 and GTWF would be:

MH - Main Hand
OH - Off-Hand

1) MH/OH/MH-5/OH-5/MH-10
2) OH/MH/OF-5/MH-5/MH-10

well... maybe these 2 other permutations too...

3) MH/OH/OH-5/MH-5/MH-10
4) OH/MH/MH-5/OH-5/MH-10

In these last two permutations, you'd always have to complete a set of MH+OH attacks before you can start the following set at -5, and so on.

At every round you can choose freely which hand is the main hand and, consequently, which is the off-hand.

You'd also be able to strike at any moment in the middle of this order with a secondary natural attack, a monk's Ki pool strike, or some other extra facultative attack.

This can get confusing, keeping track of the attacks order, but I think this would be the way that makes the most sense.

What I listed is precisely what is permissible by the rules, nothing more and nothing less. No one is saying you "can't" pick a routine that alternates hands as a personal preference; but that is not, in any way, shape, or form, required by the rules of the actual game. You may shuffle your main-hand and off-hand attacks however you choose provided only that your iterative attacks and your off-hand attacks independently follow their respective attack orders. Everything else you said, regarding other sources of additional attacks and being able to choose, round-by-round, which is the off-hand weapon, is correct, though.

Have you ever seen a celebrity that you didn't realize was a celebrity and just instinctively known, "There's something about this person"? Such a character can't help but draw eyes. If he's handsome, he'll draw eyes because he's handsome. If he's ugly, he'll draw eyes because he's ugly. If he's authoritative, he'll draw eyes because he has an air of authority. I used Disguise as an example for actively trying to change your appearance from "known" to "inconspicuous". But if you're just trying to be "not as charismatic", that's like trying to be "not as knowledgeable" or "not as wise". You can feign ignorance, but that involves answering questions wrong. Likewise, you can feign anonymity, but that involves subduing your presence in some manner. Think of Aragorn, the future King of all Men, wearing a ranger's hood and sitting over in the corner of a dark little tavern. He's got a decent Charisma about him so, even without knowing exactly who he is, his presence will affect those around him. Frodo's eyes are even drawn to him (he rocked that perception check) and knew this isn't just some random hooded stranger sitting in a tavern. People respond to confidence a lot more than they respond to intelligence and somewhat more than they respond to wisdom.

A Charismatic person outright reeks of confidence. It's their confidence that bolsters their appearance; their actual physical appearance is a mere tool of their intangible force of personality. If you are confident, than an big facial scar will look all the more intimidating; you're someone who will take a big hit to the face and keep going. If you lack confidence, that same scar will give others the impression that you messed up and got messed up in the face... maybe you're all talk. Conversely, a scar can act as a totem. Some rules elements allow physical aspects to affect your effective Charisma score. Getting a bonus from a scar is about bolstering your confidence, "Wow, that was close, but I survived because I'm so awesome," and the scar boosts your charisma not because of the physical effect on others, but because on the mental effect upon you, yourself, it is a constant reminder of how well you work under pressure. Conversely, if the scar gives a penalty to Charisma, it is, again, working on your confidence, but this time as a detriment, "Wow, that was close... I almost died... maybe I'm not as awesome as I thought I was." You become plagued by self-doubt and this hampers your ability to enforce your personality.

PS: @Lamontius
Your Cha 5 Inquisitor is plagued by self-doubt and self-esteem issues... but his faith fills in the gap. He may be a walking golden ratio with a perfectly symmetrical face, an exemplar of perfect health, and virile to boot, but his lack of forceful personality will mean people overlook this aspect of him. More importantly is that he understands people; he knows what makes them tick, their virtues and, more importantly, their vices. He knows what buttons to push. He doubts constantly and is always expecting failure around every corner, but his faith, based in Wisdom, lets him know that someone far more perfect than he could ever hope to be is watching over his shoulder and guiding his actions. He knows that it's his deity's guiding hand, not his own words, that convinces that woman that clean white gloves are a sin.

Kchaka wrote:
If you are TWFing, then I say you would have to interlace your main hand and off-hand attacks. That means, if you strike with your main hand first, you would have to strike with your off-hand before you strike with your main hand again.

You were correct, right up until this part. If you're wielding a Longsword (LS) as your main-hand and a Shortsword (SS) as your off-hand, you have 3 iterative attacks, and 2 off-hands, then the following are all valid attack permutations:

1) LS/LS-5/LS-10/SS/SS-5
2) LS/LS-5/SS/LS-10/SS-5
3) LS/SS/LS-5/LS-10/SS-5
4) SS/LS/LS-5/LS-10/SS-5
5) LS/LS-5/SS/SS-5/LS-10
6) LS/SS/LS-5/SS-5/LS-10
7) SS/LS/LS-5/SS-5/LS-10
8) LS/SS/SS-5/LS-5/LS-10
9) SS/LS/SS-5/LS-5/LS-10
10) SS/SS-5/LS/LS-5/LS-10

In all of the above sequences, the SS-5 attack is the second off-hand attack made and all iterative attacks from having high enough BAB are made in order from highest to lowest. Those are the only requirements and each of these 10 permutations satisfies both requirements.

CountofUndolpho wrote:

Surely whichever weapon you strike with first is the Primary? It's sort of what the word means. "first in order in any series, sequence, etc."

Off-hand doesn't exist in PF until you try and get an extra attack via TWF and then all it means is "the "weapon" you use to get an extra attack".

Just a thought

That's spurious reasoning. Off-hand weapon has no meaning outside of TWF, but that doesn't mean that, even in a TWF sequence, it can't exist until you have made a main-hand attack. Taking TWF penalties sets up the potential for an off-hand attack to exist that round. If you don't take those penalties, then no off-hand can be made in that round, but even if you do take the penalties, that doesn't necessarily mean an off-hand must be made. You could take the penalties, make a main-hand attack, and then decide it'd be more advantageous to down-step your full-attack to a standard attack and use a Move action. Alternatively, you could drop the enemy with the first attack and have no more valid targets and not even have the opportunity to make an off-hand. You took the penalty, but forfeited or rendered moot the benefit that penalty permitted. However, once you take the penalty, your off-hand is in play to use at your discretion so you may make it, even as your very first attack.

It's right in the PRD under CRB/Equipment:

CRB/Equipment wrote:

Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

The blued statement indicates a character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. The bolded statement goes on to state a creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon. It doesn't say, "you can wield a double weapon one-handed...", it says a creature wielding a double weapon one-handed is subject to the following restriction. But if some other rules element allows you to wield the weapon one-handed, either because it is, outright, a one-handed double weapon (the Taiaha being the only current example), or a feat or class ability allows you to wield 2-h weapons in one hand (ie. Jotungrip, Quarterstaff Master, etc), you wield an undersized weapon (a Medium creature wielding a Small double weapon as a 1-h), or any other special reason, then the bolded portion applies. You must bring your own permission to do this, though.

Xexyz wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Disguise, the skill about being less noticeable, is Cha-based. Cha is how strong your appearance is, not what king, so Disguise is making your appearance, "inconspicuous" and Cha is how inconspicuous you are able to make yourself. But think about it; if a highly charismatic celebrity walks into a room, people are going to react in a certain way. Even disguising himself to be inconspicuous is an agency of his force of personality. A 30 Cha character can't just passively, "turn the personality down" any more than a 30 Int character can avoid being constantly surrounded by idiots.

That's an interesting take on the disguise skill. My question would be - since disguise is opposed by perception - what does someone whose perception check is greater than the user's disguise check notice? Since the user isn't trying to disguise their identity, what information is relayed to the perception user?

Also, there's the whole bit about it taking 1d3 x 10 minutes to create a disguise, which seems nonsensical in this case.

Perception is about noticing inconspicuous things. Disguise is about remaining inconspicuous, among other things. Regarding the time it takes, this isn't just a jedi mind trick. It isn't about, "These aren't the droids you're looking for." You've actually got to make yourself appear inconspicuous because, as I said before, Charisma doesn't control what you look like, just how much. You can't Charisma your way into looking inconspicuous. Say we've got a pair of identical twins again. They are reasonably well known in the area so they want to go incognito. They each don a heavy black coat and a wide brimmed hat that shadows their face. But, while physically identical, one of them is a very confident individual rocking a 30 Charisma while the other is a bit more mundane sitting on only a 12. Our 30 Cha twin is absolutely confident on his ability to avoid recognition and, so, has a strong chance of doing just that. Meanwhile, our 12 Cha twin is not quite so confident and seems to "stand out" more. They are both identical in appearance, both in body and in dress, but one, due to shear overwhelming confidence that they will be unnoticed, remains unnoticed. But if they didn't bother with the disguises, of course both would be recognized right away; that's where Stealth comes in and that's about avoiding being seen to be recognized. In other words, Perception counters Disguise in the same way that Sense Motive counters Bluff.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Opuk0 wrote:
Claxon wrote:

By the way, the rule you were looking for about why Animal Growth doesn't work is because Animal Growth targets only creature type animal. Your druid, even while wild shape, is his original creature type. Wildshape, and polymorph in general, do not change creature type. To confirm that look under the Magic chapter in the Core Rule Book. Specifically in the polymorph section.

This can be overcome by taking the feat Animal Soul, which allows you to be affected as though you were animal.

However, more importantly polymorph effects and size change effects do not stack. You could be affected by Animal Growth, but when he tried to use Wildshape he would have to choose which effect actually affected him. This is also under the polymorph rules.

Both the Druid and the DM wanted a sentence that specifically said druids don't change type with wildshape

Then that means the Druid is a bad rules lawyer and the DM is a bad DM. Neither one has adequate understanding of the rules.

System mastery is never a detriment to fun. Pointing out that someone is misinterpreting a rule is a duty of any informed player. It's the ignorant player who insists on their incorrect interpretation that is disrupting the game, not the person who actually knows what they are talking about.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DarkPhoenixx wrote:
Xexyz wrote:
So, I have a question. If charisma implies force of personality, can characters with really high (25+) charisma suppress it if they want to remain somewhat inconspicuous? My sorcerer has a 30 charisma and wants to be able to have normal conversations with people and not have them fawning all over him.
Bluff check?

Disguise, the skill about being less noticeable, is Cha-based. Cha is how strong your appearance is, not what king, so Disguise is making your appearance, "inconspicuous" and Cha is how inconspicuous you are able to make yourself. But think about it; if a highly charismatic celebrity walks into a room, people are going to react in a certain way. Even disguising himself to be inconspicuous is an agency of his force of personality. A 30 Cha character can't just passively, "turn the personality down" any more than a 30 Int character can avoid being constantly surrounded by idiots.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

10% of lawyers give the rest a bad name. If your aim is game precision for the sake of fairness and understanding, you are a good rules lawyer. If your aim is for the sake of garnering an undue benefit for your personal advantage in the game, you're a bad rules lawyer. It's really ideal to have one person in the game with a high degree of system mastery and precision understanding of the rules as a reference. After all, if someone reads the rules and builds their character based on the rules being followed, but then someone else (even the GM) just decides to disregard certain rules with impromptu houserules or, even worse, the GM doesn't even know the rules himself, this is more harmful to the game than interrupting for the sake of clarity. After all, you'd be rightfully pissed if your GM brought out a bunch of opponents who use Vital Strike on their AoOs and you knew that Vital Strike doesn't work on AoOs. Should you wait until after they wipe the floor with you because of their undue advantage and then, after the session, mention, "Oh, btw, you seem not to have been aware of this, but Vital Strike doesn't work on AoOs... or Charge... or anything else but the basic Standard Attack action."? Or do you bring it up on the spot? This is a case of good rules lawyering. A good GM, at this point, would realize his error and use the feat properly. A bad GM would say, "Well, then it's a houserule so it works anyway."

By contrast, say it's our rules lawyer using Vital Strike on his AoOs and Charges. The GM still doesn't realize that Vital Strike can't be used on AoOs, Charges, etc. This rules lawyer knows very well that this is against the rules, but he argues for it anyway. Meanwhile, maybe one other member of the group has heard off-hand that Vital Strike doesn't work on all attacks, but he doesn't speak up for fear of interrupting the game or being out-voted by everyone else. In this case, our rules lawyer is a bad one; using his understanding of general lack of rules competency in order to violate the rules. Alternatively, a bad rules lawyer will purposefully seek out "corner-case" rules elements and interpret them out to the resolution that isn't the most logical and reasonable, but rather which one makes his character stronger. In this case, he takes advantage of an error in rules writing that left a rules element somewhat arbitrary, and "won by technicality".

So, generally, the big rub in distinguishing a good rules lawyer from a bad one are the cases where you have a good rules lawyer, but a bad GM and this case being conflated with having a bad rules lawyer. Good rules lawyer and good GM is almost never questioned or brought up because it is, by definition, a non-issue.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
But I iterate, that since AC is not quite the same thing as CMD, I really don't think that any Crane Style feats grant any bonus to CMD.

You are incorrect.

PRD wrote:
The special size modifier for a creature's Combat Maneuver Defense is as follows: Fine –8, Diminutive –4, Tiny –2, Small –1, Medium +0, Large +1, Huge +2, Gargantuan +4, Colossal +8. Some feats and abilities grant a bonus to your CMD when resisting specific maneuvers. A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD.

It's a basic rule that dodge, among other bonuses, to AC also apply to CMD. So the bonus you gain from fighting defensively, as well as the bonus from Crane Wing, will both apply to CMD. However, since a failed combat maneuver is a "failure" rather than a "miss", Riposte wouldn't allow an AoO against a failed grapple.

Trimalchio wrote:
graystone wrote:

It amazes me how people can focus in an a single aspect of a word and ignore the rest. Even in your own post, to says look(s), air, aspect, mien. Only 1/4 of YOU OWN EXPLANATION mentions looks. If there is twisting, it's you not me.

'Looks' is a part of appearance, to suggest it is isn't is just odd. Generally it is de-emphasized in games, and some tables throw it out completely, but the usual assumption is CHA represents, to some degree, the attractiveness of a character.

As a side note, are you familiar with how dictionaries work? The first definition is the most common, and each definition after that is various other usages that are increasingly less common. Dictionaries are also historical documents which put together the meaning of a word from common usage, drawing from literature, journalism, speech, etc.

I just googled, "define: appearance" but we can draw upon any dictionary, I am rather confident that every definition of appearance will include some aspect of 'looks', and also be the first definition of the word, IE when people use the word 'appearance' they almost universally mean to refer the way in which a person looks or, you know, appears.

Again, it's a matter of HOW MUCH appearance you have, not WHAT KIND of appearance you have. Charisma is among the three mental stats; it is not considered in the system to be a physical stat, thus it is not referring to physical appearance. It is a measure of how strongly your appearance affects others around you, but it doesn't say what kind of appearance. You could be ugly, beautiful, intimidating, authoritative, noble, shifty, angelic, demonic, whatever. Charisma isn't a qualitative scale with the "bad" appearances at the bottom and the "good" appearances at the top. A pair of identical twins with differing Charisma will illicit different responses to their appearance. If they are both ugly, the one with greater Charisma will be perceived as uglier. If they are both beautiful, the one with greater Cha is more beautiful. If they are angelic, the one with more Cha is more angelic. So on and so forth. Just because a word has multiple definitions doesn't mean that a particular usage of that word follows all the definitions. You use the word according to one of those definitions, based on the context of usage. In the context of usage in Pathfinder, what with Charisma being a mental stat and a quantitative value, we can figure that "appearance" is referring to the impression you give, rather than the physical qualities of how you look.

This is kind of in line with the question, "If I'm standing on a cliff, and my opponent is directly below me, can I make a charge straight down?" This, arguably, automatically satisfies the "directly towards" requirement. But even under Ride-By-Attack, it reiterates that the Charge is a straight line and your continued movement must be along that straight line after you hit the target. So even if you made a "diagonal" charge by jumping, the straight line path of the charge would take you into the ground so you cannot continue your path using ride-by. Now, can you make a normal charge at an angle through the air? It depends on whether through the air is considered difficult terrain. I'd venture as to say "no" since air doesn't really "hamper" your ability to move through it; you can make an acrobatics check to move through open air so I'd say that, if the charger is clinging to a wall and they want to charge a target diagonally through the air, they must declare their charge (spend the action economy) and then make an acrobatics check to see if they can jump that far. If they fail to jump far enough, they fall short and have wasted their full-round action. If they fall prone, they take the prone penalty to attack. In any case, the tactic of charging down a wall, past the target, and up another wall is entirely invalid based on my analysis of the rules.

Byakko wrote:
Performing a Combat Maneuver wrote:
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.
Attack Roll wrote:
If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage. ... A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss.
It appears to me that Combat Maneuver rolls can indeed hit and miss, not just "fail".

"If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class..."

Even though a Combat Maneuver check is an attack roll, it isn't being compared to AC in the first place; it is being compared to CMD. So your combat maneuver attack roll cannot ever beat the target's AC, thus you never prompt the "hit or miss" rule in the first place.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A character who thinks they are a supermodel with 7 Charisma isn't a problem. The problem is the character who thinks they are a supermodel with 7 Charisma, but not a low enough Wisdom to sustain their delusions. Just as a character doesn't need to be surly to justify a low Charisma, a character doesn't need to be ugly to justify low Charisma. There are plenty of lovable potty-mouthed characters throughout history. There are plenty of forgettable sweet talkers. There are beauties who you'll forget in the next moment and there are uglies who will haunt your nightmares for decades. There are people who need say nor do nothing, but just sit there silently, judging your soul and you will be intimidated. Charisma is a matter of Confidence; Confidence makes attractive people attractive and ugly people ugly. Confidence makes authoritative people compel others to obey and lack of confidence makes authoritative people unable to compel obedience. Confidence allows you to convince they Universe that magic only takes the waving of a little stick rather than intense training and study and magic words and somatic gestures and a pinch of bat guano. Confidence allows you to channel the very essence of life (or unlife) without burning out your very soul. Confidence makes animals feel comfortable around you and lack of confidence makes animals uncomfortable around you. Confidence makes it harder for eldritch abominations to break your soul. Charisma boils down to a single word... Confidence.

1 to 50 of 4,545 << 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.