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

Lemmy's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 7,288 posts (9,746 including aliases). 4 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 10 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,288 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Play a Vishkanya with high Con? They can poison their blades as a Swift Action.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Oliver McShade wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

"Nerf Martials!!!! Caster martial disparity!!!"

Required statements here .

Oh here is some idea's to Nerf Martials

1) Require a concentration check to see if they can get a melee/ranger attack off.
Whether it is looking for an opening in there opponent defenses stance, getting buffeted by wind/rain/hail, or getting hit by damage and not able to see an opening due to pain/suffering. If they fail there concentration check, they lose the attack this round.

2) Melee attack Provoke Attacks of Opportunity, unless you make a concentration check to prevent the AoO vs DC 15 + ( 1 vs simple weapons, 3 vs Martial weapons, or 6 vs Exotic weapons). If they fail the check, they lose the attack this round.

3) Require a saving throw on Blunt/Slashing/Piercing damage.
Blunt damage can be halved with a fortitude saving throw.
Slashing damage can be halved with a will saving throw. (( dont make me come up with a excuse for using a will saving throw on damage attack, it is a bloody game, and i need a saving throw for slashing damage.... ok. ok. a reason = The target is using there will check to see if they get hit by the flat side of the slashing weapon vs the cutting blade side.. there happy now ;p ).
Piercing damage can be halved with a Reflex saving throw.

PS = Dont forget that Rogue/Monk/ 9th level ranger can also now use evasion to further reduce Piercing damage with there evasion ability. It make a much sense vs arrows and pikes as it does vs fireballs.

...................................................

As an alternative = Would be glade to call a truss, if you

Get ride of spell resistance from the game altogether.
Get ride of Evasion/Improved Evasion from all classes.
Get ride of AoO, for casting in melee range ( still would suffer AoO for casting range attack spells ).

Wait...

Are you... Implying that being a caster is difficult? That concentration checks and SR are actual problems???

Heh... Heheh... Hah... HAHA...

HAHAHEIWAHEAWUIEHAWUIEAHWUIEWHEUIAWEHIAWUEHAWUIEHAWUIEHAWIUEAWHEUIAWHEUIAWE HAWUIEHAWUIEAWHUIEAWHEUIAWHEIUAWEHAWUIEHAWUIEAWHEUIAWEHUIAWEHUIWEHAWuIEAWHU EIAWHEUIAWEHUIAWEHAWUEHA!!!!!!!!!!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
No one here played the class.

It's good to know that this Wizard is fully using those divination spells... He obviously knows what classes everyone is playing!

Secret Wizard wrote:
Whoever said he was "shocked" the unchained monk had low will saves could be a talking head in a 24 hour news network.

How surprising a change is has literally zero effect on whether or not it was a good change.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Crossbows already have higher base damage... It simply doesn't come even close to compensate for the lack of Str modifier to damage and the inability to make a full attack.


I give an additional skill point to be spent on craft, performance or profession. The only restriction I add is that it must not be added to a skill with direct mechanical benefits for the character (like a Performance skill affected by Versatile Performance), but I don't mind if the extra skill point is used to qualify for feats or PrCs (like Dervish Dance).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Reading this thread is... conflicting.

On one hand, I'm relieved I'm not the only one feeling disappointed and tired of Paizo and the design team's decisions... On the other hand, seeing so many sharing my concerns and frustration doesn't exactly give me hope of a better future.

*sigh*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
The Unchained Monk is a decent beat-stick... And that's it. No more, no less.
So, basically what the old Monk was. Only better.

Well... I wouldn't call the old Monk "decent", but yeah... Not that being better than the core Monk means much... And it did lose a bunch stuff for no reason.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Unchained Monk is a decent beat-stick... And that's it. No more, no less.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Those kinds of tricks, traps, and actions have been done since day one. Since Gary Gygax HIMSELF for crying out loud.

Wow... The "Gary Gygax did it!" fallacy.... Hadn't seen one of those in a long time... Careful, everyone! It's an antique!

(BTW, GG would be considered a horrible GM by modern standards)


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I love the foundation of Pathfinder. It wasn't perfect but it was a vast improvement over 3.5. And product quality was amazing.

- - -

I despise the route Paizo has followed in the more recent years... Where anything slightly outside the norm is hammered down. If it doesn't fit the designer's idea of fantasy, it's not allowed. If it's slightly better than a "classic" option, it's not allowed. It falls outside a very specifc, arbitrary and rigid parameter of what a certain class should do, it's not allowed.

And worst of all... If an option in the new book they are trying to sell is not as good as the option in the old book they already sold... The old option is nerfed.

There are only a handful of concepts that are allowed and supported by the rules (specially on the non-caste side), and the design team hasn't shown any interest in changing that.

Product quality has also been falling... Culminating in the awful mess that was the ACG, but not being limited to it. Their errata "quality" has always been particularly shameful, and it got even worse lately.

- - -

So... I like Pathfinder, but I hate Paizo's current business policy and design philosophy. And those have been slowly but steadily decreasing my enjoyment of the game.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

I'll post my next turn in about 2h... I just really don't want to do it from my phone. ><'


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:

Im pretty much there. My group is looking at seriously spending a few months of game nights and just rewriting the system. Some borrowing from 3PP (Tome of battle and spheres of power as big ones), some reverting to 3.5 (Including bringing back some favorite classes, PrCs, and feats), some borrowing from Kirthfinder, some of our own houserules from over the years, some from PF unchained, and some from PF unmolested (bard, inquisitor, and alchemist for sure.)

We plan to ground up tinker everything together and format it into a PDF and probably have a few nice copies printed for our own reference and then just play that game forever. We may may work up a "modern/future addendum but that will be our only "splat."

Converting bestiaries and monster manuals will be a chore though!

The point is, we are so dissatisfied with the direction of the game we are willing to take potentially as much as a year of playing time out of our game to fix it because we no longer trust Paizo to get it right.

I feel your pain, brother... I have a pages-long googledoc of house rules and rules fixes... And those are just the ones I bothered to write down. ><'

It's really, really difficult not to be disheartened.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
While I disagree with your hyperbolic, almost paranoid, position, I will agree that the current state of things isn't a very good look.

Fair enough...

You know what? I agree. My rant was hyperbolic. But it wasn't always so... It's just years and years of frustration taking their toll... Because I love the game, but I see the designers making the same awful design decisions over and over again when it comes to game balance.

It's pretty clear that Paizo prefers to nerf balanced options than actually improve the new ones that are not very good. It's pretty clear that they don't really care about game balance at all, and at best, care about the illusion of balance. It doesn't matter it the game is well-designed... It only matters that the new players who don't know Pathfinder and want to buy the book think it is.

I know speaking calmly and politely is more constructive... But it's really difficult to remain so when they ignore all concerns for years and show no sign of ever changing that attitude. My criticism isn't unique or new. Many of the problems with Pathfinder's lack of balance and the game design philosophy that sustains it have been known for over 15 years now. The devs simply don't care. They aren't stupid. If they did care, they would have already addressed those problems.

When you speak to deaf years, eventually your start shouting. And after that, you stop caring at all... And I fear the day is coming when I simply won't bother anymore, and a game I loved will just be a bitter memory. And I fear I won't be the only one...

Who knows... Maybe that's what they want. Maybe they decided they already got enough of my money.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Not that their justifications mean much... Paizo is usually either dishonest or just incompetent when it comes to errata.
That seems overly antagonistic. I'm sure there's a way you can voice your displeasure with various decisions without resorting to name calling.

Name calling would be if I called them "jackasses" or something. If you look up the definition of "dishonest" and "incompetent", you'll see they mean exactly what I meant to say. It's not an offense, it's a description. If they take offense to that, then they should either do a better job with the errata and be more truthful about it. Or they can just stop caring and just listen to the compliments.

Paizo is really good at creating cool and flavorful options... But they are really freaking bad at game balance. Being really bad at something is the definition of "incompetence".

Tormsskull wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

This is how Paizo "balances" the game:

5- Tell anyone who disagrees with the errata that they are MMO. rollplayers that are playing the game wrong and only care about DPR.

If I could get an official Paizo endorsement of that, I'd send the official some kind of gift package for the sheer hilarity of it.

Seriously, even if it is by PM and they swear me to secrecy. :)

"martial/caster disparity is a rumor pushed by people with an agenda"

...or something like that...


19 people marked this as a favorite.

Not that their justifications mean much... Paizo is usually either dishonest or just incompetent when it comes to errata.

The Crane Wing stuff into oblivion because it's easier than actually trying to do proper game design. They nerf balanced tools that were causing no problem to make new classes seem better, not because the nerf made sense. Remember how they nerfed animal companions' armor proficiency to make the Cavalier look better? Or when they nerfed the Paragon Surge exploit because it stole the thunder of Arcanists (that one actually needed nerfing, but I really freaking doubt that's why they did it, considering how long that loophole went untouched). Now, I don't doubt they nerfed SWD to make Kineticists look better. That's paizo "errata" policy 101.

I'm tired of it... I no longer trust the design team. I had hopes things would get better with the addition of Mark to the team, but I was obviously wrong.

This is how Paizo "balances" the game:

1- Write a bunch of class features with no care if it's balanced. Be sure to ignore all feedback that goes against your initial impressions.
2- If a new option sucks, instead of actually improving it, nerf everything else that is remotely similar.
3- If a new caster option is too good. Let it be... Until some other similar caster option comes around, in which case, go back to step 2.
4- If a martial option is anything better than mediocre, curb stomp it into the f+$~ing ground, spit on it and set its body on fire! Then kill its family. And its dog.
5- Tell anyone who disagrees with the errata that they are MMO. rollplayers that are playing the game wrong and only care about DPR.
6- Profit.

There's some comical exaggeration there, of course... But only a little.

Yes, I'm bitter. Why do you ask?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
Exactly why the "you can just houserule it" argument is a fallacy.

Pfff... Non-sense! These paying customers are too entitled! It's like they think it's a game designer's job to design a good game. :P

It's like when you go to the theater and see a bad movie. You have no right or reason to complain just because you paid for it... After all, you can simply write your own fanfic and make it a better story than the movie itself!


5 people marked this as a favorite.

But... But... You can always house-rule stuff! Who cares if the game is poorly designed? It's not like we pay for these rules... Oh, wait!


Secret Wizard wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Play a regular Unchained Monk then. Fixed and balanced.
Arguably. It's better than the Core Monk, of course, but it's not exactly a great class...

It's not arguable. It was arguable at some point.

I've made builds, ran the numbers. It's a perfectly good class. Power level hovers very close to Barbarian, closer to Paladin.

Everyone who says the Fighter is a great class says exactly the same about that class... So forgive me if I remain unconvinced.

I admit UC Monk is a decent beatstick... Not much more than that, though.

Want numbers or do you just want to complain?

Fighters have perfectly good numbers too...

Secret Wizard wrote:
Honestly, to me, the people who complain about the UC Monk are the same people who whine about Precise Strike being removed for Magi or claim that Divine Protection is perfectly fine. They are the people who tack Fate's Favored onto every build. They miss the fact that there's some supposed balance.

You obviously haven't been paying attention, then.

Anyway, this is not the thread for this discussion. I'm leaving. Enjoy the thread. ;)


Secret Wizard wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Play a regular Unchained Monk then. Fixed and balanced.
Arguably. It's better than the Core Monk, of course, but it's not exactly a great class...

It's not arguable. It was arguable at some point.

I've made builds, ran the numbers. It's a perfectly good class. Power level hovers very close to Barbarian, closer to Paladin.

Everyone who says the Fighter is a great class says exactly the same about that class... So forgive me if I remain unconvinced.

I admit UC Monk is a decent beatstick... Not much more than that, though.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Those are cool... Though I'm going with the Mind Knight for now. Just so I actually have a character... I might rework him a bit later.


shroudb wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
technically your strength simply determines how quickly you can pull back the string, but yes crossbows could pierce fullplate.
Wouldn't it also determine how "far" you can pull it, since the tension of the strings would grows stronger the more you pull it?

crossbows are build with a strength rating irl.

if a crossbow has a 50lb pull, or a 200lb pull is fixed based on materials, strings, pull distance.

then, regardless if you pull it with 60 or 100, it will always fire at 50lb

that's why i said all crossbows in pf should have a straight strength rating, akin to composite longbows

Yeah. that's what I was trying to get at. There is no reason for crossbows not to add Str modifier to damage. In fact, since the lever allows you to add more strength than you'd normally be capable of if you were just pulling it (because, you know... that's what levers do! Maximize strength!). There is an argument to be said that they should allow even greater strength. They could be the 2-handed weapons of ranged combat (the ones that require at least a move action to load, anyway, that way they would require 2 feats to full attack, but would then deal more damage than other options. The feat investment balances the damage boost).


Bandw2 wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
technically your strength simply determines how quickly you can pull back the string, but yes crossbows could pierce fullplate.
Wouldn't it also determine how "far" you can pull it, since the tension of the strings would grows stronger the more you pull it?
you pull crossbows back into a predetermined trigger mechanism as far as i'm aware.

Yeah, but say... But you need the strength to get there. If you have a trigger that requires you to pull the string further, wouldn't that in turn transfer add more force to the projectile?


Bandw2 wrote:
technically your strength simply determines how quickly you can pull back the string, but yes crossbows could pierce fullplate.

Wouldn't it also determine how "far" you can pull it, since the tension of the strings would grows stronger the more you pull it?


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Is there anything other than that horrid Fighter archetype that allows one to attempt combat maneuvers from afar?


Kalindlara wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Well... On a more positive note, not all of the errata was bad... Given proficiency with all crossbows and SNA and Remove Diseases to the Shaman were good calls (which happen to match my own houserules ^^).
Where did they give Shamans proficiency with all crossbows?
I'm guessing he's referring to the Bolt Ace.

Yeah, editing mistake. ^^

Bolt Ace got proficiency with all crossbows. Shaman got SNA and Remove Diseases. Oddly enough, those changes were already listed in my houserules document.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well... On a more positive note, not all of the errata was bad... Given proficiency with all crossbows and SNA and Remove Diseases to the Shaman were good calls (which happen to match my own houserules ^^).

It's just that Paizo really, really realy doesn't know how to handle nerfs. They can't just subtly/slightly change options that are considered too good. They simply Crane Wing-nuke it into nothingness and consider that to be good game design and a job well done.

As for Divine Protection... They could simply give us a feat that allow characters to use Cha instead of Wis for Will saves. There! It's balanced and makes viable many character options that weren't really feasible before.

Instead they gave us the pointlessly restrictive Steadfast Personality and the horribly-overpowered-then-horribly-underpowered Divine Protection.

All in all, one step forward, three steps back...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly... I wouldn't care if it's a joint project, if it's 3pp or even who is making it...

All that matters to me is this:

1- Is this something I'd enjoy?
2- Do I have the money to contribute?
3- Do I trust the producer to deliver?

If the answer to all those questions is "Yes", then yes, I'll contribute. If any of them is a "No", then no, I won't.


ikarinokami wrote:
a lot has changed since the core rule book and treatmonk wizard guide was released. You can do amazing things with blasting now,

True.

ikarinokami wrote:
(...) blasting is the most powerful option in the game now.

That's going a bit too far, though.


Oracles should have a good means of boosting their saves (No, Iron Will and Great Fortitude don't count)... But the old DivProt was too good, specially since it stomped the toes of Paladins.

That said, Crane Winging the feat into uselessness is a horrible solution. Paizo should really stop trying to nerf stuff... Not because everything is balanced, but because they are g~$#*$n awful at nerfing. Far more often than not they go overboard and make an overpowered (or even slightly above mediocre) option a waste of space, which is arguably even worse, considering the fact that most feats in the game are already horrible.


Secret Wizard wrote:
Play a regular Unchained Monk then. Fixed and balanced.

Arguably. It's better than the Core Monk, of course, but it's not exactly a great class...

And I'd consider Alertness a rather boring feat tax. Iron Will too.

- - -

That said... I think Wis to attack and damage is a bit much, but Wis to damage should be fine. Grab Weapon Finesse and use Dex to attack, then a second feat for Wis to damage.

That should work fine.


BretI wrote:
JAMRenaissance wrote:
BretI wrote:

Eldrich Scion doesn't work very well as a Magus. It has to wait too long in order to get real Spell Combat, the pool is depleted too quickly, and the skill points are very low.

So no one can wild shape in your world? Getting rid of druid basically causes this ability to not exist. I always thought that prepared casting worked best for druids and rangers, having to gather the power and trigger it.

Personally, I like the prepared casters.

Optimization isn't a factor for my purposes; Eldritch Scion is...
...almost useless until it reaches 8th level when it can finally do what a normal Magus can do at 2nd level -- Spell Combat every round. Before that time, they have to spend a point from their pool in order to do Spell Combat for two rounds.

Yeah... Eldritch Scions is one of those sad cases where a great idea almost works, but is ruined by a couple details...

Just take the normal Magus and give it spells known/per days as a Bard. No need for the whole Bloodrager b@$$%@#+ tackled on it. If your really want it to be based on Cha, at least give the poor guy +2 skill points per level.

You can keep the Druid and give it Oracle spell progression. Shouldn't be too far off.


bookrat wrote:

So one of my earlier questions never got answered with this challenge:

Why can't the fighter just punch the stone until a large enough chunk falls out where he can throw it at the kobold, killing it? With Power Attack, he can easily beat the hardness of the stone.

And his BAB is high enough to not have to worry about the penalties. Up thread, someone said he'd have around a -14 to hit the kobold throwing a rock. With a +20 BAB, that's still a +6 to hit an AC of 15. So that's a 60% chance to hit.

I think it's more of a question of if he can do it fast enough.


bookrat wrote:
If the wizard was blind, deaf, and quadriplegic, could he still win the challenge?

Possibly... If he can read in braille. And has the Still Spell feat. There must be some divination spell that allows him to read without needing his eyes.


Hyperbole-joke, my scriptural weight-lifting friend. ^^


bookrat wrote:
Well, if you have to, just assume that the fighter specialized in unarmed combat. Now he has his weapons.

But can also live without legs and eyes... So the character can't walk and is permanently blind.

In fact, let's assume the Figher is blind, deaf and quadriplegic.


Bandw2 wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Quote:
Nope. If a fighter doesn't get his weapons or armor, then the wizard doesn't get his familiar.
I actually agree on this point, anything that you can remove without killing him should be removed for this theoretical bout.
Doesn't make much sense, though. The familiar is a class feature. Weapons aren't. A better match would be the Wizard not having access to a spell component pouch.
you can put the familiar in a adamantium box and then launch it into space.

You can chop off your hand and do the same to it. Should we assume characters have no hands?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Nope. If a fighter doesn't get his weapons or armor, then the wizard doesn't get his familiar.
I actually agree on this point, anything that you can remove without killing him should be removed for this theoretical bout.

Doesn't make much sense, though. The familiar is a class feature. Weapons aren't. A better match would be the Wizard not having access to a spell component pouch.


LazarX wrote:

For the same reason you can't swing your sword 24 hours a day non-stop. In combat mode, you're running your body at high pitch, which includes readied actions. It's a period of intense energy expenditure and stress which simply can not be maintained. Readying an action is like keeping a bow taut, ready to fire. That simply can't be done over an extended period of time.

When you're not in combat mode, you simply can't ready combat scale actions.

Rules citation needed.

And who said anything about reading combat actions? You can ready a non-violent action just as easily.


Is there any rule actually preventing characters from readying actions out of combat, though?

Is it impossible for a group of friends to shout "SURPRISE!" when the lights turn on unless everyone wins Initiative against the birthday guy?

The way I see it, out-of-combat time is also divided in rounds... We just don't bother keeping track of them because there is no point. But it should still be possible for my character to, say, ready an action to drop a water balloon on whoever goes through the door bellow me.


I never understood... Why exactly is it impossible to ready an action out of combat? AFAIK, reading an action is just an standard action set to trigger when something specific happens...

So... Why wouldn't you be able to use an standard action outside of combat?


RDM42 wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:

If it is a wizard and we assume he has his class features even if he doesn't have his spells memorized he still has either his familiar (as has been stated) or his bonded item (we said naked but we said he has his class features so specific beats general) meaning he has one spell he can cast that is written in his book (it doesn't say he has to have the book on his person). A 10th or 20th level wizard should have a spell without material components that will kill the kobold or bring the wizard to safety.

Plus school powers.

Class features for a fighter include his ability to use certain weapons well, so if you deny him weapons, you are denying him his class features.

However, the weapons themselves aren't class features. It's the difference between knowing how to drive and owning a car.

Gunslingers, OTOH, do start with a simple firearm... Not great, but at leas the isn't empty-handed. Bladebound Magus has his black blade...

Off the top of my head, I don't remember any other class that has an in-built "You have this weapon. Period." class feature.


PIXIE DUST wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Well... He might have an adamantine weapon, so there is that....
I mentioned naked so it is purely a measure of.class abilities vs class abilities. A level 20 should atleast be able yo JUMP that high or something... but a simple pillar is kinda sa

Well, to be fair, a Wizard without his spell component pouch isn't going to do much better... Though he can solve that problem with a single feat.


Well... He might have an adamantine weapon, so there is that....


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Who is to say that is isn't the robot who is the main character while the human is the familiar?

BOOM! MIND BLOWN! :O


Maybe use one of those archetypes that trade away literally all of the Fighter class features?

Even then, Barbarian is most likely a better fit.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

I'm currently looking for cool/useful powers for my character.

We already have 2 damage dealers, so I think I'll focus more on debuff/support. An idea was using a whip to perform maneuvers such as Dirty Trick, Trip and Disarm, but by gods, that is feat-intensive! Specially for a finesse build! Just trying to use an whip costs 2~4 feats (one of which is the extremely boring Weapon Focus).

So my search continues...


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Dunno... Still not sure how to build this character... And I haven't read the technology guide yet.

I hope the campaign is not waiting for me, because this will take me a while.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Wow... I was going to make a mind knight... But Call Weapon freaking sucks! 1 round action to cast... 1/min per level duration... Ugh... I can't even use my weapons two combats in a row without spending my precious pp. :(


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Creating characters without HL takes time. If I had the HL fan-made pack, I'd probably be done by now. :P


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Question, as a Psychic Warrior can I have Bluff instead of Intimidate as a class skill? I'm going for pseudo-rogue/arcane trickster thing.

1 to 50 of 7,288 << 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.