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

Mekkis's page

FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 204 posts (225 including aliases). No reviews. 2 lists. 1 wishlist. 11 Pathfinder Society characters. 4 aliases.


1 to 50 of 204 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Andrew Roberts wrote:
Dhjika wrote:
but lack of magical lineage and wayang spell hunter and some other traits and feats make them actually work at it a little more.
Magical Lineage is completely available in Core, actually.

There is also a boon that would allow Wayang Spellhunter...


Replying to the original question:

I believe that Yes, a PFS GM can allow or disallow certain dice, be they physical or electronic.

One thing that has come up in my local area is:

Can an event organiser or VC prevent a PFS GM from using the dice he chooses, be they physical or electronic.


Isn't the lack of opposing thumbs more of an issue?

Then again, it does appear to be able to use a dagger...


On a similar note, would you consider it a Jerk Move to prevent a PC casting a Create Pit spell if they don't have a 10gp miniature shovel on their ITS/Character sheet - in the middle of combat, where the success of the spell could have significant impact?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Obo, d20pfsrd is a great resource but it is not a rules source. I use it to find a rule (as if it were an index) and then I look it up in the appropriate book (I use PDFs so that they are always up to date).

As for it's accuracy, it is generally accurate but not always so. It (incorrectly) used the 3.5 reach weapon exception for 3 years before the error was noticed.

And wound up being right in the end.

To be fair, Mike Brock ruled the same way two years ago when he GMed Bonekeep for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:
Gauss wrote:

I accept that people use Hero Lab but unfortunately people use it as a crutch. "But Hero Lab says..." is a constant refrain. Hero Lab is not the book and should not replace the book.

I find that system mastery is increased if you actually build the characters yourself. Frankly, I see fewer errors in any character I have ever produced than those any player brings to the table using Hero Lab.

Of course, those players would probably have a greater number of errors if they had NOT used Hero Lab but they have an unreasonable expectation that their characters are 100% accurate.

Edit: Just to clarify, I don't dislike Hero Lab, I dislike how some people use it as a crutch rather than learning the rules.

The rules are bonkers and unclear in a ton of spots.

There are zero people on the planet who know all of pathfinder's rules, so saying "learn the rules" is nonsense

I understand that this is a little late, but it's highlighted my main objection with herolab.

Yes, the rules are 'bonkers' and unclear in a lot of spots. Spots where there might be two or more possible interpretations. Spots where it's up to the GM to make a call.

Using HeroLab, the call HAS been made, and the user does not even know that the point was in contention.


One of the advantages of the summoner class is that it is powerful enough to give you the freedom to take whatever concept you feel like and build it.

One of the disadvantages of the summoner class is that if you set out to optimise it, you'll completely break your character.

The concept you've proposed is sound, will work, and will be more than viable enough to handle what most scenarios will throw at it.

I would suggest: flavour appropriate small race (consider gnome, perhaps halfling): it would be difficult to justify a wayang coming from Lastwall (which prohibits you from taking Wheeling Charge).

Start with 14 str (after mods), and 14 con. Distribute the other stats as you see fit: halfling and gnome both get racial bonuses to Charisma, and even 15 is enough for a character like yours.

Heirloom weapon and Armor Expert as traits (you don't want to take armour check penalty on ride).

If you pour your feats into the mounted combat line, you'll have Spirited Charge by 5th.

You'll be stuck with light armour, so consider Mithril Breastplate (armour check penalty is zero with Armor Expert, so no nonproficiency penalty), or Elven Chain.


And here I was thinking that PFS leadership was discouraging shopping around for boons, as evidenced by topics such as this one, with developer's comments highlighting this.

The fact that it's for GM star replay shouldn't matter.


Yay! It's this time of year again!

People bringing up how a fringe item that has a massive effect on action economy doesn't have even more of its effect.

Please refer to the previous thread

To Brock and Compton: Please ban this considerably contentious and broken item.


There are several factors that have affected matters locally. They are, in isolation, little things, but it adds up to a less flattering experience:

  • The Technologist feat ruling was a Bad Idea, from day one.
  • The addition of so many new rules (ACG: 10 base classes, 104 archetypes; Occult Adventures: another 6 classes) have made it impossible to keep up with.
  • The faction changes do not appear to have resonated with the local community: the reaction is either apathy or disapproval.
  • Newer scenarios are harder to run, even after considerable preparation.
  • In publications, several proofreading oversights can make reading a scenario jarring (little things like NPCs pronouns changing gender mid-scenario).
  • Locally speaking, there seems to be a concerted push towards powergaming, and a 'GM vs player' attitude, which is harming new player retention.

For some players and GMs, these factors compound, making them less enthusiastic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing I'd like to see is a more direct avenue for the GM to give feedback on "that weird occult character" that was playing on my table.

Would be good to see how the presence of one of the new classes affected the game from the GM's perspective.


I find GM fulfillment in delivering a good experience to the table, where I feel that everyone has gained more than just a piece of paper.

The worst thing that can happen is when, as a GM, I'm just there to present combats to powergamers and give out chronicle sheets at the end.

It's when I start thinking "Why am I even here?"...


Malag wrote:


I really cannot imagine scenario where player caused dire calamity, disfunction and major trouble or death for entire party or player due to his roleplay of a character. Should this terrible situation appear, I am sure GM who knows out of game what character really is, can solve the issue quietly and nicely.

This has happened twice in the last fortnight, where a character 'roleplays' his way into killing off important NPCs, disrupting diplomacy, and blowing the party's cover.

Knowing that character's race or class doesn't change anything.


Starglim wrote:
Fromper wrote:

Good stuff, for the most part, but I'll make one suggestion.

I don't like the idea of a two sided faction "card". The fact that everything in Society play can be printed single sided on standard sized paper makes the paperwork easy and straightforward. Please keep it that way.

I was a little uncertain how this would work as well. I can think of a couple of chronicles that have gone over one page, at which they became two chronicles. I'd suggest that's the right way to think about it. I doubt the typical organiser or player will print it as a "card".

A simple solution - if feasible - would be to make it a single sheet that can be folded over. Really depends how much text is required.

(Personally, I make extensive use of my printer's duplexing functions)


One practice I've seen is asking each player: What your character looks like, how your character appears, and what 'the word around the lodge' regarding your character is.


I feel that this is a big step in the right direction for Pathfinder Society. It will be good to see these changes in force.

One thing though:

Include full stat blocks for creatures modified by the advanced, giant, or young simple templates.

I hope that this extends to creatures modified by other templates, such as various Mythic templates that seem to occasionally pervade monsters out there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I try to avoid disclosing my character's class, and rather focus on what he does to contribute. If I claim to play 'artillery', whether I'm bringing a sorcerer, an alchemist, a gunslinger, or a multiclass druid/fighter shouldn't matter.

A class is nothing more than a set of abilities and modifiers. It is the character who defines it.

I was pretty sure that there wasn't a "penalty for failure" clause with regards to taking 10. Of course, if there is, I'd be interested to know...

(Not only because I've been playing a character who has managed to avoid rolling a single dice. He's level 3 now.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The biggest change that the ACG has done is made it impossible for someone who doesn't devote hours per week into study to know all the rules. Whether this is a bad thing or not is still up in the air...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not cheating.

It's still not cool. As I see it, if it happens, it clearly falls into an organisational failure, up there with running scenarios cold. It can generally be avoided with good regional coordination.

Out of the 110 or so tables I've ran, four of the worst five tables have had at least one person who had read the scenario previously on it. This may be a coincidence.

trollbill wrote:

If this is a problem for you, for whatever reason, my understanding of the rules is that you have the following recourse.

1) You may NOT refuse to GM a particular player. However...

Actually, the guide is pretty clear that you can:

Guide p20 wrote:

Some GMs may not

be comfortable running an adventure for players who
have foreknowledge of what is to come. If your GM is
not comfortable with you replaying a scenario, the GM
has the right to deny players the opportunity to replay
a scenario for any reason.


I stopped buying things on several of my characters since they started requiring the Inventory Tracking sheets.

Irontruth wrote:
I'm also unconvinced. The name on the box has little to do with the name referenced in the code. Also the implication that Microsoft is worried about code 16+ years old from 3rd party programmers, as others have pointed out, is pretty hilarious. When has Microsoft EVER shown that kind of concern for users/3rd party publishers?

Microsoft's concern for maintaining compatibility with legacy code goes back since at least 1983. MSDOS 1.0 maintained calls that allowed CP/M programs to run on it with little or no modification. TWO BYTES were all that was required to port Wordperfect to MSDOS 1.0.

Joel Spolsky highlights it best:

Windows 95? No problem. Nice new 32 bit API, but it still ran old 16 bit software perfectly. Microsoft obsessed about this, spending a big chunk of change testing every old program they could find with Windows 95. Jon Ross, who wrote the original version of SimCity for Windows 3.x, told me that he accidentally left a bug in SimCity where he read memory that he had just freed. Yep. It worked fine on Windows 3.x, because the memory never went anywhere. Here's the amazing part: On beta versions of Windows 95, SimCity wasn't working in testing. Microsoft tracked down the bug and added specific code to Windows 95 that looks for SimCity. If it finds SimCity running, it runs the memory allocator in a special mode that doesn't free memory right away. That's the kind of obsession with backward compatibility that made people willing to upgrade to Windows 95.

Pretty much the only reason people use Windows these days is because it allows them to run pretty much any Windows program on it, without recompiling or anything like that.

Force people to get new programs, and they'll either keep using Windows 7, or jump ship. I hear linux, BSD and OSX are all happy to cater for them.


Generally speaking, no.

There is however one exception: the Potion of Strongjaw is allowed.


Silhren Rilbahn wrote:

At a convention though? I'd probably bring books, there is no reason not to.

I'm not sure there is any way to resolve this topic short of players constantly bringing materials. My local lodge is a little lax on requiring books. I am waiting for the day I'm not allowed to play because I end up forgetting my stuff... especially when I can access them in 4 different ways.

I would think that the "excess baggage charges" would be a perfectly good reason not to bring books to a convention.

I daresay that in the last convention I attended, I would have very few characters available to play had they enforced the rules to the letter.

It would largely prevent me from attending any international conventions.


Rereading the as-written rules, it seems that there are a lot of holes in the current system.

A player could have a watermarked PDF on a nonfunctional device, and I would be - as written - able to use that resource.

Yet a photocopy out of the hardcover Advanced Class Guide that's in the boot of a player's car would not be.

I would much rather the latter case to occur on my table.


GM Lamplighter wrote:

I have stated that there are good reasons for having the complete rulebook at the table to support the GM. Does anyone disagree with this? Just trying to find common ground, if any...

There are some reasons why the entire book would be a good thing to have. However, the current additional resources rules don't require it:

Additional Resources wrote:
n order to utilize content from an Additional Resource, a player must have a physical copy of the Additional Resource in question, a name-watermarked Paizo PDF of it, or a printout of the relevant pages from it, as well as a copy of the current version of the Additional Resources list

I think we can agree that the only difference between a printout of the relevant pages of a watermarked Paizo PDF and a photocopy of the relevant pages of a Paizo book is the possible ambiguity in ownership.


Ah, it's this time of year again.

It's been thirteen months since this has come up previously, and what I said then still applies.

Basically, we need to prove ownership and to make rules available for reference.

A photocopy will satisfy the latter, and the former should be satisfiable by some form of VO affirmation.


How many times did the following occur?

wakedown wrote:

I suspect there's a fine line in allowing imbalanced/hotly debated abilities to always grant generous rebuilds.

John: Man, I sure wish I could adjust some things on my bard. I really didn't build him just right.

Henry: Hey, you've got some GM credits on him right? A full level unspent?

John: Yeah, he's just such a confusion of stuff though I don't know how to select his next feat or spell or anything...

Henry (leans closer): Hey, you could say you had taken a level of Synthesist. It just got banned, and you'll be eligible for a full rebuild -- you might end up getting to tweak all your skills and stuff.

John: Great idea!

Clearly, the above is in bad faith.

I didn't hear that happen two years ago.


I understand that given that it's acknowledged that the masterpiece is considerably more powerful that it was intended, and given that it's Paizo policy to refrain from issuing errata until a second printing of the book, removing it from the list of additional resources appears to have been the only solution.

Generally, when a situation arises where several people dislike (or outright refuse) to be on a table of a given, 'legitimate' quality, it does highlight a serious problem.


I've played bonekeep 1, I've run it, and I've prepped it several times.

I've also heard people talk about playing it, and running it, and have witnessed it being run by other GMs.

One thing that I've noticed is that it seems that there are some rulings and effects that don't appear to have been consistent between these runnings.


  • I have heard some GMs claim that the knowledge required to gain information about the Rat Demons as anywhere from "DC = 15 + CR" (the way I have run it) "DC in excess of 32", and even "there's no way anyone could know about this thing".
  • Similar knowledge DCs for the golem.
  • I was told that there is an effect that prevents extradimensional spaces (specifically create pit) from functioning: which doesn't appear to be in the scenario.

In the interests of providing "an even, balanced experience to all players" (as stipulated on p32 of the Guide), can someone please explain the meaning behind these effects, and how it should be run?

I'm a little late to the party, and I don't really want to get involved with the whole copyright side of things. But.

You see, about a month ago, my computer WAS hacked. As far as I can tell (from the various logs he left behind), all that the hacker did was attempt to start mining cryptocurrency, but it's impossible to be sure.

Other than removing the intruder's access and rebuilding the machine, does Paizo want me to inform them that a small subset of the PDFs that I have (I don't think the machine had that many Paizo PDFs on it), might be in-the-wild?

Are there channels for this?


I feel that replays of any sort aren't particularly good for PFS. I would definitely be fine with allowing additional GM credit chronicles each season, however.

Of the five worst games I've run, four of them had at least one person replaying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am very happy to see the aasimar and tiefling go - Once Blood of Angels/Fiends was released (and made legal) - the population increased significantly.

Several local players have remarked that there is no reason to have anything else.

In addition, the prevalence of these Native Outsiders invalidated several NPCs tactics. (throw away your Charm Person, Hold Person, Dominate Person spells).


I'd like to add that what really annoys me about the new style faction missions was that they threw away the season 0-4 faction missions for those scenarios.

I can accept that for the new scenarios, it might be a good idea to add new faction missions, but to throw away five seasons' worth of faction missions in exchange for - what seems to be - watered down 'secondary success conditions' seems to be folly.

What I'd like to see would be the reinstatement of the old faction missions when running season 0-4 scenarios.


I am bumping this thread, partly because there hasn't been an official ruling on this, and partly because of a worrying conversation I had with my local VC, who claims that:

"If a monster is uniquely described in a scenario/module, it's extremely rare."

To the extent that a 32 on a knowledge check would be insufficient to garner any information about the (weakened) CR10 monster at the end of Carrion Hill.

And, on another occasion, that a knowledge check in excess of 30 would be required to get information about the monster described in Bonekeep 1.

Bonekeep 1 monster:
The CR7 rat demon

I think that some guidelines - even something like "unless specified in the scenario, the knowledge DC of a monster cannot exceed DC 15+CR" - would help improve consistency.


Hmm... Looks like I represent minority Prestige Classes here..

Cleric 7
Druid 9
Fighter 1
Paladin 1
Rogue 1
Sorcerer 9
Wizard 11

Inquisitor 3
Oracle 6
Summoner 9
Witch 2

Arcane Trickster 5
Mystic Theurge 2

Diabolist 6
Master Spy 1


Mistwalker wrote:
Mekkis wrote:

I have had the misfortune to experience a rather severe case of a GM significantly changing a scenario, not only making it a lot harder and resulting in a failed mission, but making what we played so different from the printed scenario that I felt we didn't really play the printed scenario at all.

The way this was handled ("you didn't die, suck it up, the chronicle stands") has coloured my views of Pathfinder Society ever since.

You stated that? the GM? the VC? or PFS management at the time?

And when did this happen?

It was the GM's opinion. The VC and PFS management didn't contradict it. It happened late last year.


I have had the misfortune to experience a rather severe case of a GM significantly changing a scenario, not only making it a lot harder and resulting in a failed mission, but making what we played so different from the printed scenario that I felt we didn't really play the printed scenario at all.

The way this was handled ("you didn't die, suck it up, the chronicle stands") has coloured my views of Pathfinder Society ever since.


I'll add Aquatic Druid with an Inquisition to the list.

Chris Sharpe wrote:
Wishcrafter is definitely bad, unfortunately I think it'd be hard pressed to tell my players to use a racial boon to make a terrible character in Pathfinder Society

I would be willing to mail an Ifrit boon across the Tasman if someone wanted to use it for this purpose. Just give me an address.


Mark Stratton wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
My vote is still to limit table variation, as to keep various PC builds from being neutered by GM fiat from table to table. This is the single quickest way I've seen to piss off players.

At Origins, I ran a table that included a fighter who had greater trip. He tripped everything, and pretty much neutered every encounter. It was frustrating, to be sure, but that's his build and it was legal.

When the game was over, he thanked me for being fair because some GMs have a problem with what his character does. I just said, "that's my job." It's not the GM vs Players, and it's not my job to punish people for playing legal builds, even if it makes the encounters pointless.

So the player knows that GMs have a problem with his character, and you yourself were frustrated by it. Yet he plays the character anyway.

Seems like 'jerk' behaviour.

Shouldn't the player show some responsibility and consider how the GM feels about this?


CathalFM wrote:

Apologies in advance for the cross post, I posted this in the "Forbidding Players thread" but felt that it dealt with a number of your concerns, so I will post it again here. My suggested solution to gamers in need of a more challenging game;

Give a "hard mode" that the option should be present (at higher levels at least) for the GM to completely use their own tactics.

I find that the existence of a 'hard mode' is counterproductive: it gives powergamers a 'justification' for powergaming. In organised play, a character who intends to play on 'hard mode' will not always be in a 'hard mode' scenario, playing with other players of similar disposition.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not in favour of increasing the difficulty of encounters in PFS scenarios.

Pathfinder Society is now mature, with a large catalogue of scenarios to draw from - which are still (for good reason) sanctionable and reportable.

A change in difficulty level invalidates this large asset, as the encounters are trivialised in comparison to the new, harder scenarios.

It is better for a concerted effort to discourage the playerbase from creating such characters that trivialise encounters and cause threads like this to be created in the first place.

Build your characters so that they ARE challenged by the scenarios; don't insist that scenarios are created to challenge your characters.

When a GM is running a scenario and is continuously having encounters trivialised, they start thinking 'Why am I here?'. This causes burnout, and I have experienced it.

We have a thread where a GM wishes to refuse powergamed characters from their table, with several responses amounting to "suck it up or leave". I contest that a cultural change against powergaming would be more useful advice.

I would like to note that Andrei and Stephen White have (implicitly or explicitly) put a lot of effort into curbing powergaming in their local area (Melbourne, Australia), and it is one of the best places I've played PFS. Continuing a power spiral will invalidate their work in this area.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:

Patrick, you keep talking about making things more challenging for the enjoyment of the game.

It's been my experience that players who build over-clocked combat monsters like to dominate combat. They like to win, and they like to win fast. People who want a challenging combats play weaker classes, take non-combat roles, or spread out their attributes and skill points to focus on other elements of the game.

If you look at a table of druids, summoners, barbarians, zen archers and tricked out Aasimar wizards with a level of wild-blooded sorcerer, and figure that they're all combat-heavy, how do you determine that ratcheting up the difficulty of the combats is what they want?

That is what I want. I want a DM to challenge me and the best builds I can make with the help of my friends and tablemates.

Some peopel do want this, but I think it is best to communicate it first

As a side note at gen con when I played bone keep 1. The DM cheated(will not used changed because he gave them extra actions, immunities, and changed rules for them) wrecking the expereince that I craved.

So you 'want a DM to challenge you and the best builds you can make', yet you complain when a GM makes the combats harder? Even though a GM isn't ABLE to challenge 'the best builds' (without 'cheating'), due to being constrained by the scenario?

I don't see how you can have it both ways - unless you intend to encourage even more power creep in PFS...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secane wrote:

1) Rules are constantly being updated. And sometimes is just easier to consolidate and clarify a rule in a newer book.

It should not be seen as a dangerous precedent. If using a newer source is a dangerous precedent, then Paizo might as well just scrap FAQs, forget about updating newer version of books and just give up publishing anything altogether. Since any new book the publish may upset players in some way if they change a previous source.

2) It should also be pointed out that PFS exist to help Paizo promote and sell their products, while giving players a fair, flexible and fun way to play Pathfinder.

The dangerous precedent is the fact that a player who creates a legal character in line with books he owns would be required to know every subsequent Paizo publication's content that *may* 'revise' any item/class/feat that he has taken, to ensure that his character remains legal.

You're suggesting that every PFS player should buy every Paizo publication (and read them cover-to-cover) on the off chance that they might change something they've already taken.

Secane wrote:

3) In a vice visa situation, if the newer books can't change the rules, then won't it also be unfair to the players that do buy the newer books? Using brass knuckles as an example, won't it be unfair to the player that buys UE or AA if another player that only has the APG gets to use an item in certain way that the first player can't.

If a published item is incorrect, and a corrected version is available in a different book, then the incorrect version should be removed from additional resources. I will reiterate my point regarding the APG staves - their prices are about 50% of what they should be, so when UE came out, they were removed from the Additional Resources list. This does not penalise anyone, and removes an unreasonable onus from players.

A player is not required to have the most recent copy of a rule - there are at least four legal sources for the infernal healing spell, and if a player were to present me a copy of the Gods of Golarion version (which stipulates that for a sorcerer/wizard to cast it, they must worship Asmodeus), it would still satisfy the additional resources requirement.

As I see it, if multiple legal sources of a given option exist, any of them can be used.


This is the first time I've heard that the 'newer book has priority'.

In other cases, including the living monolith, and the prices of APG staves, the ruling has simply been "remove the incorrect item from the Additional Resources, then allow the old one to be grandfathered in."

In this particular case with the brass knuckles, I can see the case for not grandfathering in the old item.

Still, I think that a 'newer book has priority' rule would set a dangerous precedent, and require a player to keep up to date with everything Paizo publishes in order to continue playing a legal character in PFS.


I would hope that the scenario writer would have the statblocks that they intend to use written out /somewhere/, in order to develop, and playtest the scenario. Even if these were presented in a supplementary, less-polished PDF, it would be useful.


I created a boon for Taxfest, complete with large, red watermark to indicate it as unofficial, but certain circumstances have prevented me from making it publicly available.


Majuba wrote:
Prethen wrote:
My apologies, I think my point got missed. There are a finite number of scenarios and an even reduced amount for any given tier. For anyone playing with any regularity they will hit the same issue in PFS play and have limited ability to develop characters. Why the artificial PFS limit?

If you play or run once per week, you will never run out of scenarios to play or run. Enough come out each year to cover this. If you play or run twice a week, you're set for the next six years. If you want to play or run four times a week, pick up an Adventure Path or two.

I believe that Paizo is releasing approximately two scenarios per month. Playing more than twice a month is therefore unsustainable. Luckily, if you're a relatively new player, there are a Lot of scenarios to keep you going for at least a few years.

I believe that the intention is for PFS to be a marketing opportunity to encourage players who can commit to such regular gaming to consider Adventure Paths.

The easiest way is with Polymorph Any Object, which, purchased as a Spellcasting Service, would set you back 1200gp.

If a Kobold is 'related' to a dragon, you will have a Duration Factor of +9, which is enough to make it permanent.


It seems that the VC and VL in my area are stating that Eyes of the Ten are to be retired soon, probably by the end of this year, and are encouraging local players to aggressively level up their characters in order to play it by then.

I have not been able to get any second source backing up this information, and would really like to know if there's something else going on regarding this.

1 to 50 of 204 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 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.