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

Micheal Smith's page

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber. FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 139 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 10 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
**

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
vlaovich88 wrote:

No, Markov Spiked Chain was getting at is by the core rule book, that is how missiles work. They just appear after some time after combat with out costing money.

And I agree. The whole equipment section of the book to me is lacking. There should be more guns and armor and tools. But to me, it is logical that unless specific situations happen, projectiles should seem obsolete.

That is dumb they reappear sometime after combat, if that is true. I haven't ventured to much into the starship section.

Also, I agree the equipment section is lacking ALOT. But please keep in mind this is the CRB. Limited space and they did't want to throw ALOT of things out at first. They could end up doing a full on book just to weapons. I am sure we will get an adventures armory style book. I hope they do a full on book and not a companion style book.

Also this is the first edition of the system. I am sure over the next 1-2 years we will see some changes.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

It explicitly states on pg. 266 that Armor bonuses DO NOT stack. So thus you cannot wear Second Skin under another type of Armor. Now if the bonus given by another item is NOT an Armor bonus and doesn't conflict with anything else then yes they do stack. Now I didn't; see anything stating you can't wear this with something else. But the higher bonus would defiantly apply.

**

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

Want: Any non legacy Starfinder Boon (Couldn't make it to GenCon)
Have: On the Job Training,
Lingering Resonance
Personal Physician
Beat A.M.L

Will trade All if need be. Unfortunately I don't come across boons all that much, Pathfinder is becoming a second game to me. Most of my time effort and money will go into Starfinder.

Not really looking to play any Pathfinder Races. Want to play new exciting Aliens.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:
I never understood why maps go out of primt, there are several of the flip mats that I want that I can’t get.
Because they can't do print-on-demand, so they have to order a certain total from the printer when they do their first printing. Once that's done, it sits in their warehouse, the warehouses of distributors, and in FLGSs shelves until people buy it. Once their warehouse is empty or close to it, they look at the sales numbers of that map and see if it's worth reprinting as a 'flip-mat classic'. If not, that means that it wasn't popular enough to be profitable for Paizo to reprint, and that's that. If a map you want is out of stock at Paizo, check Amazon, check ebay, check your FLGS, and check with your gaming friends -- maybe one of them has it and would be willing to part with it.

Did that found 1 for $600.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

I never understood why maps go out of primt, there are several of the flip mats that I want that I can’t get.

**

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

Lets look at Star Wars, as far as I know they don't have batteries and basically unlimited fire. But they do overheat and can pbpnly be fired so much at once. I think this how it should have worked in Starfinder

**

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

I would assume the PDF would still work, assuming you show it with the watermark print. Thats how all other items in PFS work. I am not sure how the player folio works in PFS, as being the PDF.

Unless stated otherwise I would except the PDF WITH your watermark print. Bring and Display could also reference Bring a PDF and Display it.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

Wow I hope they don't do this with all the miniatures I don't mind the random. But paying 14.99 for 3 small/medium minis + 1 large was nice. There should be no reason these are much more expensive.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

Not sure if I missed a forum regarding this. But with the Ghost Specialization it states that I get a +4 to stealth trick attack. Do I actually to be actively hiding to use. Or can you use stealth for the trick attack like I could use bluff? I didn't see anything stating I had to hide but wanted to check and be sure.

**

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Adder007USA wrote:

He's not exactly conflating...he's just taking advantage of an awkward RAW situation, that equates technological item batteries with ammunition batteries. And yes, currently there is nothing that says you CAN'T take the battery out of a personal comm, and use it to charge up a weapon battery, or use in a weapon, since it does say that they can clearly be "replaced", and refers you to the ammunition table.

That being said. There's also nothing that says you couldn't then just go and sell said battery for 39 credits...from a 7 credit item. Again, I point to the part of the PFS/SFS society FAQ page that prohibits creative rules use for infinite wealth or power. By equating the two batteries, that would support "infinite wealth", thus although RAW, it's clearly not RAI (Rules as intended). By reverse logic then, if you AREN'T allowed to use this loophole for infinite wealth, then it follows that the 80 charge battery in a personal comm isn't the same as used in weapons.

So....yes, it's cheating, since you'd be ignoring the Errata/FAQ that ammends the rulebook to prevent things like this, although they haven't established an official fix for this exact situation yet.

Mr. Hillman has aluded to the fact that they're aware of battery shennanigans, so I'm assuming they're going to be fixing this. I'd also hope they readjust battery prices to be more in line with other ammunition types, but I'll settle for a ruleset that doesn't get munchkinned.

I won't be doing any of that. I know players that will take advantage of this.

Yes I agree that being able to do this is absurd. In home campaigns I will have a rule that states when you buy an item it WILL NOT come with a battery. You must purchase batteries separately. Problem solved. This may bring other issues, but another time.

I am saying until something states otherwise I will abide by the CRB. If they change this rule in SFS then I will enforce the errata.

**

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Tim Statler wrote:

Here are the 2 sentences Micheal Smith is conflating to get his cheese. It is talking about 2 different battery types.

Adder007USA wrote:


Page 218

"... If an item doesn’t specify a
usage, it needs very little power and has an internal battery
designed to function for decades or even centuries without
recharging.
Items with a specified usage use a battery that
comes fully charged when purchased. Such batteries can be
recharged as normal using generators or recharging stations
(see Professional Services on page 234), or they can be replaced
(see Table 7–9: Ammunition for battery prices)."

"Items with a specified usage use a battery that come fully charged when purchased. Which is exactly what I have been saying the whole time. A personal comm unit comes with a battery that as a specified usage 1/hour. This means it uses 1 charge per hour. With a battery of 80 charges means that it can go 80 hours before needing a recharge. This is no way shape or form references the first sentence stated. So the first sentence posted is irrelevant in this matter. So there for you can swap out the battery between a weapon of the personal com unit.

Once again for people that refuse to read what I have posted.
The rules are very clear in how batteries are to work. This isn't the issue. Its the cost. The fact that you can buy a comm unit for 7 credits and it comes with a battery that has 80 charges within it. And you can put it in your weapon. Also that doing this is still a cheaper solution then recharging. I already gave a simple proposed solution. I think you all need to reread the rulebook and stop trying to fix something that isn't and issue.

**

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Gary Bush wrote:

Because of the cost of a communicator. It is obvious to me that the charges it used are different than the charges used to power a laser pistol to fire a beam 30'.

There is a logic gap here I agree. But let's not be riculous.

Just keep them separate and wait for a FAQ or clarification.

It is obvious in the rules you can do thus. It is not obvious the charges are different because thats not what the rules state. Until they have an FAQ i will play it as this in Society, RAW. In home campaigns zYou have to purchase batteries separate.

It is very clear that batteries can be used for any item. Armor, weapon etc. So buy RAW I can buy a comm unit for 7 credits take the battery out and throw it in my gun.

Now keep this in mind batteries have nothing to do with the final product from said weapon. The batteries JUST POWER the weapon. Some weapons require stronger batteries. Its like using AAA vs AA vs 9 volt. The batteries don't actually determine the end result. The weapon has a power core of some sort that handles this. The battery just produces the power for the core to function.

**

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

So quick question, may be aa dumb one. But does everyone get this boon? I have been playing PFS for years.

So can I use this boon too? or is this just for the brand new people who never played society before? Something for the PFS boon. When I joined I never got one, as far as I was told there are relatively new.

**

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
d'Eon wrote:

I'm really sure that weapon batteries and gear batteries already have an implicit difference. The capacities don't match up, the prices are different, and the sizes aren't the same.

It should really be made explicit in an FAQ, and it's disappointing that this, the fusions, and space DCs made it to print like this.

Adder007USA wrote:

Since characters have a built in comm in their armor, this isn't really that big of a deal...but how do you deal with the batteries of non standard size? (12 in signal jammer, 10 in flashlight, etc.).

My current house rule is that "civilian" batteries don't work in weapons. Means you don't have to do away with the part that says equipment comes with a battery fully charged (Pg. 218), and prevents the price of a personal comm ballooning to 397!

In the Starfinder Core Rulebook pg. 168:

In addition to weapons, batteries can be used to power a wide array of items, including powered armor and technological items.

Meaning they are interchangeable. Who cares in your Armor has com units. That’s irrelevant in this matter. The fact that I can pay 7 credits get a personal comm unit with a battery that holds 80 charges. Normally that battery costs 390 credits. To charge that battery it costs 195 credits. Any weapon that have 80+ charges can use this battery no problem. So I just bought a 390 credit battery for 7 credits with the personal comm unit,

**

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Adder007USA wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:
Adder007USA wrote:
Also...it strikes me as odd that a commlink, with a charge of 80, costs only 7, but to charge the battery would be 195 credits (High capacity batteries are 390!). Cheaper just to toss it and buy a new one!

Haha thats crazy. It would be cheaper to do so.

I could see this going either way. This would make projectiles that much more useless, if you didn't have to charge. But they didn't provide a tracking sheet to ultimately keep track of items. But at the same time I could see them saying don't worry about it as it would be a lot of book keeping.

Depending on how they rule the Transfer Charges spell, I may need to change a few spells around. I plan on my soldiers for sure taking technomantic dabbler just for that spell. I took a battery from the enemy and transfer it to my battery.

Right? Or buying commlinks to pull the battery out and use in your high capacity weapons.

Again, I feel like there should be a differentiation between "weapons grade" batteries, and "Equipment grade" batteries.

Either that, or standardize the cost of "Charges". Currently there's nothing to stop someone from using a 20 charge battery in a high level weapon, it explicitly says you can do so on pg 168. You'll have to reload more often certainly, but 4 shots between reloads on a zenith artilery laser, for example...as heavy as that thing hits, it's not a bad tradeoff since reloading is just a move action. And batteries are L bulk, so it's easy to have enough ready for a whole combat.

Again, there's a HUGE price discrepancy between the different capacity batteries, and from what I can tell, the ONLY benefit to a higher capacity battery is not having to reload as often.

\

I didn't look at the batteries that close. But yea I agree, there should be a difference or some way of regulating that. No reason not to buy a bunch of personal comm units when you need a high battery charge.

The easiest way to fix this is, items don't come with a battery. Most things you buy now don't come with batteries or ammo. So it my home campaign this will be a default rule.

**

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Does wearing a pathfinder T-Shirt count for the third promotional boon? Or do you have to wear a starfinder shirt, because I can't find any starfinder shirts on the website.

I have the same question. My answer, not that it means anything, is keep the game systems separate. Pathfinder for Pathfinder and Starfinder for Starfinder.

**

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Adder007USA wrote:
Also...it strikes me as odd that a commlink, with a charge of 80, costs only 7, but to charge the battery would be 195 credits (High capacity batteries are 390!). Cheaper just to toss it and buy a new one!

Haha thats crazy. It would be cheaper to do so.

I could see this going either way. This would make projectiles that much more useless, if you didn't have to charge. But they didn't provide a tracking sheet to ultimately keep track of items. But at the same time I could see them saying don't worry about it as it would be a lot of book keeping.

Depending on how they rule the Transfer Charges spell, I may need to change a few spells around. I plan on my soldiers for sure taking technomantic dabbler just for that spell. I took a battery from the enemy and transfer it to my battery.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
d'Eon wrote:

Again, I agree with you so far as not needing to squeeze every drop of damage from a build. Where you're screwing up is saying that unarmed strike is good, when you can get better options and save a feat in the process. You want to go around punching people, go for it. Don't tell me its better than a sword.

That and all the math problems.

Me too, for what it's worth.

I never build characters focussed on damage. It doesn't mean we shouldn't get our maths right, just because we don't care about maximising DPR. Nor should we fool ourselves that we're not bound by the laws of probability. I made a decent living as a poker player from people who swore they knew better than what the odds were saying.

I still stand by what I say. I will never use average damage it is a false front. I will base around abilities.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

d'Eon really man, now you are going off subject. The whole thing was comparing the unarmed strike vs a weapon that you could buy at the same level that did superior damage. Thats what we are comparing.

My bad, I missed the missing h. I am currently working on 3-4 projects. So all the words letters are running together.

Again we were using the improved unarmed strike as an example because the soldier had so many feats. So thus he can use a feat an make it a viable choice vs an operative. My original point was all about the Soldier being more combat focused than the other classes if you build it that way. Because of all the feats. I am not saying it because I like it or so. It was the initial example that than led down to this.

I also used the Vesk with their specialized weapon specialization. So it does a bit more that regular weapon focus. Than we brought in the average. So for a vesk soldier this is a very decent option. You are burning a feat which you gave plenty to spare and you get a cool weapon spec. Just because it does less average damage in no way shape make it inferior. In this case it is very beneficial.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:
d'Eon wrote:

I said all rolls you make. Not four. Do you not understand the concept of averages?

And I might just agree with you. 31 damage versus 35 might not make a difference on average, I haven't seen the NPC rules. That said, when comparing damage and nothing else, 35 is objectively better than 31. If you have a feat or other thing that only works on unarmed strikes, then punching might be better. At the moment I don't know of any feat or other option that affects unarmed and doesn't work on actual weapons, other than the vesk racial.So for the vast majority of rules, anything punching can do weapons will do better.

Again generally I don't do average. I usually track how much I do and again its not average. My 4 rounds was to prove that in one combat I don't do average. I roll high or low for everything. Its rare for me to roll average. We have a guy that plays that always rolls low, we give him crap. He rolls below average more than he rolls average and high added together.
In your example, you "did" average.

If I hit for min damage at 4 4 rounds in a row than my damage is 16

If the max is 10 per attack and min is 4, my average is 7 damage per attack
7*4 = 28
16 is not average of the above example.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
HE can still punch you back mike just because he doesn't have Improved unarmed strike doesn't mean he can't punch you.

That is irrelevant to the whole issue at hand. The point I am making that always doing the most isn't the way to go. If I sunder your high damage weapon than my unarmed damaged with the feat was a better option than going with the weapon that deals more damage on average, compared to my inferior unarmed average damage.

So in this case the higher damage option was not the better way to go.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
d'Eon wrote:

I said all rolls you make. Not four. Do you not understand the concept of averages?

And I might just agree with you. 31 damage versus 35 might not make a difference on average, I haven't seen the NPC rules. That said, when comparing damage and nothing else, 35 is objectively better than 31. If you have a feat or other thing that only works on unarmed strikes, then punching might be better. At the moment I don't know of any feat or other option that affects unarmed and doesn't work on actual weapons, other than the vesk racial.So for the vast majority of rules, anything punching can do weapons will do better.

Again generally I don't do average. I usually track how much I do and again its not average. My 4 rounds was to prove that in one combat I don't do average. I roll high or low for everything. Its rare for me to roll average. We have a guy that plays that always rolls low, we give him crap. He rolls below average more than he rolls average and high added together.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:
A weapon cost money and money an money. It may be minimal but it still cost more than a feat. You have to have ammo to fire your weapon.

All the weapons I've listed have been analog melee weapons. They have no ammo.

They do cost money, it's true. And if you'd listed 'costs less' as an advantage of unarmed combat, I wouldn't have argued that point.

But you said unarmed combat did, and I quote, 'amazing damage'. So that's what I argued with.

Micheal Smith wrote:
AUTO is at best a get away cover tactic. If I can focus fire and take out an enemy in 1 round, no matter the number of enemies it will be greatly superior that auto fire. If I can eliminate an enemy that is one less foe doing damage. So this is still the better option. How many enemeies none. If you are throwing that many enemies that truly require auto, how worthy are they vs how balanced is the encounter? If they are a bunch of levels 1-2 vs 5 lvl 6-7, than thats not even a significant enemy. So at that point than is the encounter really worth wasting time with?

If we're doing random hypotheticals, what if there are five enemies at low HP (from, say, the Technomancer's Explosive Blast)? Autofire suddenly looks real good then.

Micheal Smith wrote:
Other variables are absaloute nothing, really?

I said worth NOTING. As in, worth making note of. Read my actual words, please.

Micheal Smith wrote:
That is about the dumbest thing I have heard. If any variable is a viable option in combat it isn't worthless. I disarm your weapon, now you have no weapon now your superior average damage means nothing. I still have my unarmed strike. Oh and your weapon in my hand. You make it seem that unarmed strike is complete inferior to your higher damaging weapons. With a single disarm I have basically made your superior damage weapon complete useless.
There are certainly circumstances where having Improved Unarmed Strike is a very nice thing to have. Disarming isn't really...

So I sunder your weapon. Now you have no weapon. No average damage no superior damage I still have my unarmed strike.

Thats the same thing. Worth nothing means it means nothing to you so in your eyes its useless and doesn't factor in.

I will give you at that point it may look nice, but then you have to consider ammo usage and if you have enough vs the actions at that time. Taking 1 enemy out could mean you living or dying. It has been the case with me so many times. Even in real life auto fire in crap. Focus fire is the best. Auto fire is best used to alot of damage to a large area and hope you hit alot of your enemies.

How many people will have returning. Disarming is a real nice thing to do. Chances are most people won't have returning. I think you all truly underestimate Combat maneuvers.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:

When I do damage, I either almost always d min or max never in-between. If my damage rolls high first round than I roll high the rest of the combat and vise versa.

This is not true.

Seriously - this stuff is objective and measurable. It's not a matter of opinion.

Oh i am sorry, I didn't that you knew my dice rolls better than me. Geez. I didn't know you saw my dice rolls.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:

No no you were sucked out a vaccum how are you attacking me at all? I blew your ship up so I fail to see how your higher AC is helping you?

Oh wait a variable that apparently is NOW worth something. Oh average damage doesn't matter than. Again what i am saying. Account for all other variables and than average damage isn't worth looking at.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
d'Eon wrote:

No weapons currently in Starfinder have accuracy modifiers attached. Meaning that two identical characters both have the same chance to hit, so we can just go to average damage at the moment. When Alien Archive arrives with the NPC stats we'll know exactly what the to hit numbers will be.

And hey, if you add the minimum damage to the max damage and halve it, you get the average. You most definitely do roll average damage, over all the rolls you make. For every low roll, there's likely a high one to cancel it out.

So if the combat lasts 4 rounds my min damage is 4 max is 10. I hit min for 4 rounds I am not doing average. When I do damage, I either almost always d min or max never in-between. If my damage rolls high first round than I roll high the rest of the combat and vise versa.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
and when I do have my weapon and you have unarmed then what? or you know I shoot you with my gun before you get close? or I break out my back up weapons.. or or what if my space ship blows up your space ship first then where as your unarmed got you? what if I have magnetic boots and I blow a whole in the side of the space ship and let you get sucked out then how is your unarmed going to help you?

First of all if I build melee based characters I build them to have the higher chance to go first. So I acted first most of the time. Also my AC tends to be on the higher end of the spectrum. If you can't hit me you can't do damage. It seems like you all only know how to fight using damage and not tactics. All of these other variables that you all aren't accounting for I use to my advantage and overcome the whole who needs damage. Or here if you can't see me you can't hit me.

Also not all combat has to end with violence. If I disarm you than what are you going to do and you can't seem to get your weapon back. Or I grapple you up and tie you up? I sunder you weapon? Then who cares what the min is cause chances are you aren't doing anything.

In the end the average damage is a false front. It shows partially what your character can truly do. I use my class abilities and feats to the max and get more out of that than trying to hit one big hit. Again how can you hit me if you can't see me? This seems to be a very worthy variable.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:
I rarely ever roll average

You rarely roll minimum or maximum either, yet you said you consider those.

The point of average damage is not that it predicts any individual roll (though in the case of an RPG damage roll, with multiple dice, it will also be close to the most common result). The point is that you can measure how well a given attack will go over the long term - looking at the minimum/maximum doesn't work as well.

If you roll N times and add up the damage you do from start to finish, (N x Average damage) will be a better and better estimate, the larger N is.

So when people declare an attack superior because it has higher average, they mean "you'll do more damage over the long term". If that's not important to you, average damage isn't so useful - but how else do you evaluate efficacy of an attack?

I tend to roll min or max more than I do average.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:

Ok here is a scenario:

So lets say you have a bunch of ranged NON Soldiers. For math simplicity we will use your average damage.

So I move up get an attack I just hit you for 31 damage. You go you shoot me, you hit for 35. But you would provoke. So first you guarded step back. Oh wait I have step up and strike. Now I get another 31 damage. Then you hit for 35.

My lower damage output is not 62 to your 35. Now i know this is a situated scenario. But my point is your average damage is a false front. It just shows what the average damage you could do. It in no way shape or form accounts for any of these scenarios. Now this isn't the case all the time.

My point is average damage means nothing, and is a pretty poor way to base your character.

You're missing the value of average damage. It's not to compare between two different situations but the same situation.

I'm better off in your example if my attack has an average damage of 42 instead of 35. That's all.

Nobody is saying that a character with an average damage of 35 is always better than one with an average damage of 31. The claim is that, all else being equal, you're better off if your average damage is higher.

False. Again just cause you could POTENTIALLY do more damage does not mean it is the best choice. Damage only matters if you can hit.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:
I see people post average numbers those mean crap. I rarely ever roll average.

No one does most of the time. That's...really not the point of an average.

Micheal Smith wrote:
I don't remember if you did post the math or not. But the scenario of the potential vs auto fire and focus on one baddie was purely if it was a perfect scenario. They just said auto was better against more baddies because of the average damage. But they didn't account for all of the variables.

They said that, all things being equal, autofire was better against more foes. Because that's true. Other factors could certainly come up making it a better or worse choice, but the point of the analysis was to provide information. Ie: how many enemies should there be before I even consider using autofire?

There'll inevitably be exceptions, but the data is still good to have.

Micheal Smith wrote:
An alot of times I see that the math that is laid out is complete and utter crap. So what if the average dmg dealt is xx. That still leaves so many other variables not accounting to see if the avg damage is worth having vs going for maybe less damage but doing other things. When I say it is a perfect scenario its assuming everything went the right way for the people doing damage.

Other variables are absolutely worth noting!

Weapon properties like reach or trip, or even analog are all super relevant. However, none of those really apply to unarmed combat as it has no such properties.

Opportunity costs are worth noting. Whether something costs a Feat, keeps you from using other weapons, and similar things. But Unarmed Combat is the thing here that costs a Feat, not the other weapons I suggested.

What else are you referring to that's worth noting? I'm just...confused.

Micheal Smith wrote:
I find it best is to see what the max is and what the min is and see if that is on par with alot of things that with the appropriate CR. Like do I have enough to do any sort of
...

A weapon cost money and money an money. It may be minimal but it still cost more than a feat. You have to have ammo to fire your weapon.

AUTO is at best a get away cover tactic. If I can focus fire and take out an enemy in 1 round, no matter the number of enemies it will be greatly superior that auto fire. If I can eliminate an enemy that is one less foe doing damage. So this is still the better option. How many enemeies none. If you are throwing that many enemies that truly require auto, how worthy are they vs how balanced is the encounter? If they are a bunch of levels 1-2 vs 5 lvl 6-7, than thats not even a significant enemy. So at that point than is the encounter really worth wasting time with?

Other variables are absaloute nothing, really? That is about the dumbest thing I have heard. If any variable is a viable option in combat it isn't worthless. I disarm your weapon, now you have no weapon now your superior average damage means nothing. I still have my unarmed strike. Oh and your weapon in my hand. You make it seem that unarmed strike is complete inferior to your higher damaging weapons. With a single disarm I have basically made your superior damage weapon complete useless. The point I am making is the Soldier with ALL of those feats and making him pure combat your average damage and all your other crap is at best an option. I have now disarmed your weapon and now holding it. You can try to steal it back but chances are your not as good as my soldier. Melee based soldiers have the feats so disarming is totally a thing they should do. Chances are you only have the one HIGH DAMAGE weapon, yea you will have back up weapons but what will the average of those be?


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

Ok here is a scenario:

So lets say you have a bunch of ranged NON Soldiers. For math simplicity we will use your average damage.

So I move up get an attack I just hit you for 31 damage. You go you shoot me, you hit for 35. But you would provoke. So first you guarded step back. Oh wait I have step up and strike. Now I get another 31 damage. Then you hit for 35.

My lower damage output is not 62 to your 35. Now i know this is a situated scenario. But my point is your average damage is a false front. It just shows what the average damage you could do. It in no way shape or form accounts for any of these scenarios. Now this isn't the case all the time.

My point is average damage means nothing, and is a pretty poor way to base your character.

Now I know this is for Pathfinder but my point is still there. The overall math etc prob doesn't convert well over to Starfinder, but the concept does.

I am a monk that focused more into AC than damage. You have invested in doing a crap of damage. But in this scenario my AC to your to Hit is better that my to Hit and your AC. So I hit a lot more do a bit of damage here an there vs your every now and then. I will take the lower consistent damage and higher AC than to maximize damage and hit every so often. I can tell you In a home campaign I had a monk that was purely focused in AC. My flat-footed AC and Touch were higher than EVERYONE else's normal AC except the fight. Being the monk having a high dex with high AC and very low damage. It usually took 2-3 of my 7-8 hits to equal 1 of the fighters damage. The point being I only could be hit with a crit. I hit 99.9% of the time, I needed up doing more damage because I usually was the last standing man.

I hope this is getting through to you all. I will never build around average. I build around the abilities and maximize somewhere else. Damage is mealiness if you can't hit. If you can't hit that your average damage comparisons mean crap.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:
You keep posting average damage. I hate when people quote that. Most of the time its a perfect case scenario.

Huh? This statement literally does not compute. I do not comprehend what you're saying here.

Average damage is just that, the average damage of that attack method. It requires no special 'perfect case scenario' to apply.

Micheal Smith wrote:
I had this discussion with Automatic weapons. The average that was suggested is based on a perfect scenario.

I don't remember that occurring, but even if it did there...the damage numbers I list are purely the average rolled damage. Nothing conditional at all.

Micheal Smith wrote:
I don't base anything off of that. I tried that a few times and ended up with a crap character.
Um...I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'm not arguing all characters must be perfectly optimal at all times or anything like that. I'm just laying out the math so people can make informed decisions and be aware of what their character is capable of.

I see people post average numbers those mean crap. I rarely ever roll average.

I don't remember if you did post the math or not. But the scenario of the potential vs auto fire and focus on one baddie was purely if it was a perfect scenario. They just said auto was better against more baddies because of the average damage. But they didn't account for all of the variables. An alot of times I see that the math that is laid out is complete and utter crap. So what if the average dmg dealt is xx. That still leaves so many other variables not accounting to see if the avg damage is worth having vs going for maybe less damage but doing other things. When I say it is a perfect scenario its assuming everything went the right way for the people doing damage.

I find it best is to see what the max is and what the min is and see if that is on par with alot of things that with the appropriate CR. Like do I have enough to do any sort of damage vs DR or bypass energy resistance. TO be stating that because unarmed strikes at 11th level aren't the idea weapon in the end because it does 5.5 points less damage than the average damage. So what if the average damage is a little less that other weapons. There are other variable that should be taken in consideration. I feel that the average damage is a false front. I get from that that well because it does less average damage it is an inferior option. Just because something does less average damage means nothing. What are the PRO's CON's of this lower average output. Basing weapons purely on damage is absurd.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:
So also keep in mind this is all based on reading and theory. I haven't gotten to actually play and see what works.

True enough for me, too. Just for the record.

Micheal Smith wrote:
Also using the armed strike as a main weapon isn't really the point. I haven't really stated a character past 11th level. I play society and thats what I am used to playing to. Even in pathfinder, in all the home games, I only ever got past 11th 1 time.

Even at 10th, unarmed strike is behind a standard melee weapon. 2d6+24 (31 average) is still a fair bit less than 3d10+19 (35.5 average), though admittedly not to the same degree.

As for not playing above 11th...in that case the Soldier still has much better class features in terms of damage than anyone else (except for Solarians). They're a very solid combat generalist.

Micheal Smith wrote:
My point is the fact they can pick up all of these feats and make them much more versatile combat than the other classes with feats. When more and more feat options come out I am sure it will show.

Totally a valid thing to do...but not one that is suddenly rendered useless by the investment of a couple of Feats in non-combat areas.

Micheal Smith wrote:
I am also the guy that doesn't try to squeeze every little bit i can out of character. I hate when people do that. I honesty hate all of this math people do. Alot of it I feel is completely a waste. It truly is all based on the perfect scenario.
Uh...I'm not suggesting you do this. I was noting, in fact, that you don't need to do this since Soldier does fine without it. That was pretty much my whole point, actually.

You keep posting average damage. I hate when people quote that. Most of the time its a perfect case scenario. I had this discussion with Automatic weapons. The average that was suggested is based on a perfect scenario. I don't base anything off of that. I tried that a few times and ended up with a crap character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

I am also the guy that doesn't try to squeeze every little bit i can out of character. I hate when people do that. I honesty hate all of this math people do. Alot of it I feel is completely a waste. It truly is all based on the perfect scenario.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:
Ok so that doesn't mean give it skill based abilities. If you get the right feats, an NOT FOCUS in skills, you could potentially be far superior and do more in combat that other classes. Some of these feats I have seen people down play or make it seem like they aren't great I have already seen practical uses for. Building a desk soldier and giving him the improved unarmed strike to have that damage level up would be great. The fact that he gets 1-1/2 times weapon specialization. If you can get in to melee the damage will be amazing with the right feats. Getting step up and step up an strike. Also getting to a 5th level character and 15 int, Picking up technomantic dabbler and getting overcharged weapon with all of that the damage for that one attack sky rockets (yes I realize anyone can do most of this but all the feats the soldier get make it more deadly.

This is a really bad build mechanically. 7d6+43 (average 67.5 damage) is maxed unarmed strike damage, and if nowhere near as good as 12d10+33 (average 99 damage). Which is what you can get with a normal weapon.

Micheal Smith wrote:
Just because they all can be as efficient in combat, you HAVE to build a soldier purely for combat, I would think, in order to out shine others.

This really isn't true. A Soldier, just with class abilities and a good weapon, is already just flat-out better at doing damage than anyone but a Solarian. By quite a bit. That third attack, especially combined with full BAB, is mechanically amazing. As is their free access to all the best weapons.

Some Feat investment in combat is a pretty good call, but hardly to the point of needing to spend every single Feat on it.

So also keep in mind this is all based on reading and theory. I haven't gotten to actually play and see what works.

Also using the armed strike as a main weapon isn't really the point. I haven't really stated a character past 11th level. I play society and thats what I am used to playing to. Even in pathfinder, in all the home games, I only ever got past 11th 1 time.

My point is the fact they can pick up all of these feats and make them much more versatile combat than the other classes with feats. When more and more feat options come out I am sure it will show.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

Ok so that doesn't mean give it skill based abilities. If you get the right feats, an NOT FOCUS in skills, you could potentially be far superior and do more in combat that other classes. Some of these feats I have seen people down play or make it seem like they aren't great I have already seen practical uses for. Building a desk soldier and giving him the improved unarmed strike to have that damage level up would be great. The fact that he gets 1-1/2 times weapon specialization. If you can get in to melee the damage will be amazing with the right feats. Getting step up and step up an strike. Also getting to a 5th level character and 15 int, Picking up technomantic dabbler and getting overcharged weapon with all of that the damage for that one attack sky rockets (yes I realize anyone can do most of this but all the feats the soldier get make it more deadly.

Just because they all can be as efficient in combat, you HAVE to build a soldier purely for combat, I would think, in order to out shine others.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

I am sorry but the Soldier should NOT BE A SKILL BASED CLASS. A soldier should be melee based. Also i'm not sure why the Operative gets 4 attacks and the soldier doesn't. It seems like most of the other classes make in combat in other ways and are just as capable as the soldier. I don't see the point in a soldier wasting time with skill focus. Soldiers are COMBAT BASED. They get so many feats because they are adaptable. Soldiers in the military are generally very versatile in combat.

If you want to be skill based that's what the Envoy does. Operatives are like the soldier of skills. They are versatile in what they can do and get flat bonus to ALL skills. All my characters right now that I have ready to go for society have ranks in pilot. In settings like this I love being the hot shot pilot. But The Mad Comrade is right every character is pretty equally good at piloting. (From what I have seen)


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Ectar wrote:

One of my issues is the Soldier class.

The 4+int skill ranks is better than the fighter, but the later fighter splat books actually gave fighters a lot of cool options for gaining skill ranks and bonuses.
Literally every other Starfinder class gets SOME kind of insight bonus to skills.
Envoy: 1d8+4 on up to 6 skills
Mechanic: +6 on computers and engineering, w/ an option for perception
Mystic: +7 on 2 skills chosen at level 1
Operative: +6 on ALL skills
Solarion: +1d6 on up to 6 skills
Soldier:
Technomancer: +6 on computers and mysticism

The solarion isn't looking too hot compared to the other classes, either. An average of 3.5 is pretty low compared to the other classes, but at least they can compete when they high-roll. The soldier gets NOTHING for skills.
Well, they get feats. So they can nab a couple of skill focuses. Which is still worse than all the other classes.
Not that the fighting classes should be skill masters, but I feel like they should at least have a niche. Maybe soldiers could've had a scaling bonus to Athletics. That's not usually a very powerful skill, but then soldiers would at least have a niche.
And why don't soldiers have perception as a class skill? That's like the single most important skill for soldiering.

I don't have an issue with Soldiers not getting a skill based ability. THEY ARE COMBAT BASED. PURE COMBAT. So what if not all classes get a skill bonus or not. Different classes have different roles. They are to be versatile in combat. That is why they get all of the feats.

Also I agree on the perception thing. EVERYONE should have this.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Dragonchess Player wrote:

IMO, melee in Starfinder should be a "finishing tactic," rather than a primary attack mode. The melee monster should be moving from cover to cover, working their way closer and whittling down the enemies' hp with ranged fire, until they are in a good position (and the enemies are weakened enough) to rush in and decisively end the combat in a round or two.

The "charge straight at the enemy at the start of combat" doesn't seem to work very well when just about everyone is an "archer" in Pathfinder, either. It's just not as common in a fantasy game.

I agree to a degree. Now if you are in tight quarters and you can prevent the ranged characters from completely benefiting from ranged combat then by all means go to town with melee.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
FMS Trippic wrote:
complaint - lack of customized frames for ships and drones(id prefer more adaptability in stats etc) for me

This is a really poor complaint. Its the freaking core rulebook dude. Seriously. They have limited space. The SYSYTEM just came out, keep it simple in the beginning. Did you really expect them to give 100 different options just for frames right out the gate?

Also coming from a business point of view bad for them. Im betting they will have a whole book just on ships and/or drones with all of this an more.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Here let's jump this to a realistic encounter.

I presume that you've run or played that encounter several times in order to determine expected results?

Because I've run and/or played this 4 times at this point. In at least 3 of the times (can't remember the 4th) the character who entered melee went down because they got focus fired on.

Not fatally, mind. As I pointed out in my original post, one radical adjustment many people have to make to their thinking is that in Starfinder going unconscious is going to happen a lot. Especially if you draw fire.

HWalsh wrote:


Again, I'd call a serious d-bag move on any GM that had every enemy focus fire 4 on 1 on any level 1 PC but that is just me. Just because that is likely to drop any level 1 PC and is fairly unrealistic of a response.

Well, then I'm a douche bag and proud of it. And I consider myself a softy as a GM (I think most of my players would agree with that).

Good GMs absolutely WILL focus fire if the NPCs would. The NPCs WILL try to win.

Hitting the person when they're down IS a douche move IMO. But putting the PC down most certainly is NOT

So what were the rest of the group doing than? Also why not use cover fire and harrying fire to aid the melee'er. Why now have the melee'er attempt to disarm? trip? I haven't played yet but these seem like they could be beneficial.

I don't see that at all as a douche bag move. I agree. Everyone wants to win. In a fight most people will do what they need to win. If an opponent comes out into the open and is a perfect target for 4 people, than he is fair game. Now hitting the person when they are down depends on the circumstance. If you did something completely stupid than I say your character deserves to die. Starfinder seems to be very ranged based. Now if the baddies are pure evil and thats what they do than no not a douche bag move. Thats how life works. When you adventure like this your character isn't invincible and is subject to die like everyone else. Just because you are a PC doesn't mean that is an excuse not to die.

Most of the time baddies would kidnap you and ransom you, after some good ol fashion torture. Again its all situational.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Here let's jump this to a realistic encounter.

I presume that you've run or played that encounter several times in order to determine expected results?

Because I've run and/or played this 4 times at this point. In at least 3 of the times (can't remember the 4th) the character who entered melee went down because they got focus fired on.

Not fatally, mind. As I pointed out in my original post, one radical adjustment many people have to make to their thinking is that in Starfinder going unconscious is going to happen a lot. Especially if you draw fire.

HWalsh wrote:


Again, I'd call a serious d-bag move on any GM that had every enemy focus fire 4 on 1 on any level 1 PC but that is just me. Just because that is likely to drop any level 1 PC and is fairly unrealistic of a response.

Well, then I'm a douche bag and proud of it. And I consider myself a softy as a GM (I think most of my players would agree with that).

Good GMs absolutely WILL focus fire if the NPCs would. The NPCs WILL try to win.

Hitting the person when they're down IS a douche move IMO. But putting the PC down most certainly is NOT

So what were the rest of the group doing than? Also why not use cover fire and harrying fire to aid the melee'er. Why now have the melee'er attempt to disarm? trip? I haven't played yet but these seem like they could be beneficial.

I don't see that at all as a douche bag move. I agree. Everyone wants to win. In a fight most people will do what they need to win. If an opponent comes out into the open and is a perfect target for 4 people, than he is fair game. Now hitting the person when they are down depends on the circumstance. If you did something completely stupid than I say your character deserves to die. Starfinder seems to be very ranged based. Now if the baddies are pure evil and thats what they do than no not a douche bag move. Thats how life works. When you adventure like this your character isn't invincible and is subject to die like everyone else. Just because you are a PC doesn't mean that is an excuse not to die.

Most of the time baddies would kidnap you and ransom you, after some good ol fashion torture. Again its all situational.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

So people comment that going first you can execute a flyby. IF they fail you get a free attack on them. You can turn round and do the same thing. I don't think fly by is going to be a go to thing. At a DC of 20 +2 x Ship tier, that can get very difficult. But I haven't had experience using this system yet.

Just because you have the fastest ship/car etc doesn't mean you will ALWAYS win. Speed is just one of several variables. Thats like saying just because I have a Ferrari I will always beat A Dodge Challenger. Yes in most aspects it is a superior vehicle. Being able to drive the car for one is very important. Knowing when to shift is also a huge importance, if you start to lose control can you recover. Racing is MORE than just who is faster. Similar mechanics are the same with Starship battles etc.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

I wanna see how covering and harrying fire will play out. Are they decent enough to help get a melee’er in melee? Especially if they have the step up. Then step in and strike. Getting this off could be just enough to help drop the baddies. I mean getting the melee’er up there than covering him and help with the cover penalties the range characters take.

I don’t know haven’t got to play yet will in a weeks time for Society.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:
legodps wrote:


Doesn't it seem like there could be a mechanical benefit to having a worse pilot in the case of escape? It seems weird that a lower roll equals better off.
I think that RAW you're correct. The obvious fix is to allow the character who rolls high the choice of who goes first.

So the lower result moves first as they weren’t good enough to read the opponents maneuvers. I know x-wing uses a similar mechanic. The lower initiative goes first. Other than that every thing really happens simultaneously. Yes they may get a flyby or so, but you can get in behind them and get them where your best fire power lies. When they are done moving you have a better chance of manuerving do they can’t get in good position.

Most ships have weaker weapons in the aft vs the forward weapons. If you can get into this position you will most definitely have the advantage.

**

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

So I had a question about upgrading wonderous items. Basically I want to know if in Society I can upgrade a Cloak of Resistance + 1 to a Cloak of Resistance + 1 and Cloak of Displacement. I know you can do this but it is pricy. Wasn't sure if you can do it in Society. Also not sure where it says you can or can't. Thanks.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

Sp based on what I get from this, there is no difficulty check. Basically you have to have the required amount of UPE's and skill ranks in the correct skill. If you are trying to craft a 1st level item and you are 7th level you can cut the time to craft in 2 hours instead of 4.

The whole concept of crafting items isn't supposed to make things cheaper, but allows the PC to have access to what ever they want. So if you can't find an item somewhere in 4 hours you can create it yourself meeting all prerequisites. I think they wanted to make crafting simple and easy and having the necessary skill shows you know how to craft that item.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

So I just had a question to understand the concept of casting a spell with a melee touch.

So Jolting Surge says
"You touch a target with a device you’re holding that uses electricity, requiring a melee attack against the target’s EAC. Alternatively, you can instead touch an electrical device a target is wearing (or a target that is an electrical device, such as a robot) with your hand, gaining a +2 bonus to your attack roll. Either way, if your attack hits, the electrical device surges out of control, dealing 4d6 electricity damage to your target. Casting this spell doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity."

So the bold part states I can make a melee attack. If I am wielding a weapon with the "Operative" ability do I get to roll the melee attack using my DEX?

Now the next bit states I basically touch with my hand so I am guessing that it HAS to be done with STR?

Sidenote: I like that this spell doesn't provoke when casting.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

Also don't forget about the significant enemy rule. Do 30 lvl 1 baddies truly pose a threat to 4-6 lvl 4-7 PCs. More an likely not. So this would be a complete an utter waste of time.

The problem I have with all of that math is that is assuming that you hit and you don't have to move to not provoke or anything. That in my eyes is a perfect for the good guys scenario. How often with this PERFECT scenario truly play out? I still believe the focus fire option is by FAR THE BEST option. If you focus all damage on one target and take him out then that is less return fire coming your way. Now if automatic actually did damage 2x because you are effectively hitting twice then it would totally be worth it.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
HunterWulf wrote:

Automatic fire is pretty darn useful in time when you are out numbered. Even with opponents stronger then bottom of the food chain. You can have up to a whole party all use it. some tactical group would also help to maximise its effect.

Think of 3 or more people automatic firing into a large group. your then are layering multiple dice of damage.

That is not even remotely true. The damage output you could put out for just taking the normal attacks greatly out weights this.

So there are 4 PC's and 10 baddies. If I choose to take a full round and hit on one quicker than the rest of the party follows suit this would be more beneficial than auto fire. If we all auto fire we may hit the same enemy for 4 times. And then next turn we have to reload. An just wasted ammo. I would rather still focus fire with out auto. I will have to disagree with you completely. Again playing this out is different than on reading or talking about. In theory this is crap an not useful.

1 to 50 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.