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

Revan's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 943 posts. No reviews. 2 lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 943 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Or what I do, and disregard all errata.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Well, my days of not taking errata and FAQ seriously are certainly coming to a middle.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Curse of the Crimson Throne: B****es be crazy.

Kingmaker: Wait, what do you mean there's literally nothing in here about interacting with Brevoy?

Giantslayer: Well...this is an adventure path which exists.

Serpent's Skull: So is this one.

Jade Regent: We want to be a Bioware game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

"You are not an evil person, but our God is going to murder you for using a word, even though there are roughly an infinite number of non-lethal ways he could punish you, ore even simply force you to stop using the word. Look how Lawful Good we are."

Even accepting the entirely irrational, unjustified, and evil actions of Iomedae in Wrath of the Righteous into evidence (and you are in the considerable minority in doing so), she didn't *kill* the characters for displeasing her. That was your big argument for why dealing as much damage as dropping a character from 50 feet, then 100 feet, and then 200 feet (or stabbing them with five short swords at once, than 10, then 20) for answering random questions incorrectly wasn't evil, as I recall--that despite the considerable objective magnitude of the damage, it had no chance of killing characters of that level, so it was all fine and dandy. She specifically doesn't kill characters who outright attack her. Whereas here, Pelor murders a guy who is specifically *not evil* for making a group of his followers feel less super special awesome and unique.

We clearly have very different ideas what the word 'Good' means.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Ernest Mueller wrote:

The problem with this is that people have a very "modern" version of how law enforcement works that isn't very compatible with a more Golarion-esque medieval/Renaissance world. The idea of a professional "standing" police force is not super realistic; law enforcement was very DIY in those times - apprehending a criminal and taking them to a judge was indeed your responsibility, and sometimes expected of you (see hue-and-cry laws, tithings, and other real medieval legal enforcement techniques).

So while I understand where you're coming from and the kind of behavior you want to curb and why... I'm afraid history isn't really on your side.

So far as it goes, pretty much every city detailed in Golarion *does* have a standing police force, be they called the Watch, the Guard, the Militia, or the Dottari...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Claxon wrote:
But this proves the point being made. A paladin in Cheliax is treated with mistrust and suspicion, as the government knows he is opposed to their purpose at some point. Maybe not in the exact action they're doing now (because they're both lawful) but at some point they're going to be opposed to one another.

Yes and no.

The Cheliax government will be wary of the paladin, but that's not the same as mistrust.

If the paladin straight-up vows that he is not there to mess with the government or its citizens while he is visiting their nation, they will believe him despite being opposed to him. Why? Because he's a paladin.

Paladins are so trustworthy that both their allies and enemies trust them. Now, their enemies will also trust that the paladin will oppose them; but they will still trust his word.

Even were one to assume that the Chelaxian authorities were 100% certain they were dealing with a paladin, I imagine many of them might be of the opinion that the whole 'Paladin's Code' business is just good propaganda. Believing that someone *really* never lies might be too absurd for many evil characters.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
My Self wrote:

Instead of "cannot progress" in any casting classes, what about "suffers a 100% spell failure chance"? Or 10% per class level?

Also, certain materials are more prevalent than others.

Perhaps you get Fly as a class skill once you can actually fly, instead of several levels later?

DR equal to 1/2 level is a fairly major class feature. You get a lot at level 1, and don't give up too much. Perhaps you replace something else at level 1? Such as reducing skill points to 4/level or 2/level? Or pushing back your enhancement bonuses to after level 4?

It's DR/magic though, which just gets more and more worthless as time goes on.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Startling Appearance can extend that, and with Shatter Defenses you can use it on anyone who is shaken.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Well, anyone have suggestions on what else I could do, then?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

In a couple sessions, my players will probably be reaching enough Scrapworth to be summoned to a duel with Helskarg, so I'm trying to brush up on the Vehicle Rules to make sure it's as memorable an encounter as it should be. I'd appreciate any advice that forumites have on vehicle combat in general and running Helskarg in particular. A couple questions off the top of my head--by my reading, the Ogres get cover from attacks from outside the chariot, even though they're just harnessed to the thing. is that accurate? Also, are there any rules for damaging somebody by dragging them behind your chariot, as Helskarg's main tactic would seem to be?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

In Curse of the Crimson Throne, the Arjuna's employ an asura torturer in the Vivified Labyrinth, as I recall.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

As I recall, the Latent/Carrier stage is equivalent to the onset period--a state you would normally enter after failing the first save, but before any symptoms--I.e., debilitating effects--develop. So if Contagion skills the over period, it should go straight to the next stage.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

I would guess that lawful executions would then stipulate it illegal for the executed to be raised from the dead, for one. Conducting the execution such that basic raise dead was unviable would be relatively easy, and the more powerful variants would be significantly rarer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Atarlost wrote:

Falling to your death. Also having enemies that don't fly and aren't monks fall to their deaths.

Environmental damage is not in line with the HP as partial evasion and abstraction that the system is based on.

As I am sure plenty of people can tell you, the only way "partial evasion" can be consistent with 90% of the system is if you read them with your eyes shut and fill in the blanks.
The only way meat points make sense is if you have never experienced or even seen anyone injured and have absolutely no grasp of what humans are or are not capable of.
I am saving a link to this post forever. Seriously made me smile. :)

No one ever said that meat points were consistent with the real world--though as we've seen, people do tend to overestimate how immediately and definitively lethal things are IRL--but meat points is the only interpretation that is internally consistent with the system. Poison, disease, falling damage, stun, bleed, Hamatula Style, the very fact that hit points are restored by spells called 'Cure Wounds'--absolutely nothing suggests that HP are intended to be ablative plot armor, and absolutely everything suggests they absolutely represent tanking actual hits.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Alayern wrote:
Revan wrote:
For a Lawful god, I imagine Irori would be quite hostile to the idea of rigid social class or castes...
Sadly he doesn't seem to mind rigid social castes. Vudra (being based off of ancient India) does have rigid social castes, and Irori comes from Vudra.

And the Keleshites practice slavery, despite Sarenrae's opposition. Being from a place, or even being the patron god of a place, does not necessarily mean you approve of every aspect of life there--and Vudra has a *lot* of Gods, with Irori not even being the main one, just the one with 'crossover appeal'.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

For a Lawful god, I imagine Irori would be quite hostile to the idea of rigid social class or castes, and be big on rights of self-determination. Everyone should have the freedom to develop their best potential, so the idea of social structures that are not purely meritocratic, or of denying someone opportunities based on trivial things such as appearance, race, or other superficial reasons. Ignorance in general is anathema; Irorans would tend to take it as a sacred duty to instruct, guide, and educate others.

The Champion of Irori prestige class does feature the following addition to the Paladin Code of Conduct:

Code of Conduct: A champion of Irori embraces law and goodness as other paladins do, conducting himself with honor and protecting the innocent; he loses all class features if he ever willingly commits an evil act. A champion of Irori must avoid entanglements that would distract him from the pursuit of perfection, and may not incur debts nor give loans to others—though he is encouraged to give freely to those in need. He likewise turns away potential followers of any sort, and may not recruit (and must discharge from service, if already acquired) any cohort, follower, animal companion, familiar, special mount, or similar creature.

You don't necessarily need to follow that to the letter and prevent a base class Iroran paladin from taking a mount (or a familiar with the Chosen One archetype, especially as that familiar is something of a guide and mentor itself), but clearly Iroran paladins do not believe in forcing services, or making others beholden to them.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

It's an active ability rather than apassive he, but I distinctly remember Katara using water bending to survive underwater on several occasions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

If one did go with a Sorcerer, I'd suggest Imperious as the most thematically fitting bloodline: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/bloodlines/bloodlines -from-paizo/racial-bloodlines/imperious-bloodline-sorcerer-human ; the Heroic Echoes ability in particular could serve to make your bard better as the campaign gets to high levels.

Swashbuckler or Daring Champion Cavalier would be quite fitting.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

But Paladins can lie. It's against their code, but that doesn't make it impossible by any stretch of the imagination. The Paladin should really be relying on evidence, not reputation.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

And of all the Lawful Good deities, I'd say that Erastil is the last legalistic, and perhaps the most amenable to a vigilante mindset, given his association with the frontier.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

If by that you mean that they can kill or even simply depose such a character, and have their actions be accepted purely on the strength of saying "I'm a paladin," then that is the sorry of weapon my paladin wants no part of. Because that is the kind of thinking that leads to your Order of Light.

To my mind, the person most critical of a paladin often is--and I would argue, should be--the paladin themselves. White they certainly strive to set a good example, I think many or most paladins would be very concerned at the thought of being put on a pedestal as an infallible paragon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

...I guarantee you that no paladin code causes a fall for politely tolerating someone annoying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

I would assume the average person knows the basics of what a Paladin can do.

Since Spellcraft identifies Supernatural Abilities (and spells) on sight (still spell and Silent Spell be darned, that's a 3.5 deal) that means things like Smite Evil have a visual component.

I see nothing allowing a character to identify Su abilities with Spellcraft.

Moreover, since the average person doesn't have Spellcraft, even if it *could* identify (Su), and even if that absolutely meant a visual component--the average person in Pathfinder doesn't have Spellcraft, and so has no idea what that physical component looks like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Last I checked, a paladin's class doesn't change when they need atonement, so if the class that's listed on the sheet is the defining trait, then fallen paladins are very definitely still paladins.

You are aware that there are rogues who never steal, barbarians without tribal roots (and even ones who never froth at the mouth), Bards who don't strum lutes, rangers who don't have any particular reverence for nature, and even wizards who have never set foot in a grand academy of magic, right?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

"I guess anyone who dual wields now is a rogue right?
Anyone who makes an unarmed attack is a monk huh?"

Um...yes?

Your first example is just confusing on every conceivable level. Dual wielding, while a common enough fighting style for rogues, is neither a class feature nor especially iconic or evocative of the class. I'd wager the number of rogues who call themselves that in-universe are *vanishingly* low. 'Rogue' is easily the most generic class in the whole game, except perhaps Fighter, covering an utterly *vast* array of concepts. Combine all that with the *myriad* of classes who can easily cover the rogue's mechanical abilities and niche, and...yes, absolutely, there's basically an infinity of characters who would absolutely be justified in calling themselves Rogues without having a single rogue level.

You are aware that there is no rule in Pathfinder which states Monk levels can only be taken by characters who have trained in some formal order? And that many monk builds use weapons and *not* unarmed strikes? And that there's no reason a non-monk character cannot have a backstory in which they trained their special abilities in a monastic setting, whether that be a focus on Unarmed Combat with a Brawler or Unarmed Fighter, or a monastic approach to training magic? I mean, I've put together a build for Aang before, and while his class was Sorcerer (and might now be Kineticist with Air as his primary element if I did it now), he'd be *very* surprised if someone tried to tell him he wasn't a monk. Contrariwise, a build for Ty Lee would very likely have Monk levels, but she almost certainly wouldn't call herself that.

"Do you do this for titles?" one of my paladins might ask yours. "Do you do this for social benefits? Do you do this for your reputation? Do you do this to hold yourself above and apart, and call yourself special? I thought the point was to do the right thing--not because it is easy, not because it is popular, not because it benefits one's self, but simply because it is the right thing. So far as I have seen, this young man has comported himself with honor and compassion; he has righted many wrongs, and stands prepared to give his life in defense of all that is good. If he has not been blessed by the heavens in the precise way that we have, what significance is that? As you yourself said, a Paladin is what you are, not what you do."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:

Paladins aren't just a class though.

Lore-wise they are special individuals who were called to do it. A person who calls themselves a Paladin when they aren't is doing a disservice.

My Paladin would not like it at all.

A lie is a lie.

Being a Paladin isn't something you do, its something you are.

Whereas many of my Paladins might feel like yours is a little too hung up on feeling unique and special, caring more about titles and appearances than just Doing The Right Thing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Magus and Alchemist have already been mentioned. Investigator also has a lot of potential, for most of the same reasons as alchemist.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
It's not about true strike. It's about things like glibness, beast shape, divine favor, shield, etc.

...Why are any of those even remotely problematic? Those sound like *exactly* the sort of things that potions should be doing. Divine Favor is kind of thematically odd, I guess. But it seems kind of ridiculous that you could create a potion of Fireball, but not Glibness.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Melkiador wrote:
Of course, the UnRogue can't take the exotic weapon feat until 3rd level because of the BAB requirement, unless of course you multiclass.

Notably, that is also the level that they get Dex-to-damage, so that more or less works out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

My thought is that teamwork feats should simply work like Solo Tactics, and Solo Tactics is what should be altered. Maybe teamwork feats require regularly drilling with a team to gain the benefit if they don't have the fest, and Solo Tactics allows the Inquisitor to effortlessly gain the benefit with allies outside the party? Or they could have an ability to take advantage of enemy positioning for teamwork feats? O maybe expand her ability to alter her Teamwork feats on the fly?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Revan wrote:
So, in other words, a more complicated, less intuitive, less evocative version of a spell point system.

Search my post history for spell points and you'll see I've described it as such.

I don't like it either, but it does make sense regardless of our feelings.

I don't mind it, as such, if only because I've been inured to it by tradition. But I disagree that it makes sense.

The 'memorization' explanation is nonsensical on its face, and whether or not the terminology is used in the rulebook, it is how *everyone* thinks of it. Pre-casting, as we've seen, falls apart, unless you add the same rationale as spell points to it, and even then, it's a patch at best--it's a pretty nonsensical way for magical energy to work.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Revan wrote:
Then what are the ingredients,npray tell?
The magical power that the caster has to muster in order to prepare the spell. Why else would you have to have spell slots? Otherwise, anyone with Use Magic Device could prepare and cast a spell. But they can't, because UMD can only manipulate existing magic. It can't gather magic like a spellcaster can.

So, in other words, a more complicated, less intuitive, less evocative version of a spell point system.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Revan wrote:
The ingredients in this case would be the spellbook, so...yeah, absolutely.
No, the spellbook would be the cookbook. That's why it doesn't show up under detect magic. There are only instructions in there.

Then what are the ingredients,npray tell? The material components, only provided at the moment of casting, which you have a limitless supply of?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Revan wrote:
Point being, if the 'preparation is pre-casting' logic held true, then a Wizard should be able to do that with expended spell slots, or cast an unprepared spell even without open slots, provided that they have the time for a ritual.
And if I eat all the cake, I should just be able to bake another one. It's not like I need ingredients or anything.

The ingredients in this case would be the spellbook, so...yeah, absolutely.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Ross Byers wrote:
Revan wrote:
If spell preparation is doing 99% of the spell, then a wizard should be able to cast any spell he knows at any time by doing then long-form out of the spellbook. An preparation takes, what, an hour at the start of the day? If you're doing 99% of each spell ahead of time in that time, the long forms can't take *that* much longer.

The wizard CAN do this. It's why people leave a couple spell slots open and consult their spellbook.

Point being, if the 'preparation is pre-casting' logic held true, then a Wizard should be able to do that with expended spell slots, or cast an unprepared spell even without open slots, provided that they have the time for a ritual.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Pretty simple really. Spell slots are a form of magical energy, a container of sorts that a caster cultivates as they grow in level.

Prepared casters use rituals to fill those containers with specific spells in the morning and cast them during the course of the day.

Spontaneous casters simply open a floodgate, releasing that spell energy in the form of one of the spells they know.

I think part of your problem is the old 'memorization' terminology. Spell preparation is a ritual and the first 99% of casting of the spell, not a memorization process.

EDIT: I will confess it's a little silly that clerics have to prepare their miracles rather than call upon their god for the right one at the right time. It would be cool to find a balanced way to create a truly spontaneous cleric with access to any spell on their list. Not sure how much fun it would play given the limits it must impose for balance-sake, but it would be cool.

If spell preparation is doing 99% of the spell, then a wizard should be able to cast any spell he knows at any time by doing then long-form out of the spellbook. An preparation takes, what, an hour at the start of the day? If you're doing 99% of each spell ahead of time in that time, the long forms can't take *that* much longer.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Dreamscarred Press published what is effectively a conversion and reskin of the Mind Flayer, the Phrenic Scourge: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/aberrations/phrenic-scour ge


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

I'm a huge fan of the new rogue talent where they can move into cover or concealment and make a Stealth check to get observers to lose track of them. Unless I'm missing somemajor limitations to that, it would be well worth it all on its own, but it also has a rider where success allows you to make an Intimidate check to shake enemies with your disappearing act.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Personally, I find the idea of a 'failed kitten test' equivalent to saying Pathfinder is badly designed because it doesn't specify dead people can't take actions.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Le voila: http://heroesofalvena.wikidot.com/gunslinger


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Zhangar wrote:
1) DCs that don't scale, like with poisons, alchemical items, and most magic items. A 95,000 gp item that imposes a measly DC 19 saving throw (mindmaster's eyes, for example) just sort of makes me cringe.

Good lord, this. So much this. And DC 19 is actually on the high end for those saving throws. I swear, I see way too many endgame level items with DC 14 saves.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
CaptainGemini wrote:

Modern firearms have trouble with metal armor even to this day. Metal inserts are popular additions to bullet-resistant vests for that reason.

Firearms replaced knights on horseback because a man wielding a gun takes much less time to train than a knight does. It means you can field replacements for your army faster and also field much larger armies with lower resource cost.

What about switching it around? Guns target normal armor and don't explode, but gunslingers can spend grit to make firearms hit Touch AC to reflect the expertise the gunslinger has with a firearm.

That is exactly the Heroes of Alvna solution--along with fur her limiting that deed to a single shot, as I recall.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

As far as it goes, I gather there an axiom for those trained in gun-fighting that, within a certain distance, a man with a knife will be able to choose and staff you before you can shoot him. So a criminal with a knife winning initiative and charging a cop isn't so unrealistic.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Am I the only one who sometimes looks at Golarion and thinks it would be coherent, even improved if, instead of sort of Renaissance era, it was sort of Victorian/Industrial Rvolution? Lots of setting elements have always struck me as inclined that way, given Paizo's affinity for Pulp. Action-adventure Egyptology in Osirion, colonialism in Sargava and the Mwangi Expanse, the Wild (make that Weird) West in Alkenstar...not to mention lots of the fashion choices in the art. Maybe it was just the analogies to Fagin in the character of Gaedren Lamm in Curse of the Crimson Throne, but Korvosa always made me think of Dickensian London. Plus of course, Gunslinger--and to a lesser extent, Investigator--fit better in that general time period.

Anyone ever toyed around with this? To what extent do mechanics and setting details need to be altered for this sort of theme?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Now, generally, my preferred fix for Gunslingers and firearms is to use the Heroes of Alvena ruleset, where, among other things, they don't target touch AC. But it occurs to me--if one took it as a design girl that guns *do*interact with AC specially, perhaps instead of touch, they should target Flat-Footed AC?

The thing is, while guns do have significant penetrative power, so do crossbows, even longbows for that matter, and armorb of some form, be it an elephant or rhino's tough hide, full plate against early firearms, or a Kevlar vest, armor of some stripe has and does often stop small arms fire. What doesn't happen in real life is *dodging* bullets, as they generally move with an excessive amount of velocity.

From a game balance perspective, hitting Flat-footed is generally a lot less impressive than hitting touch. In some cases, it's everything, while in others it can be literally nothing.

Thoughts?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
9mm wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
That's a very designer-centric way of looking at it. "This feature is hard to implement properly, so people shouldn't want it."

Less "shouldn't want it" more "understand the restrictions required to pull it off." This includes piercing the players defenses.

Quote:


Boss fights are a staple of mythology. RPGs should be able to create satisfying fights of a party against a single monster.

and most boss fights have lackeys involved, yet so many ignore that they are there. except crushim

Quote:
It's something I'm sure a lot of designers would like to invent.

and have, however d20 isn't where you'll find it easily.

Not to mention most single boss fights in video games achieve that by the enemies not playing by the same rules as the players, with things like being able to take more actions than a single PC can bring to bear, or having special tricks required to make them vulnerable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Given the specific context, does the Paladin fall for killing the succubus? No. It wasn't the right thing to do, but in those particular circumstances, a tragic but understandable mistake. He *may* fall for resisting arrest afterwards, and if he refuses to ultimately acknowledge that it was wrong to kill her, he most certainly would fall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

"You can use it or not" is standard for all subsystems that Paizo introduces in APs. Even Kingmaker had a 'Kingdom in the Background' sidebar.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

For those who see rage as Hulk Smash and oppose nonlethal Barbs on that basis, is with pointing out that at one point Marvel child genius Amadeus Cho observed that the Hulk had never killed anybody in all his rampaging, attributing this to subconscious influence from Banner, and that MCU Hulk actually has a solid handle on directing his rage.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

1st level PCs encountering endgame CR creatures is *not* the same thing as high level PCs having to actually thing about conserving their resources.

1 to 50 of 943 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.