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

Ron Lundeen's page

Contributor. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game Subscriber. FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 282 posts (859 including aliases). 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 11 Pathfinder Society characters. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Keim wrote:
Scott Keim wrote:
This one actually happened to me: glanced at my cell phone and somehow my brain saw "You have 2 undead messages" instead of unread. Yeah, my creates typos.
And now I've lost my mind - I swear I typed my BRAIN creates typos.

The low-hanging joke here, of course, is that the undead took your brain...


Hawkmoon269 wrote:
Later today.

A lo, didst we say "woot."


I anxiously eye the Season O downloads about the middle of every month, as I'm not connected to a store so have to be a month behind on them (and pay for them).

I understand there was a week off from the program about the end of the year, but I was still hoping to see adventure 0-4 available by now--any ETA on that?


I don't sleeve.

We've played through Rise of the Runelords one full time, along with using the cards for a lot of one-off games (including playtesting for my variant-RotRL AP Shield of Rannick). The cards are showing wear, particularly the set B and 1 cards that have seen more use than the set 5 and 6 cards.

Our Skull and Shackles set is only up to set 4 (set 5 just came yesterday!), but those cards have gotten even more play than our RotRL set, with the main campaign, the OP campaign, and playtesting for my next variant AP. Those cards are also showing wear; again, it's mostly the set B and 1 cards.

We've only had one "giveaway" damage: the Fox in my wife's deck has a peeled corner that indicates when it's coming. We just swapped out for a Fox from one of the class decks.

I imagine we play this game much more than most players. The fact that these cards can stand up to our rigorous play is a real testament to the durability of the game. If we were going to take a third run--for example, if we planned to restart RotRL one holiday weekend and power through the whole thing with a new group--I might deem our set just a little too worn out, and buy another base set. That would give "fresh" set B and 1 cards, which is all we need; the other cards have held up just fine. (It's money I'd rather throw at Paizo than at a card-sleeve company and take up a lot of my own time--but I know that's not a decision everyone can make.)

I'm not rabidly anti-sleeving, and I do have some experience with sleeving: one of the game stores I played OP at sleeves their cards, so I have to sleeve my Tarlin deck cards when I go play there. I don't much mind using sleeved cards, but it's not my preference.

As for the future, I don't intend to sleeve Wrath of the Righteous, either.

Hope this feedback is helpful.


...if you refer to passing gas at the gaming table as "playing a noxious bomb".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Myth Lord wrote:
That awesome Aurumvorax ripping through that robot should be my background from now on. Love that picture.

I loved seeing the art for The Choking Tower throughout, as it's a thrill to see my words come alive in art, but I particularly liked that aurumvorax image!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mike Selinker wrote:
We are discussing this.

Quick, everybody fill your decks with blessings from the blessing deck discard pile before they tell us not to!


Let me put the question a little more precisely: when an adventure gives you a card feat, do you add a corresponding Basic card to your deck, or do you add a card you gained during play of the final scenario (which may or may not be Loot cards)?


pluvia33 wrote:
Theryon Stormrune wrote:
If you're trying to play with the sequence, it doesn't work. You might as well ask to hold your rewards until you want to.
My point is that I don't see anywhere in the rules that there is any sequence order given between when you receive scenario and adventure rewards. It seems like you gain them both at once when you successfully complete the last scenario in an adventure. If it is intended to be otherwise, then it should be spelled out.

This is a thorny issue. When I first read this, I thought the Theryon Method was definitely right. But after some thought, I realize that the Pluvia Method is how we actually play: if the final scenario of an adventure gives you Loot cards, and the adventure gives you a card feat, we'll often take the card feat and then fill that new "open spot" with a Loot card. This wouldn't be possible if Theryon was right--in that case, you'd have to take your loot, rebuild your decks, and then get the card feat--meaning before you start the first scenario of the next adventure, you must take a Basic card in order to fill the "open spot" you earned. Does anyone play that way? Are my groups just outliers?


LudwigO wrote:
Ron Lundeen wrote:
you'll know it's the newest version because it has v2 in the file name.
It's just a detail but in the file you call it v1.1

Page one has v1.1, but it wouldn't accept that as the file name, so I renamed the file name to "v2" instead. I'm terrible at version-naming things; you can tell I don't do programming!

LudwigO wrote:
And I also noticed that for the 6C Scenario there is twice the same location "The old Light"

Oh, snap! Yes, that's an error that was once slated for correction but didn't get corrected. The second appearance (that is, the location for 3 players) should be the Dam. I'll fix this in the next version.


killcount wrote:
Any updates on the dice yet?

Yes, every time I roll d6 for plunder now, I feel like a caveman: plunder die technology is so much more advanced that this!


jones314 wrote:
Boons put back in the box after you rebuild your deck are not banished. So they can't be removed from the game.

Oh! We've been removing too many cards from the game, then. Even after hundreds of games, you can still learn something new! Thanks!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks to everyone for the thoughts and feedback here--I've uploaded a new version of Shield of Rannick to (you'll know it's the newest version because it has v2 in the file name).

In the new version, I've cleaned up some text, improved some of the story, and clarified the Sihedron Medallion rules in each scenario. This took a bit of doing, since what you do with the blessing deck is different based on what you're doing with the Sihedron Medallion.

* Banish or Display: you reveal the medallion, banish or display it, do the thing it makes you do, then advance the blessing deck.

* Shuffle: you reveal the medallion, do the thing it makes you do, then advance the blessings deck, then shuffle the medallion back in.

This is now set forth in each scenario, so should be clear--let me know if it's not!

For those interested in the gory details, here's one of the cases we went through in hammering this out:

Let's say you're playing 5A: Unearthing the Battlefield. You've done not so great, and your blessing deck has two medallions and two blessings in it. For your turn, you flip the medallion. You have to look at the "When the Sihedron Appears" section immediately and do what it says, so you make the check, then advance the blessings deck (say you flip a blessing), then shuffle the medallion back in. Now you've got one blessing and two medallions in your blessings deck.

At the beginning of the next turn, you flip a medallion so you again do the steps in "When the Sihedron Appears"--make the check, then advance the blessings deck--but you flip another medallion when you do. Since you've revealed a medallion, you immediately perform the "When the Sihedron Appears" step: make the check, then advance the blessings deck (flipping over the final blessing). Then "shuffle" both medallions back into the empty blessings deck. Your blessings deck now consists of two medallions, and that's it.

At the start of the next turn, you'll flip a medallion, make the check, then flip the other medallion and make the check, then try to advance the blessings deck again but fail to do so, immediately losing the scenario.

It's pretty rough when you get down that low but--and here was the important point for me--you're out of the infinite loop.


Unless someone at the table has lost an armor in the scenario (a rarity, in my experience), then the effect is functionally the same, just delayed: instead of being removed from the game when you use it, it's removed from the game when you select cards for your deck at the end of the scenario.

If someone had lost an armor, and you've gained no other armors, they have to keep it. But then, the effect is pretty much the same anyway: if someone had lost an armor and ended with an open "armor slot", she'd have to go hunting in the box for a Basic armor anyway (and might be stuck with that Leather Armor!).


Dave Riley wrote:
We're in adventure 3 and loving it. Playing with locations +1. Accidentally played with 5 locations on 3-A, which should only have 3 with two players, I think?

I'm compiling edits from the various discussions, and this caught my eye--you should have the normal 4 locations with 2 players in adventure 3-A...were you talking about one of the other scenarios?


LudwigO wrote:
I created cards using my templates to thank you for the fun I took playing your adventure path Ron.

I love this! I'd only ask you to wait a day or two if you mock up 4C or 4D, since I'll have a few tweaks there in response to some comments.

New version coming soon.


Neat concept! A few initial thoughts here:

1) Seems nicely well-rounded and functions as a slightly more versatile fighter in a group.

2) There are too few Dragon cards to make the first power really worthwhile, initially. It's really only effective when you use your second power to add the Dragon trait (although it's not clear whether that adds the Dragon trait to your check--I think the intent is that it does). I don't know the source material you're pulling from, but perhaps you could apply it as "Draconic Majesty" or something and get the bonus against a more common trait instead (like Humans, or Animals, or both if you drop the bonus to +1 ([ ]+2)).


Dave Riley wrote:

Weird, that's how we've been playing. I would've sworn it said in the rules to do so. We reveal the Sihedron, flip the next card, and then shuffle the medallion back into the deck.

Just checked. I guess technically in the rules the steps are Advance Deck > Deal with Sihedron > [Shuffle, sometimes] > Advance Deck. So yeah, that could cause some problems! Without thinking about it, we were just doing it that way I guess because it seemed most logical.

Agreed it's more logical, and likely the best solution. I've been running through a few options, particularly at a low blessings deck size, in order to find the best solution (while preserving the groans around the table when the medallion is revealed!).


ThreeEyedSloth wrote:

We're going to start this on Sunday and play through it as quickly as possible. I'm grabbing some of my PFSACG local players that never had a group to play the base games with, only organized play, so they can see what "campaign mode" actually feels like compared to OP.

I didn't want to be limiting at all in terms of character choices, so our line-up consists of Ranzak (me), Ezren (Class Deck), Oloch, and Lini (RotR).

I'll post my progress each week in this thread with feedback as we run through the adventure path.

I'd love to hear all about it! I'm particularly interested in how you fare in those scenarios where the Sihedron Medallion is shuffled back into the deck. I've been kicking around a minor rules revision for that--as well as a few other edits that the fine folks at BGG have spotted--but I'm not quite yet ready to release version 1.1.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ThreeEyedSloth wrote:
Still have my money on Jade Regent.

I want this to be Iron Gods, out of sheer vanity--I'd like to see my third chapter of that, The Choking Tower, made into an official card adventure!


Tyquaius wrote:
Fantastic job. There was no mention of the Set Type indicator of P for Promo. Are we not supposed to be playing with the promos?

You can, but I'm not counting on anyone necessarily having or using those. We expressly removed them from our box for playtesting, because some of them (looking at you, Fire Sneeze and Poog) are pretty powerful for B-level cards.

I'd treat P cards as B, C, or 1, just like in other games. I'll clarify when I make some edits.


...unknown, right? I haven't seen any announcement. Any word when it will be revealed? Or any hints or teasers about it?


Timitius wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, Vic. Ron had submitted a scenario using PACG resources for an article in Wayfinder, and I was going to ask you about it. Looks like its permissible.

Yay! Now that I've passed the hurdle of technicality, my submission can be judged based on its merits (if any)! :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nohwear wrote:
I am thinking of joining the organized play. Which is the best character if I wanted to focus on allies?

Heggal, without a doubt. He really relies on allies, and has the ability to get several. Heggal is my favorite of the 4 or 5 OP characters I play. (As a useful aside, I also think he's the most powerful of the characters I play.)


Pyrocat wrote:
To get nitty gritty: I shuffle all the decks at the beginning of each scenario, but leave them in the box during gameplay. When I'm required to banish a card, I put it in the front of the deck. When I'm required to draw a random card of that type (plunder, large chest .etc) I draw from the back of the deck so I can't see what card it is, effectively 'random'.

This is what we do, but even lazier: we only shuffle the decks once every adventure or so, or until we feel like we're likely to have gotten deeply into that type of card (as is often the case with blessings, which we shuffle every scenario).


Nathaniel Gousset wrote:
Or you can simply remove the card for all the groups.

We sort of do this. We remove Basic cards banished by our "higher level" (now in AP 4) but not by our "lower level" (now in AP 3) group.

Plenty of times I've had to put BotG back in the box after our "low level" game when I've wanted to banish them; but I figure it works out because I've already banished some in our "high level" game.

Not precise. But easier.


I've responded now. Apologies for the delay!


Vic Wertz wrote:
Done for today.

Thanks for all the hard work here, Vic!


Remara wrote:
After a quick glance am eager to try out with the husband. Nice work on the flavor text and arrangement - thanks for adding to the fun!

Thanks! I'd love to hear how it goes!


NyteJKL wrote:
After a quick review, one correction is that scenario 3-A has the flavor text for 2-A.


NyteJKL wrote:

As for the scenarios themselves, if you are still taking feedback, I have some concerns regarding the following:

when you start mixing in the sihedron medallion into the blessing deck and have to shuffle it back in when encountered. Seems that can be pretty deadly when you start running down to say 10 turns left. An unlucky group may draw the medallion on subsequent turns potentially all 10 remaining turns. This even gets worse when you have 2 or 3 medallions on later scenarios. Additionally, it seems like you would end with an endless loop of the medallion if you run out of blessings (e.g, 1 card left in the blessing deck, advance the blessing deck and flip it over and it is the medallion card, shuffle it back in the blessing deck, and advance the deck again to encounter and resolve the medallion again and so forth)... Eventually the characters die from the loop since the medallion is is usually a negative effect like damage or encountering a monster

I am definitely still taking feedback.

Six of the scenarios require you to shuffle the Medallion back in; for those, the possibility of seeing the Medallion several times when the blessings deck gets low is the intent: you're incentivized to hurry, since bad things are happening to you more often.

What isn't intended--but I now see is possible--is a situation where there's nothing but Medallions left in the blessings deck; you don't ever get a turn, because you keep revealing then shuffling then revealing then shuffling. In that case, you've lost. I'll work on a way to clarify this--suggestions welcome!


Jan Englund wrote:
So Ron, I encourage you not to follow the example Paizo has given us in the Rise of the Runelords – Base Set (I have not played the Skull 'n Shackles) and add a bit more fluff to your great looking adventure path. If it can be done with little effort, if you already have the story in your head, why not to add a bit more text to Adventure and scenario explanations?

One thing that I liked about my layout was the ability to add more story than Paizo was able to use on their cards--I didn't have their space limitation. I was shooting for something a little tighter, word-wise, than their OP scenarios (if you want more story, I really recommend checking out those).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's an unrelated question (although it's about 0-3D Going Under, so this seems the right place to put it):

The villain makes you summon and encounter the Blackwater Charda henchman. The Blackwater Charda henchman is one of the henchmen shuffled into a location during setup, so might not be available.

The best we can tell, the aboleth's power is ignored as impossible if the Blackwater Charda hasn't been defeated and sent to the box; otherwise, it forces you to summon the Blackwater Charda as normal.

(This initially seemed an error to us, but upon reflection makes some balancing sense: if you encounter the aboleth early, it's combat difficulty is so high that it's something of a kindness that it's not able to throw the charda at you, too; by the time it can throw the charda at you, its combat difficulty will be more manageable.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What do you do when you've gone through the entire Rise of the Runelords path for the PACG? Rearrange the cards and do it again!

The Shield of Rannick adventure path is an entirely new 30-scenario adventure path with an independent story. It uses only the cards from the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game: Rise of the Runelords Base Set and the six adventure decks--no need to print your own cards (but you will need all six adventure decks to play it).

You can download it from for free.

Get it, play it, and let me know what you think (and how I can improve it!).


...and done! I've thrown together a website to host this. It's the Shield of Rannick adventure path, and it's hosted at (Right now, it's the only product there, but it's nice for me to have a place I can put more!)


Troymk1 wrote:

I need to make a choice.


Look ahead at the next few scenarios you'll be playing. If you'll be facing a lot of sea devils, take the necklace.

Do you carry a lot of items but think your current items are otherwise not very good? Then take the necklace in order to gradually improve them.


Totally agree, cartmanbeck. I'm looking at releasing my full variant AP on Friday, using only RotRL cards. This thread is one of the places I'll post about that, just to let everyone know the kind of things I think can be done.


It's certainly not dispositive, but I recall the playtest of that scenario had many obelisks and only one gholdako.


Tim Felts wrote:

I can't view dropbox at work, but as long as the images seem agreeable to everyone else I would be in.

Sounds like ~$10 each ($7 per die plus shipping to cartmanbeck and shipping to us)...


I'm in the same boat--can't access the images, but I trust everyone else's judgment and I'm in for one as well!


Hawkmoon269 wrote:

So, I'm working on submitting something for Wayfinder, but I'm struggling with how to give it a gothic horror feel, partially because I'm not 100% sure what a gothic horror feel is. Anyone care to enlighten me or suggest some cards from RotR or S&S that would be good examples?


Most of the Skinsaw Murders has a pretty gothic-horror feel to it. I would look at those cards/that story.


So I mentioned I'd be pulling a RotRL variant AP together, and I'm a week or two away from having a rough cut of this--anyone who wants to take a look at that for comment/criticism, or to help with playtesting it, please send me a Private Message with your email address.



Pluvia, perhaps the concern is that characters today can pretty quickly get to being "the best they can be" with the class decks; I know that I've often elected to forego any reward at all, because literally nothing available would improve my deck.

Multiclassing removes that, making the "best they can be" something that is a bit more powerful.

I don't think that's a bad thing at all, but I think that it does make characters more powerful. Not, however, "extremely powerful."


elcoderdude wrote:

Are we talking about adventures for use with characters who have completed the RotR adventure path, or are we talking about adventures for which you would start afresh with new characters?

The two are obviously very different. I think it would be more challenging to create content for post-RotR characters, but many players would welcome it.

I agree, but the ability to use all the RotR cards to create post-RotR content would be very difficult without some patently arbitrary rules (like "add 10 to the difficulty of every monster").

I'm talking about doing the latter; you'd start it over again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey, I've been looking into this in the past week or so.

I'm an RPG publisher. I'm quite familiar with the Pathfinder Compatibility License, as I use it for all my Run Amok Games products. Here is the obligatory plug for my highly-rated Pathfinder RPG games.

I had the good fortune to be accepted in the recent issue of Wayfinder, and that got me thinking a bit about the Community Use Policy, and how it differs from the Pathfinder Compatibility License. I'm quite amazed at just how much stuff--including oodles of art and even a few maps--that the CUP lets you use that the PCL does not. The key restriction within the CUP requirements is that you must not make any money from your product--essentially, you have to offer the product for free.

I'm down with that. I've freely shared some PACG scenarios before, and even (I claim) the very first fan-made scenario.

Specifically, I'm interested in rearranging all the cards from Rise of the Runelords to make a parallel adventure path, just the way OP is a "parallel adventure path" to S&S. You can see the similarities--there has to be, as the same cards are used--but it's a different story (in S&S OP, it's being captured by Jemma Redclaw and earning your freedom, rather than being press-ganged and having to overwhelm your captors).

I've gotten as far as laying out a structure for this RotR AP: the scope of each adventure, the villains and henchmen that I would use in each scenario, and so on.

My plan is to produce a .pdf. It'd be like the compilation of the OP scenarios, but all in one file. It would have one (or maybe two) scenarios per page. I'd be able to illustrate it fairly lavishly, because I'd be offering it for free under the CUP instead of under the PCL.

I still haven't yet done all my research for this; I've got several posts from the Homebrew forum still to review about releasing your own scenarios, and I still need to get a handle on just how much of a look I can use without violating the trade dress limitations of the CUP, for example. I also have a nagging suspicion that people over on the Board Game Geek forums are doing whole adventures and adventure paths left and right, but I'm rarely over there so I don't know. Plus I'm designing the whole thing.

But it'll be fun!


pluvia33 wrote:

Organized Play: Multiclassing or Bonus Upgrade Reward

Once your character completes all Adventure 1 and Adventure 2 scenarios of an Adventure Path, you may Multiclass your character. If you do this, choose a second Class Deck to add to your character’s Class Deck box. For the rest of the Adventure Path, your character’s Class Deck box now includes all cards from both the character’s original Class Deck and the one which is added at this time. You cannot Multiclass with two copies of the same Class Deck.

If a character does not wish to Multiclass into a second Class Deck, the character may instead gain a powerful Bonus Upgrade. Select any single card from your Class Deck box with a set indicator of 3 or lower to gain as a reward once the character completes all Adventure 1 and Adventure 2 scenarios of an Adventure Path.

Whichever reward is chosen, be sure to record it on the character’s chronicle sheet in the entry of the final scenario needed to complete both Adventures 1 and 2. If Multiclassing was chosen, record the second Class Deck of the character in the Notes section. If the Bonus Upgrade was selected, record it in the Deck Upgrades section as normal.

Your wall of text is intimidating, but the above is the crux of your proposal. I think it amps up power for Adventure 3 and later, but that's just a matter of designing the OP adventures to be a little bit harder, maybe. I'd use it, or more accurately, test it.


It takes all sorts, I suppose, but I'm disagreeing with you on a few fronts:

For me, the game is absolutely sustainable. We've played literally hundreds of games of PACG, and with the organized play options, it's basically doubled the lifespan of the Skull and Shackles game. We've played the entirely of S&S in the playtest, yet we're still excited for more standard S&S, more organized play of S&S, the final incarnation of Wrath of the Righteous, and the inevitable organized play of WotR.

I don't know that new character decks will be necessary to enjoy Wrath of the Righteous--WotR will include its own characters with some very cool options and will have plenty of new stuff all on its own. That said, I agree that I'd like to see the class decks for the "missing" classes like the druid, monk, etc. I'm sure those are an eventuality--I hope they take some lessons from the last class decks into account and include only 3 characters, rather than 4, per deck.

Linking to the Pathfinder Society is unnecessary and irrelevant for us. We're big fans of the RPG, but none of us really play Pathfinder Society any more--I can't see that any connection between the two will be something any of us use.

So I'm at the other end of the spectrum, personally, but I'd like to hear what others think.


Dave Riley wrote:

Man, I don't sleeve and I ping off the sides all the time, especially if I'm putting in a few at once. I think it just makes me wince because I feel like I'm chipping them away, knocking them off wood, where the stock box insert's compartments were nice and roomy.

I don't think I'd go back, though. Just having convenient slots to hold a dice bag, character standees, and being able to quickly put removed Basics/Elites into their own compartments instead of shuffling around with the clumsily stacked cardboard boxes is more than enough to make me happy with them.

I don't sleeve, so I'm able to use the box insert as Vic and God intended. One thing I do lack, however, is a place to put removed Basics/Elites--for that one thing alone, I need a separate box (I put the minis we use instead of tokens, dice, and my scenario tracker paperwork all in the big compartment at the back of the box, so the removed cards can't effectively go there).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But punching everything and setting it on fire is our core competency! :-)


We were a little dismayed that our finely-tuned decks of weapons, monster-killing spells, and armors were rendered entirely useless by this scenario, in which you fight precisely one monster (the villain). By the rules, I think that even the monsters that a location summons--such as Hammerhead Sharks at Shark Island--would turn into random ships.

And those ain't easy ships; some of them have really high checks. (As a piece of trivia you may not know, all of those new ships are the ones featured in the recent release Ships of the Inner Sea.)

We won it our first time through, but only by realizing early on that weapons and most spells are just garbage in our hands. We discarded for blessings and useful allies, helped each other's checks much more than we usually do (Foxes were popular), and were more aggressive than usual about healing. Luck played a large role--when my Vika hit a ship, it often ended up being the Kraken's Spite, which allows Strength/Melee to beat (yay!).

FYI, our group is Vika, Tarlin, and Meliski.

Good luck!


isaic16, anything that is a post-RotR adventure would get a lot of interest, I think. Folks are always asking "what can I do now that I've won the AP?"


Dave Riley wrote:

My deck's currently:

Vindictive Harpoon, Toxic Blunderbuss +1
Potion of Heroism, Healing, Flying, Ocean. Tot Flask. Besmara's Tricorne, Letter of Marque, Svingli's Eye
Sniper's Studded Leather
Aid and Find Traps
Milani, Gozreh, Cayden Cailen

You play Damiel and Jirelle, but Damiel is the one with Besmara's Tricorne? Our Jirelle wouldn't dream of letting it go!

(We play Damiel, Jirelle, and my Feiya.)

1 to 50 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 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.