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

RumpinRufus's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 885 posts (980 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 5 Pathfinder Society characters. 3 aliases.


1 to 50 of 885 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I'd like to run a mini-campaign where the PCs are the members of a band, and all have at least half their levels in bard.

I'm interested to hear if anyone has any ideas for content, including encounters and minigames.

1) Minigames: Over the campaign, I want to have the band accumulate Fans and Reputation Points, as well as gold, and I was thinking I could include minigames that would be a fun way to get these. So far, I've thought of "Finish the Rhyme" (where 3 lines of a lyric are given, and the PCs think of a fourth line to finish the rhyme) and "Sing the Painting" (where I give them an image and they write lyrics describing what is going on in the scene.) I'd love to hear more ideas for mini-games!

2) Encounters: The PCs will have a rival band (death-metal type band called the Four Hoarse Men), so some of the encounters will probably be things like a bar brawl, and a riot at a concert. Any other good ideas?

Thanks in advance!

I prefer to leave the game jargon out of the narrative. Instead of "using Power Attack", I might say "ferociously". Instead of "using Vital Strike", I might say "takes one mighty swing."

After I do the narrative, I say the crunch. "The undead monstrosity ferociously takes one mighty swing and attempts to crush you like a bug under his massive, house-sized flail. 32 to hit." Similarly, if they actually want to make a grapple check, they'd end with "30 vs CMD" or if they just want to attack they'd say "30 to hit".

It doesn't take 1 hour to use, it takes 1 round.

Unless contained, in 1 round the foam fills a 5-foot-square to a depth of 2 feet.

One hour is how long it takes to harden. But if you're using it in combat (to make difficult terrain) it's a round.

Also: it's great for pranks. "The ale here is good but it has too much of a head" *drop foaming powder into mug*

RainyDayNinja wrote:

Rough and Ready, from Adventurer's Armory.

And you know, there are actual light hammer weapons you could use (though they're martial weapons).

Perfect, thanks! And it even gives +1 to attack, that's even better than I thought!

I know that light hammers exist, but I'm probably building this character as a rogue, and don't want to burn a feat on Martial Weapon Proficiency.

I seem to recall there being a trait which allows you to fight using a "tool of your trade," so for example a barkeeper could fight using a mug. Does anyone know the name of this trait, or did I just make it up?

I want to make a halfling handyman who fights using his hammers. While I could just re-skin light maces as hammers, if there is actually a trait for it I thought it would be thematic. Thanks!

If you have a Maneuver Master (and let's say you dip Fighter to get heavy armor proficiency,) is there anything stopping you from using Flurry of Maneuvers while wearing armor and using a shield?

For reference, the Monk class specifies:

Monk wrote:
Armor and Shield Proficiency: Monks are not proficient with any armor or shields. When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses his AC bonus, as well as his fast movement and flurry of blows abilities.

Since Maneuver Masters don't have Flurry of Blows, by RAW if they are wearing heavy armor, they lose fast movement but can still use Flurry of Maneuvers?

Summoning as a standard action is just too good to pass up, IMO. It just makes everything better - allows effective battlefield control, extra round of attacks, and no chance of losing your spell. Plus, placing dinosaurs on the battlemap can be a huge challenge - by the second round of combat, there might not even be anywhere to put that Huge dinosaur. Better to get it down early.

I would also take Improved Initiative over Scribe Scrolls, for all of the above reason - the faster you can get the dinos on the board, the better they are.

Level 2 is a good one for Half-Orc Barbarian, because that's where you get bite/claw/claw. You can do a crazy amount of damage, which might be overkill for PFS, but who doesn't like having three attacks at full BAB as a 2nd level character?

Breakthrough! If I take Defiant Luck -> Inexplicable Luck I can add a +8(!!!) to my Int check every day!

That's enough to chat with a greater deity daily with no failure chance.

I considered Fortune/Cackle but my GM would probably rule that the distraction would make it impossible to cast the spell.

Guidance doesn't apply to ability checks, unfortunately.

Embrace Destiny is personal and only lasts for rounds/level, so it could never last the required 10 minutes.

Diviner's Fortune also only lasts one round - I don't think my GM would let this fly.

I have found a couple more ways to boost, though: until I get a +6 headband, I can have our alchemist give me an Amplify Elixir infusion on a Fox's Cunning potion.

A Stone of Good Luck can also give me a +1.

I also realize the entire endeavor is less risky than I initially thought - a nat 1 doesn't auto-fail an ability check, so with 26 Int I can contact at least the Astral Plane with no chance of failure.

Unfortunately Touch of Law only lasts 1 round, and with a casting time of 10 minutes I don't think my GM would allow me to use it that way. (For example, he also doesn't allow that ability to be used for crafting checks.)

Obviously, Contact Other Plane is supposed to be risky. But my character is a planar-obsessed divination wizard, and I just don't think I'd be doing him justice if I don't try to use it.

Is there any way to make it less risky? It seems like the options are (1) buffing intelligence checks and (2) allowing rerolls.

If I already have a headband, is there anything besides Good Hope that will help me buff my Int check?

And is there anything short of an 8th-level Fate subdomain cleric that would let me reroll a botched check?

Thanks in advance!

Hmm, but the official Paizo site lists "Utopia" while the wikis use "Axis".

Where do LN characters go in their afterlife? Is it Utopia, Axis, or are both possible? Or are they the same?

Planar Adventures lists Utopia as the LN Outer Plane, but the wikis list the LN plane as Axis, and don't mention Utopia.

Can anyone explain this for me?

No, Lay on Hands is a supernatural ability, and Su abilities don't provoke unless specifically mentioned.

Maybe the reason it specifies using LoH as an attack doesn't provoke is that you are using a touch attack, and maybe they thought touch attacks seem similar enough to unarmed strikes that people might assume it provoked? Although touch attack spells also don't provoke.

Anyway, the rules are redundant and I'm not sure why, but neither using it to heal nor to hurt provokes.

(first post in the Homebrew section, let me know if I'm doing it wrong)

For a new character, I want to make a new feat, Craft Magic Maps. My GM has said he's open to the idea in theory, but it needs to be clear how it works. So, I'm looking for input on how to make it work.

Spells I'm thinking of making into maps: Alarm, Clairvoyance/Clairaudience, Arcane Eye, Teleport. Any other suggestions?

In many ways, it seems similar to a normal Wondrous Item, with a couple differences: (1) each map will only have a specific number of locations that it will work at (for example, it could teleport you between Absalom, Almas, and Egorian). (2) the map will work at a longer range than a normal spell (for example, Clairvoyance usually has a 400+40/level ft. range, whereas in a map it will work hundreds of miles away.)

So, how should I price it? And any suggestions on how to determine how many "targets" will be on each map? Also, would it be fair to say that since there are really only a handful of feasible Magic Maps, whereas there are hundreds of Wondrous Items, there should be some moderate price reduction to account for the feat tax?

Any and all suggestions are useful, perhaps I'll even take this in an entirely different direction! Right now I'm just looking for any ideas to run by my GM.

Due to busy schedules, I'm co-running Kingmaker with another player/GM. Both of us play PCs, but also switch off GMing. Right now we're alternating each week. We're about to start week 2, so he's GMed one session and I am about to GM the second.

Does anyone have advice on how best to do this? We don't want to completely spoil the surprises for ourselves, but we do want to be prepared enough to be able to effectively run the encounters. Due to the non-linear nature, I'm not sure which encounters will come up each session, so I don't know which ones to read in detail.

Should we continue switching week-by-week? Or is there some better way to do this, like have a "master GM" who reads ahead and an "encounter GM" who prepares specific battles?

I've never been in a co-GMing situation like this, so any advice is helpful!

andreww wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:

Sorry, but this plan doesn't work at all.

Mystic Theurge requires you to be able to cast 2nd-level divine spells. The Fate inquisition lets you use Augury as a spell-like ability. Using a spell-like =/= casting a spell. (Moreover, the pre-reqs say "2nd-level spells", not "2nd-level spell".)

I don't think there's any way to qualify early for MT, although I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

You are several months out of date, reread the faq.

Which FAQ post? Link?

edit: found the FAQ, but Mystic Theurge still requires you to be able to cast 2nd-level spells (plural). Being able to cast one spell (Augury) doesn't qualify you to be a Theurge.

Sorry, but this plan doesn't work at all.

Mystic Theurge requires you to be able to cast 2nd-level divine spells. The Fate inquisition lets you use Augury as a spell-like ability. Using a spell-like =/= casting a spell. (Moreover, the pre-reqs say "2nd-level spells", not "2nd-level spell".)

I don't think there's any way to qualify early for MT, although I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Sissyl wrote:

Then what should I do during the sessions I'm not GMing?

Does anyone have advice for playing a GMPC, as far as what role/class to play, and perhaps how to play it?

I'm about to start co-GMing Kingmaker, so I'll be GM for half the sessions. I want the character to be fun to play, but also easy/quick to handle when I'm GMing.

My current line of thinking:

1) No prepared spellcasters - I don't want to have to waste time picking out spells every day

2) No party face - having GM knowledge about the NPCs, I don't know if I trust myself to avoid metagaming during social interactions

3) No complex tactics - I want a character whose combat turns will go quickly and require little planning

Any additions/modifications? Has anyone who has played a GMPC have any suggestions about what does/doesn't work?

What Slim said. It's so you can use a reach weapon and still threaten adjacent.

I also want to point out that by RAW you do not need to look at someone as you're detecting evil. It says "concentrate on", which can easily be done with your eyes closed or your back turned once you've picked out your target.

GrenMeera wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:

Let's see:

1) you can't hear it

2) you can't see it

3) you can't smell it

4) you can't taste it

5) you can't feel it

So how exactly are you noticing it?

The casting of a spell or spell-like ability? However you choose, because you CAN see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, OR feel it depending upon how the GM decides to describe it.

I've quoted the rules and a developer. Exactly why are you jumping to the conclusion that you cannot?

Once again, the developer you quoted was not talking about spell-like abilities. You cast a spell. You activate a spell-like. These are different things, and you can't use Spellcraft on an activated ability when it doesn't involve spellcasting.

The spell says "You can sense the presence of evil." I don't know about you, but when someone smells a peach, I can't look at that person and say "that guy is definitely smelling peach right now." If your GM wants to rule that it additionally makes a giant cone of white light that's clearly visible, I suppose that's his prerogative but I don't think it fits the text of the spell at all. Visible effects are not usually associated with Divination spells, except where it's explicitly mentioned in the text of the spell (such as Arcane Sight.)

GrenMeera wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
and it's NOT noticeable
Except, of course, that it is.

Let's see:

1) you can't hear it

2) you can't see it

3) you can't smell it

4) you can't taste it

5) you can't feel it

So how exactly are you noticing it?

redward wrote:
mdt wrote:
Again, doesn't make the player decide to do something, it forces him to. Different mechanic.

I see this a lot with respect to Antagonize. It "forces them to decide". "My character has to attack someone of their own free will." These statements are essentially contradictory.

Antagonize is Sophie's Choice. You're going to attack, you just "get" to choose how. You can't not attack. No free will.

Why should the game give characters absolute agency over their actions, when real people in real life DON'T have absolute agency? The clear Simulationist view would be to allow the feat in some form. In order to fit it into the mechanics of the game, they made it a standard action, when you could make a good case it should take longer than that, but in general the existence of the feat adds to verisimilitude (unless you roleplay it poorly.) And the DC is clearly too low, I don't think anyone's debating over that, but that's a separate issue.

Also, you can't compare Antagonize to Greater Command. You know why. Stop that.

So much picking and choosing going on. What about Beguiling Gift? What about Calm Emotions? What about Knight's Calling? All of these things can easily force people to act against their nature, and they don't get any bonus on saves, etc. for that.

-Anvil- wrote:

Yes you could. But it becomes a much less valid option at that point especially when it takes several rounds and is noticeable. Not that the NPC's will know what you're doing other than staring a lot.

I'm really glad that creatures below 4hd don't register because if they did Detect Eveil would be REALLY broken for a lvl 1 spell. It's a good balancing mechanic.

It DOESN'T take several rounds (it's a move action for the targeted version) and it's NOT noticeable (all it requires is for you to concentrate on the target - it doesn't even say you have to be looking at them.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
IejirIsk wrote:
though, an invisible person a pally could NOT detect on, no LOS

The cone-version Detect Evil still works, it just takes 3 rounds. But yes, not the targeted version.

-Anvil- wrote:

Am I missing something here?

According to the chart under Detect Evil on the PRD. (which the Paladin's ability mimicks)
It states that creatures with HD 4 or less have no discernable aura.

So NO you can't go through a city scanning every person because 95% of the NPC population isn't "strong" enough to register on your radar.

You can still scan every person. It just means that when your evildar does ping, you know it's someone important.

mdt wrote:
redward wrote:

I'm pretty sure it doesn't get the opportunity for additional saves because it only lasts a round. As does Antagonize.

If you're going to make sweeping generalizations like "every other mechanic in the game" it would be helpful to know your pet exceptions prior to formulating a response.

My apologies, I honestly didn't even know what the spell was until you mentioned it. I actually do, despite all rumors to the contrary, have a life. So I don't have the entirety of the rule set memorized and at the tip of my tongue. However, I stand by the statement that 'every other mind controling effect in the game has this' and just add the caveat of 'other than broken spells and feats' on to it, thus covering Murderous Command.

BTW: That's also banned in my games, use dominate or something if you want to make people do things they don't want to do.

This is so very very wrong it's utterly ridiculous. There are at least a dozen mind-affecting spells that force your action and don't give you any bonus or additional save if it's against your nature. Cause Fear, Beguiling Gift, Calm Emotions, Knight's Calling, Zone of Truth, Lesser Geas, Geas, Confusion, Insanity, Fear, Euphoric Tranquility, Antipathy.

There are more spells that don't give any bonus for acting against your nature than spells that do.

Back to Antagonize, the realistic fact is that people are not ever in absolute control of their emotions or their actions. Effects like unconscious priming rely on the ability to alter the way someone else's mind works, and guess what, it's a completely mundane effect. You can't declare "my character never sleeps", and for the exact same reasons, you can't declare "my character would never attack someone". If you're that concerned about being forced to attack someone, you can shell out the whole 12.5 GP required to get a scroll of Daze.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
paladinguy wrote:
Victor Zajic wrote:
Not only is detecting evil on everyone you meet rude, If I were GM, over use might have an affect on your alignment or access to paladin powers.
And this is why playing a paladin can be frustrating. Often the player and GM can have wildly different views on what counts as lawful good acts, and the GM can punish the player pretty badly just because the player has a different interpretation of lawful good.

Honestly, I can't ever remember hearing a better example of "lawful stupid" than what Victor suggested. Should a paladin also blind himself because the eyes are easily fooled by low-level magic? Should he deafen himself because of the existence of Ghost Sound?

magnuskn wrote:

Since everybody seems to disregard this, I'll quote it once more:

BillyGoat wrote:

This is an excellent point. Given that Spell-Like Abilities are mechanically identical to spells (excluding where the rules specifically differentiate), then it must be noticeable to an observer as a spell-like ability (by RAW). Why? Because strict RAW says you can use the Spellcraft skill to identify a spell as it's being cast. Since spell-like abilities function as spells wherever they aren't defined as differing, they must be readily apparent in some fashion to the trained eye. Also note that identifying a spell with Spellcraft does not require any magical senses, merely a successful skill check.

I side with Jason Buhlman/Grenmeera on the idea that this means there's some form of observable phenomena associated with spells (and, consequently, spell-like abilities). However, the exact mechanics of why it's identifiable as Detect Evil to anyone making the DC 16 Spellcraft check are up to the individual GM.

This means that everybody, even people not trained in Spellcraft, will perceive that a spell was cast on them. People without Spellcraft only have no idea what spell that was.

So, probably glowing eyes for the Paladin or the like.

RumpinRufus wrote:

It's clearly silent. It clearly requires no hand gestures or holy symbols. You have to concentrate on them for ~3 seconds, that's it.

You wouldn't be able to identify it with Spellcraft because there's no casting involved. Spellcraft only lets you identify casting, and the paladin is not casting anything, only activating an ability.

This is clearly a wrong reading of the rules regarding Spellcraft, as Jason Bulmahn pointed out in the linked post last page.

Jason Bulmahn was talking about spells being cast without components. That is not the issue here, we're talking about using a spell-like ability. Spell-likes are not cast, they are activated. There is no mechanic for identifying an activated ability.

ryric wrote:
That's really one of the core issues with the feat - it's very existence implies a game world where anyone, anywhere can instigate deadly violence from complete strangers with a casual insult.

Who said anything about deadly force? You could try to grab them, you could throw a copper piece (or a shoe) at them, you could cast Daze on them. You could cast Message on them and softly whisper "that wasn't very nice". The noble that was mentioned earlier could slap someone with a glove.

I agree with a sentiment that was expressed earlier - you cannot say "my character wouldn't do that" any more than you can say "my character wouldn't get hit by an arrow". If your character concept is being unflappable, invest in wisdom.

I do agree that bonuses to your Will save should give you a bonus. Probably the easiest thing to do would be to give it a Will save vs DC 10+Intimidate modifier. I would also make it a Compulsion effect.

It's clearly silent. It clearly requires no hand gestures or holy symbols. You have to concentrate on them for ~3 seconds, that's it.

You wouldn't be able to identify it with Spellcraft because there's no casting involved. Spellcraft only lets you identify casting, and the paladin is not casting anything, only activating an ability.

I don't understand anyone who is saying it "negates" Invisibility. Getting a 50% miss chance on attacks against you is an awesome buff and nothing about Detect Magic negates that part.

A Paladin can get Good Hope with the Unsanctioned Knowledge feat.

Roc is great if you think you'll have ample opportunity to be flying.

Technically, having your AC perform a trick it already knows is still a DC 10 Handle Animal check (DC 12 if it's injured.)

The easy solution to avoiding Handle Animal checks is bump your companion's INT to 3 ASAP, then give it a rank in Linguistics and teach it a language you know.

Ok, that's what I thought. It just seems strange that the Wizard and Bard say it one way and Arcane Trickster says another, even though they mean the exact same thing.

The class skills for the Arcane Trickster include the entry "Knowledge (all skills taken individually) (Int)".

Is this intended to mean all Knowledge skills are class skills? I'm confused about (all skills taken individually), as opposed to the Wizard skill list which just says Knowledge (all).

So it's 100% ok that magic can do it, but even though it is entirely possible in real life (to the point of being cliché,) it should never be allowed via non-magical means?

It's quite common in literature that the extremely mild-mannered and friendly character eventually snaps when faced with an enemy who knows how to really get underneath their skin and antagonize them. I don't think it's unrealistic to say someone gets so heated that they're distracted from doing anything else but respond to the aggravator.

Greater Whip Mastery is worthless, but Improved Whip Mastery is awesome. AFAIK it's the only way you can threaten both adjacent and range at the same time with the same weapon. With Improved Trip and Improved Whip Mastery, it's almost impossible for anyone to get into melee with you without being tripped by your AoO.

A: Weapon Finesse lets you add dex instead of str for maneuvers you make with a weapon (disarm, trip, or sunder), but to get dex to CMB for other maneuvers you need the Agile Maneuvers feat.

If she doesn't want to hurt people, take a good long hard look at the Blade of Mercy trait. It lets you do nonlethal AND does bonus damage.

For more ideas on how to build a nonlethal PF character, you can check out this thread. The final post gives 11 viable nonlethal build ideas. I don't know anything about River Song, though, so I don't know what would be most appropriate.

How about this line of reasoning: people who actually play in campaigns with Synthesists end up complaining that they feel useless because the Synthesist can solo encounters that would challenge the rest of the party.

If it's so powerful it makes things unfun for other players, it's broken.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This whole thread is a giant straw man.

Buri, can you point out ONE person who has said that Synthesists are stronger than every other character at every conceivable task?

Obviously at specific jobs other classes will surpass the Synthesist. The advantages that make Synthesist broken are 1) double HP, 2) incredible stat arrays, 3) switch-hitting between melee and casting, and 4) choice of evolutions.

A class doesn't need to be strictly better than every other class to be broken. Having twice as many HP as everyone else along with the ability to hit just as hard as the hardest hitters is already enough to make it far more powerful than the average character. You don't need to out-wizard the wizard in order to be broken.

mdt wrote:
Ok, I'm pretty much done. If people can't see it's a broken feat, despite them coming out and saying it requires a gentleman's agreement not to use it the way it's written, and for people not to take it even though it's really really really powerful, then yeah, I'm wasting my time. Do whatever you want in your own games. PFS bans it, I ban it, everyone I know in RL bans it. Enjoy.

I think you're overemphasizing how strong the feat is. It's situationally useful, but not "really really really powerful". I mean, should the Selective Channeling feat be banned because having 6 mook clerics Selective Channeling negative energy is overpowered? Should Hideous Laughter be banned because 6 mook wizards casting Hideous Laughter can shut someone down more effectively than Antagonize can?

There's a difference between "not using it how its written" and "not giving it to every mook on the planet". Antagonize is a feat for people who are willing to take hits, therefore it's essentially a feat for heroes/antiheroes. Most mercenaries don't open themselves up to harm if they can avoid it.

But even so, I don't think "stopping the cleric from healing" is nearly as OP as you think it is. I'm curious to see how you would use this feat that makes it "really really really powerful".

But aren't you specifically talking about the mooks? I don't think anyone thinks that having the BBEG use Antagonize is broken. It's only broken when you use specially-designed mooks.

My point was that most mooks don't have the morale that a BBEG would. They aren't looking to take hits, they're looking to get paid. If they can do so without losing any body parts, so much the better.

If someone uses Antagonize, it's pretty much implied that they're willing to take hits and fight to the death. Most mooks shouldn't be the type that will fight to the death, unless they have some special motivation to do so.

mdt, do you really think having an enemy use his standard action to prevent in-combat healing is game-breaking? Most enemies will do more damage taking a swing at a PC than they would prevent by stopping the cleric from healing.

The only way I can see that being seriously exploited is having a lot of low-level mooks with Intimidate builds and this feat, but if that's the case then slicing them down before they have a chance to use their Antagonize should be easy.

When used by an equal-power opponent it's basically a wash (use your action to eat their action,) although tactically this can be useful. And then there's the question - what is motivating these puny guys to provoke attacks from bad*** heroes? Most enemies don't have death-wishes, and won't Antagonize someone who is clearly more powerful than them.

You're also making assumptions that the Antagonize always works (it's usually an easy check but not so much against a cleric,) and that the cleric is using his spells to attack (he can just as easily throw a shoe.)

Buri wrote:
I think you just contradicted yourself. Spellcraft is a skill. 20 ranks is not a small investment over the lifetime of a character.

But there are many reasons you already NEED Spellcraft. You NEED Spellcraft to identify spells as they're being cast. You NEED Spellcraft to copy spells to your spellbook. You NEED Spellcraft to identify magic items.

The fact that you also use Spellcraft for making magic weapons is just a bonus. If you're a wizard and don't keep Spellcraft maxed, I won't say you're definitely doing something wrong, but... you're probably doing something wrong. That's why I say crafting has no skill investment - the only skill you use for crafting is one that you would keep maxed whether or not you are a crafter.

1 to 50 of 885 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.