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

ShadowcatX's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 4,798 posts. 9 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,798 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
At the same time, the 1967 borders create massive security problems for Israel. Large sections of the country are within 10 miles of the border (target-able by rockets}

By that logic the Palestinians need enough land to put most of palastine out of range of Israels helicopters, because they need security from the attacks.

Thats the problem with your arguments: they cut equally both ways but you only want to aim them in one direction.

If there are 100 missiles launched (just for a round number) in any given month, how many do you think come from Israel?

Andoran

Stinking Cloud would be my choice.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
yellowdingo wrote:

welcome to the neocolonies

The plan is to build a billion population city one square mile village at a time. By dividing up that square mile into 640 acres, allocating six hundred as one acre residential lots, twenty acres for roads, leaving twenty acres for commercial development. That means companies can pay a billion dollars for the hundred year lease of twenty acres of land in each square mile village and build their five four acre megatowers and those funds can be used to provide six hundred families with an acre, a solar powered shipping container starter house, a Tesla electric car, and five hundred thousand dollars in the bank. Companies will no longer need to pay taxes, there wont be a need for pensions and unemployment benifits, and best of all homelessness and poverty can be ended. The four hundred million remaining will pay for schools and hospitals.

Don't listen to the nay sayers, I think this is a great idea! So good in fact it is probably worthy of being your life's work. And actually, it is definitely worthy of being your life's work. You should probably get started on it right away, and remember to devote ALL your time to it, no more free time to post on Paizo, that's time you could be calling companies to get their billion dollar donations. . .

Andoran

Quote:
Also Wednesday, Ban announced he was ordering a review of incidents where rockets were placed at United Nations Relief and Works Agency schools. Ban demanded that militants stop endangering civilians by putting rockets at the schools.

Link

Better late than never I guess. . .

Andoran

Mark Sweetman wrote:
Situation for civilians in Gaza at present

So if rockets, launched from Pakistan damage the ability of Pakistan to receive electricity, it is Israel's obligation to fix it immediately. Yup, that's totally fair.

I wonder how many people in this thread would hold the same ideals if the government raised their taxes by 50 or so percent to pay for things for in Mexico.

Andoran

thejeff wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I don't think israel cares. Even IF they needed america (i don;'t think they do at this point), in Americans eyes, the palastinians are muslims and therefore terrorists*. No one will side with them: its political suicide.

*I cannot stress how incorrect this is, but it is however how most Americans see it.

Just because that is how you see it does not man that is how the rest of us see it. Some of us believe Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use terror tactics
Whats the definition of a terror tactic?
Quote:
and eschew the rules of warfare. Ie because they're f*$&ing terrorists. Religion has nothing to do with it.
When they're not muslims using these tactics they're either freedom fighters or founding fathers.

Ya, because we'd never say white christians are terrorists, right? Except that is for neo-nazis, kkk, and the IRA. And maybe it is different fwhere you're from, but I've seen plenty of shirts with pictures of old Indians on it captioned with "Fighting terrorism since 1492".

Also a terror tactic is a tactic designed to cause terror. Kinda like kidnapping or shooting missles at civilian targets. If you need any more definitions supplied to you, may I suggest using a dictionary?

Or, just as an example, dropping bombs and missiles on inhabited cities.

But it's okay as long as you carefully explain that you're really trying not to kill civilians. And your thorough, but classified, internal investigation shows that you were justified.
(Note that this applies to the US in many cases as well as Israel, and many other countries military operations.)

Sometimes I think the only difference between Hamas and the IDF is that Hamas is more honest.

Hamas chose to make those cities targets. If you're launching missles at a foe from a building, that building is not a civilian target anymore.

Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


I don't think israel cares. Even IF they needed america (i don;'t think they do at this point), in Americans eyes, the palastinians are muslims and therefore terrorists*. No one will side with them: its political suicide.

*I cannot stress how incorrect this is, but it is however how most Americans see it.

Just because that is how you see it does not man that is how the rest of us see it. Some of us believe Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use terror tactics

Whats the definition of a terror tactic?

Quote:
and eschew the rules of warfare. Ie because they're f*$&ing terrorists. Religion has nothing to do with it.

When they're not muslims using these tactics they're either freedom fighters or founding fathers.

Ya, because we'd never say white christians are terrorists, right? Except that is for neo-nazis, kkk, and the IRA. And maybe it is different fwhere you're from, but I've seen plenty of shirts with pictures of old Indians on it captioned with "Fighting terrorism since 1492".

Also a terror tactic is a tactic designed to cause terror. Kinda like kidnapping or shooting missles at civilian targets. If you need any more definitions supplied to you, may I suggest using a dictionary?

Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:


I don't think israel cares. Even IF they needed america (i don;'t think they do at this point), in Americans eyes, the palastinians are muslims and therefore terrorists*. No one will side with them: its political suicide.

*I cannot stress how incorrect this is, but it is however how most Americans see it.

Just because that is how you see it does not man that is how the rest of us see it. Some of us believe Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use terror tactics and eschew the rules of warfare. Ie because they're f$~$ing terrorists. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Andoran

yellowdingo wrote:
Do you still believe the taking of a life is not an assault on the state and therefor treason?

Prove that the taking of a life harms the state, especially when it is the state that orders their execution.

Sometimes the best thing a person can do is die.

Andoran

Short answer: Yes.

Andoran

BigDTBone wrote:
Where did that happen? I don't think that happened.

Not only did it happen, it happened in a post you favorited. Do you even read the posts you endorse?

Caineach wrote:
I don't think you understand english if you think that is what was said.

Before you jump to insulting someone, perhaps you should make sure you understand english. And I quote (not for the first time):

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
What is the definition of a "job" in your book? Does it mean you get paid for some amount of labor? If so, then we can say that being on government assistance counts, since in effect the benefits are the "paycheck" for the labor of applying for the benefits.

Andoran

Freehold DM wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Anyone caught selling a card should be cut off for life. that is just stealing from tax payer, worthless filth
Countryman, "worthless filth" is an ugly thing to call a human being, thief or no.
It may be an ugly thing, but that does not make it inaccurate.
once you get to an area where you are asking people to accept name calling in the name of accuracy, any sort of dialog is officially over.

Dialogue ended when your side insisted that filling out forms to get benefits was a job.

Andoran

Coriat wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Anyone caught selling a card should be cut off for life. that is just stealing from tax payer, worthless filth
Countryman, "worthless filth" is an ugly thing to call a human being, thief or no.

It may be an ugly thing, but that does not make it inaccurate.

Andoran

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
What is the definition of a "job" in your book? Does it mean you get paid for some amount of labor? If so, then we can say that being on government assistance counts, since in effect the benefits are the "paycheck" for the labor of applying for the benefits.

This, right here, is the perfect example of everything that is wrong with the system, and what is wrong with the generation of people who don't believe there is anything wrong with the system.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Basically, people were excited because it went from entirely 100% suboptimal to being a solid contender. The right build can get into it at 4th level and only miss out on 1 spell level from his or her class of choice, putting their primary casting at the level of a sorcerer (unless, of course, their primary casting is that of a sorcerer).

Andoran

thejeff wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Of course it does. It also makes it difficult to criticize the Palestinian "terrorist" organizations for targeting civilian targets. As much as accepting this leaves a dry taste in my mouth.
I got no difficulties. It serves no purpose, is probably counterproductive, and just makes them look like the a!#!&@@s that they are.

While I agree it's probably counter productive, I'm not sure what the alternative is. Israel has shown itself in the past to be quite happy with the status quo, quietly expanding settlements and dividing Palestinian territory further with Israeli controlled roads even at the lowest points of Palestinian violence. As far as I can see the only thing Israel wants from the Palestinians is more land for settlements and an end to violence.

Things are almost certainly worse for Palestinians now, but there's never been any sign of a long term solution. The only bargaining chip they have is stopping the violence and that's always been a precondition for any real negotiations. So "Give us what we want and then we'll start talking about making a deal."

Meanwhile, while everyone moans about how evil the Palestinian terrorists are, far more Palestinian civilians get killed than the other way around.

The alternative is to lay down weapons and go to the table and actually discuss things like mature boys and girls.

And do you think that maybe the reason palestenian civilians die is because they are being actively used as shields, not because they are being actively targeted?

Andoran

Ditto. :(

Andoran

Around here, from what I understand, food stamps are generally worth half value in cash. If you know the right person, or catch them at the right time it can be more than that. Even drug dealers have to eat, and they're happy to get their groceries at half off and free delivery. Hard to cheat the system? Please.

On a side note it is a disgusting feeling to watch someone buy prepared or frozen food on food stamps, then spend our weekly grocery budget on liquor in cash. (We'll, beer, our crockery stores don't carry liquor.) And while it is disgusting, it is not uncommon.

Eta: Crockery stores? Damn auto correct, still, it amuses me so it will remain.

Andoran

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
The only argument for Vampires seems to be "I want to be pretty and have nerve endings in my naughty bits." Though a valid argument, I still don't think all the downsides of being a vampire make it worth it.

Vampires can create minions inherently, liches can't. Vampires can dominate mortals, liches can't. Vampires are inherently physically superior to mortals, liches aren't.

Also, it is relatively easy for a lich to have lost its spellcasting prowess during or because of the transformation. (A cleric whose deity abandons them for example.)

Andoran

If I say vampire, do I have to sparkle?

Andoran

7heprofessor wrote:

Disagree. Contingency is set to an event. Becoming targeted by Mage's Disjunction is an event and your contingent goes off; just like a ready action to counter a spell. I don't see any difference other than you don't need to ready an action.

If it's debatable, tie your contingency to "enemy spell caster tries casting Mage's Disjunction."

And somewhere, half a world away, a mage who is working for a government that wishes to conquer your continent and enslave your people casts mage's disjunction and your contingency randomly goes off.

Gotta be careful with contingency triggers.

Andoran

JoeJ wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

I don't even know how you would compare two feats that do completely different things. How would you compare, for example, the ability to command undead with the ability to use improvised weapons without a penalty?

Fortunately, I don't need to compare Leadership with anything. A feat is broken if it decreases the degree to which the players and GM are entertained. Leadership, handled properly (as the OP does) can be very entertaining. Therefore it isn't broken.

By going "Oh look, this one is useful and this one isn't"?

And your definition of broken is not only vastly different from the generally accepted definition of broken (as in significantly over powered) but also entirely subjective and therefore entirely useless.

My definition is no more subjective than yours. "Useful"? To whom? And under what circumstances? All the feats are useful. Any one of them could mean the difference between success and TPK in the right situation.

Are you saying that Leadership is less or more useful than Command Undead?

First, some feats are only useful in EXTREMELY specific situations that are virtually 100% under the DM's control, while other feats are virtually always useful. Think of the past 100 combats your characters have been in, which has been more generally useful, power attack or skill focus: underwater basket weaving.

Second, I can use leadership to gain command undead, along with a host of other feats, spells, etc.

Andoran

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Lets put it this way.

Weapon Focus is burning a precious feat to give you a mere +1 in what likely amounts to roughly 1/2 of your combats.

What I'd expect out of a feat is either +3 to a single weapon, or +1 to all attacks.

Its great to say "I want more out of a feat than feat X gives" but if there simply are not feats that grant more than feat X gives, your argument is pointless. We deal with what we have, not what we wish we had and if we look at real feats (not imaginary la la land feats) we see that weapon focus is solid.

Andoran

JoeJ wrote:

I don't even know how you would compare two feats that do completely different things. How would you compare, for example, the ability to command undead with the ability to use improvised weapons without a penalty?

Fortunately, I don't need to compare Leadership with anything. A feat is broken if it decreases the degree to which the players and GM are entertained. Leadership, handled properly (as the OP does) can be very entertaining. Therefore it isn't broken.

By going "Oh look, this one is useful and this one isn't"?

And your definition of broken is not only vastly different from the generally accepted definition of broken (as in significantly over powered) but also entirely subjective and therefore entirely useless.

Andoran

137ben wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Saying Weapon Focus is solid is wrong in so many ways.
Oh really? I just googled guides to the fighter, rogue, and magus, and monk. All 4 have weapon finesse listed as green or better (and only the monk listed it as green, the other 3 all had it blue). The paladin and inquisitor guide also ranked it green for melee builds (and orange for archery builds due to how feat intensive archery builds are). So 3 green and 3 blue, out of 6 guides. Sounds like a solid feat to me. . .

Dude, that was a brain fart when I was typing, I have corrected it. I was looking at weapon focus.

Andoran

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Saying Weapon Focus is solid is wrong in so many ways.

Oh really? I just googled guides to the fighter, rogue, and magus, and monk. All 4 have weapon focus listed as green or better (and only the monk listed it as green, the other 3 all had it blue). The paladin and inquisitor guide also ranked it green for melee builds (and orange for archery builds due to how feat intensive archery builds are). So 3 green and 3 blue, out of 6 guides. Sounds like a solid feat to me. . .

(Cavalier guide I found didn't have a general section on feats and it wasn't mentioned in the combat style section.)

Andoran

JoeJ wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:

Are we really back to comparing a level (pc-2) hireling, however bad he can be build, with a +1 to attack?

And don't gimme crap about how he can die, even if he only takes 1 attack he's still way more HP than toughtness, even as a level 1 warrior.

?? I don't see anybody making that comparison. What would be the point of it?

If you can't compare a feat to other feats that people actually take (ie. not garbage feats) what can you compare it to?

I don't know that it necessarily needs to be compared to anything, but if you are going to compare it to something, why pick +1 to attack specifically?

If you can't compare it to anything, how do you know if it is broken?

And +1 attack is weapon focus, a common feat (and solid). You could compare it to something like craft wondrous item, only if you do that then you get a crafting cleric, supplement his spells with your wizard spells (or vice versa if you're the cleric) and suddenly you've gained half a dozen feats for one. Really, comparing it to weapon focus with a martial character is doing Leadership a favor. . .

Andoran

Blakmane wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Not seeing any real downgrade to the druid in PF, except to wild shape specifically. They got a lot of nice new spells in the PF splats, and as prepared full casters with access to their entire spell list, that's a huge boost -- in my opinion, more than enough to offset the wild shape nerf.

Most importantly, Natural Spell wasn't nerfed, so at low levels you can still fly around throwing spells down on your enemies, and at higher levels you can still spend a lot of your time earth gliding.

Wild shape and animal companion were both nerfed for druid. The wild shape nerf especially was huge. The PF spell selection is absolutely nothing compared to the 3.5 spell selection for druids, which included such wonders as rot of ages (no save concealment against target for 2 rounds with possibility of sickened/nausea, level 1 spell) and spells such as drown/entomb later on. Most importantly, PF druids lose access to prestige classes such as arcane heirophant and planar shepherd, the latter of which is considered to be one of, if not the most powerful prestige classe ever created,

Well said, and you didn't even have to go into the summon nature's ally summoning list. Anyone who thinks druid didn't get nerfed going from 3.5 to Pathfinder never saw a 3.5 druid. . .

Andoran

JoeJ wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:

Are we really back to comparing a level (pc-2) hireling, however bad he can be build, with a +1 to attack?

And don't gimme crap about how he can die, even if he only takes 1 attack he's still way more HP than toughtness, even as a level 1 warrior.

?? I don't see anybody making that comparison. What would be the point of it?

If you can't compare a feat to other feats that people actually take (ie. not garbage feats) what can you compare it to?

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Azmyth wrote:

I'm not trying to provoke Druid-lovers into debate...

I'm not trying to entice you to convince me otherwise...

It astounds me the number of people who don't understand what a forum is for.

If you don't want people to discuss your topic, don't post it on an open forum. Simple as that. Posting something and saying "Oh yeah don't discuss it" is like going to a restaurant, giving your order to the waitress and then going "Also don't tell the cook what I ordered".

It defeats the entire purpose.

So much this.

Also, druids were probably the most heavily nerfed class going from 3.5 to PF. (Talking about the class itself, not their items, etc.)

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Change wrote:
Raechel a'Nalvaar wrote:
Wow, people actually think that's scary?
Fear me! For I am coming for something you love! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, crap.

I think Change is George R. R. Martin.

We're all doomed :(

That was perfect. You deserve a cookie.

Andoran

I think there is 0 benefit to using this chart over the previous chart. It is easier to min-max, as excalibur pointed out, and doesn't really accomplish anything you couldn't accomplish with the other chart by simply giving out a higher point value.

Andoran

So basically you can be a gunslinger with full BAB and no spell casting or you can be a medium BAB gunslinger AND have full cleric casting? Why would anyone ever choose the first option again? Totally broken.

Andoran

-Markus- wrote:

All the material I quoted was from a pathfinder book or website. I generally ignore 3rd party stuff or old 3.5 stuff. Unless it has been updated specifically for pathfinder. Which in this case it has. Also I am unconvinced that the wording of the feat says what you think it does, the use of "or" can be taken 2 ways. Also it works for the trait.

EDIT: what I mean to say is that or with no comma, is inclusive to the group. In this case all 3 options are included divided by "or" with no period or coma to...

First, it doesn't matter that it is on a Pathfinder website, it is from 3.5. The book it is from is Legacy of Fire player's guide, legacy of fire is a Pathfinder product but printed for 3.5 and printed before the Pathfinder core rule book. All the stat blocks in LoF are 3.5

Andoran

Congrats!

Andoran

That is entirely false bulletknight. The cleric is called out as receiving domain spells based on what spell level he has access to. Witches have their patron spells directly tied to class level. As such, domain spells do advance, patron spells do not.

Also, oracles cure or inflict spells is directly tied to spell level, that is why they continue to learn those spells.

Andoran

Sissyl wrote:
AND OUR FAITH IN GOD AS CHRISTIANS!

So you're saying they're not all bad?

Andoran

Anything can be not broken if you intentionally sandbag with it. That doesn't make it not generally disruptive.

Andoran

Creepy Pasta is doing something honorable.

Andoran

-Markus- wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
Also, the intent is obvious that you're supposed to have Rogue Talents to use that FCB, and some GMs won't allow that level of cheesing of the rules.

While I agree with you all that it was not the "intent" to do what I propose. And that as a GM you would have to consider balance before allowing it... (I personally would reward the innovation with at least one free feat)

I would like you to consider that my counter argument is coming from a LE outside the box thinker. I am therefore not interested in the spirit of the rule, but more what I can get away with by directly interpreting that rule as it is written.

So i present this argument, which directly counters your assumption with a rule.

"Each race page includes a set of alternative benefits that characters of that race may choose instead of the normal benefits for their favored class. Thus, rather than taking an extra hit point or an extra skill rank, players may choose for their characters to gain the benefit listed here. This is not a permanent or irrevocable choice; just as characters could alternate between taking skill ranks and hit points when they gain levels in their favored class, these benefits provide a third option, and characters may freely alternate between them."

That's the general rule. The other stuff trumps that as it is a specific rule. But as was pointed out, the material you're drawing from is from 3.5, not Pathfinder.

Andoran

I'd ever allow it personally, way too abusable.

Also, since this is gm fiat, I don't think it belongs in rules, probably advice.

Andoran

Hel isn't exactly the goddess of truth, I can totally see him yelling Thor's might and casting Hel's might.

Andoran

You get back to the problem that spells can do anything, so yes, an optimized wizard / cleric / sorcerer / whatever can be very good outside of combat.

Andoran

Normally even.

Andoran

Swashbucklersdc wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
He was a dex fighter who wasn't able to out DPR a strength fighter, no special rules needed.
He actually outdamaged the strength fighter but probably showed his 8 wisdom at the end of the fight for not completing it!

If he'd outdamaged the strength fighter Tyrion would've been set free. You don't win until the fight is over.

Andoran

#1.

There is only 1 amount of damage dealt, if they make their save they just happen to take half the damage you are dealing.

Andoran

I put forth that they do study the effectiveness, I have linked to studies that state, very explicitly, that such studies have been performed and that CBT has been shown to be effective. If you want to read those studies in depth, you have to pay for the privilege, or go find them in a library.

Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


You'll need a subscription to the site to read more than the abstracts, but that should be enough to establish that it happens, I'll highlight the high notes for you.
Its a study that I can't access, would be a metadata study if i could, and then wouldn't let me know the methodology of the original studies. This doesn't help you.

Yet the findings are clear as day (support for the efficacy CBT), and the methedology is, apparently approved, as it is in a journal and not debunked. And I'm not going to try and dig up illegal copies of the journals and link you to them.

Somehow though, I suspect any study I supplied would have been not good enough for you. Some people just can't admit when they're wrong. C'est la vie.

Andoran

Kthulhu wrote:
LazarX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
And the people who DO Bottle it or just bury it up don't show up for study. You have no idea how many of these people there are, how well they're dealing with it, or any data on them to compare with talk therapy.
We know how some are "dealing" with it. In gory details on the evening news, frequently taking a lot of people down with them.

Just as many people who go on killing sprees WERE in therapy. Thus, using your logic, therapy causes people to go out and kill a bunch of people.

** spoiler omitted **

People have been going on killing sprees for thousands of years, while therapy is fairly recent and first worldish. Are you entirely certain of your position?

Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Shadowcatx wrote:
Funny, the results of studies exactly like what I'm talking about are done and their results are available online. Maybe you don't know everything in the world there is to know about how such things are accomplished and people who are trained in such things know more than you. . .
Link to one.

You'll need a subscription to the site to read more than the abstracts, but that should be enough to establish that it happens, I'll highlight the high notes for you.

The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: a review of meta-analyses.

Quote:
While limitations of the meta-analytic approach need to be considered in interpreting the results of this review, our findings are consistent with other review methodologies that also provide support for the efficacy CBT.

Efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders: a review of meta-analytic findings.

Quote:
The efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for anxiety in adults is well established.

1 to 50 of 4,798 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.