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

Stefan Hill's page

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 2,724 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,724 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
lokiare wrote:
d20+mods to beat a target number

Or get less than a target number, e.g. saving throws.

In terms of years 1e/2e still wins hands down in 'years played'. Actually I imagine in 'total number of people played' also.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Terquem wrote:
Personaly I'd like to see a break with tradition and not have a "Monster Manual" at all, but see releases of box sets with loose pages for monsters and their associated pawns (but what am I saying, only Paizo is smart enough to do something like this).

Loose pages in 2e ended up a nightmare. I think failed experiment is the term.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

"Players fight the most fearsome monster of all time in an exciting multi-platform gaming experience"

Really?!

I really think that the saying Lawyers would be the first with their backs against the wall when the revolution comes should be amended to:

Marketing should be the first with their back against the wall when the revolution comes or tomorrow. Which ever comes first.

It is almost like marketing people get educated at schools that teach a major in meaningless phrases rather than grammar!

Looking forward to game, not looking forward to the dribble the marketing department will inflict upon us running up to the release.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
P.H. Dungeon wrote:
I suppose I have this fantasy about finding the perfect rpg that will run just how I want it to, but the reality is that I've played tons of different systems over the

As the editions of D&D start stacking up I come to realize that I had passed the 'perfect' D&D for me, and that was 2nd ed.

It allows me to play the version of D&D I like, the game 'feels' right, with the classes function as I picture in a Sword & Sandal setting. Really like what they did with specialist mages and cleric/druid spheres.

I find the classes act to have the party work together far more than happened in 3e (solo CoDzilla's or Destructo-Wizards) and not as forced seeming as in 4e.

I like D&DN quite a lot, but with the re-release of 2nd ed. I just can't see myself playing it much.

S.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Cheers guys. All clear now.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Claxon wrote:

No. Read the full ability and it makes it more clear.

Quote:
Black Blade Strike (Sp): As a free action, the magus can spend a point from the black blade's arcane pool to grant the black blade a +1 bonus on damage rolls for 1 minute. For every four levels beyond 1st, this ability gives the black blade another +1 on damage rolls.
Also bonuses from the same source don't stack.

I thought unnamed bonuses do stack? And is it possible to activate this more than once within the minute time frame?

I guess this comes down to if you can stack unnamed bonuses.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The description of the Black Blade Strike (sp) says that as a free action you can add +1 to damage rolls for 1 minute. Does this mean you can spend two points from the blade and have +2? Does this stack?

Means at maximum level the blade can add 5 x +5 or +25 damage - is this right?

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:

I'm still not convinced that GURPS is an actual thing. I've never met anyone in real life who actually plays it, and nobody that I've met knows anyone who plays it either. And looking at available books for the system does nothing to make me want to play it...it seems like sourcebook overload...like every time you wanted to play a character that was even somewhat different than your last one, you would need to buy another sourcebook or three.

That being said, I'm sure that the nebulous GURPS defenders will now appear.

Just ask yourself...have you ever met any of the GUPRS defenders in real life? Or do you know anyone who has? :P

Last GURPs player I saw in real life was in 1990 - In Guru's cafe at Waikato University in New Zealand. Of course they may have gone extinct over the last 23-4 years. I perhaps should have taken a photo?

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pan wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
Pan wrote:
Why not use a lappy or tablet and save the tree and extra work?

Burn the witch! D&D is a Pen & paper game. Modern technology should play no part in D&D. The only tablets available of use in the 80's were caffeine and aspirin and these were taken along with sugary (not diet) Coke-Cola while playing week long, no sleep D&D sessions!

We even rebelled against the introduction of the 'white board' and 'erasable marker pens'. We mapped on large bits of paper with felt-tipped pens that when they marked the mark stayed marked!

Youth of today - or perhaps an old fart like me pretending to like new technology, really...

;)

I'll turn you into a newt if you dont hold that tongue! Ha-Ha it does feel good being considered today's youth I suppose, I'm starting to feel old I stopped getting carded when I was 20. I know some people are dead set on dead tree format but tech has made my life a hell of a lot easier. If using tech is wrong I don't want to be right!

In all seriousness I hope they do both, PDF's/Software and dead-trees. Like I hope they have an optional extra of battle-mat play. I don't like battle-mats one bit but others grew up on them. I like 5e because it is allowing me to play in a way I haven't since 1e/2e.

Glad I could make you feel young again!

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pan wrote:
Why not use a lappy or tablet and save the tree and extra work?

Burn the witch! D&D is a Pen & paper game. Modern technology should play no part in D&D. The only tablets available of use in the 80's were caffeine and aspirin and these were taken along with sugary (not diet) Coke-Cola while playing week long, no sleep D&D sessions!

We even rebelled against the introduction of the 'white board' and 'erasable marker pens'. We mapped on large bits of paper with felt-tipped pens that when they marked the mark stayed marked!

Youth of today - or perhaps an old fart like me pretending to like new technology, really...

;)

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Looking forward to it!

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
memorax wrote:

If I ever ran 2E I would definitely add about 10-20% to the starting weapon values. With a players who are not lucky at the tabe combat can take forever. It's no easy to roll low on percentile dice. I rather get more done at the game table then spend too long with a combat.

Not sure this is the best approach in my opinion. In Warhammer normal people are normal people not D&D like combat gods from day one. By adding +10-20% you effectively make the character 2-4 advances above starting. If you are willing to do that why not just hand out 2-4 free advances and let the players decide where the +5%'s go? What if I would rather be better at Hiding than Fighting?

Even without doing this +10% for aim, +10% for 2 on 1, etc. - there is +20% without giving new characters free advances. Warhammer isn't about a fair one on one fights, it is about stacking the odds in the your favour. And if they aren't then running might be a better option. Trying a D&D-like approach to Warhammer is a sure fire way to end up rolling a new character.

Depends if you want a High Fantasy or Grim Fantasy feel I guess.

Just comments,
S.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
chris venturini wrote:
But overall, it is a stale system. The game world is amazing, I'm only saying the system is boring.

I don't think there is such a thing as a boring or stale system in any roleplaying game, just dull GMs and unimaginative players...

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

R-Chance in another thread gives a link to Mike Mearls comments. He basically says exactly that. Combat like 3e and 4e will be available in an optional extra. Seem to me to be the same idea they had with the 2e Black books. I'm all on board for this approach.

S.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
R_Chance wrote:

Some people seem to be assuming that the playtest is going to be the game. Just parts of it. Mike Mearls had some interesting things to post in the 9/23 Legends and Lore column:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130923

Tactical combat module, downtime module, dramatic storytelling module and character customization module. None off which has been in the public playtest and which will not, apparently, be in the core game. Whether these modules are included in the first set of books (along with the core game) or are future splat books isn't mentioned.

Sounds good - if it turned out like the 2e Black Books I would be pleased.

S.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wicked cool wrote:
Any major changes on spells/classes from the previous packet?

Not really, just they put back some of the things they removed. They added some classes and races. Quite a complete little game at the moment. Very usable. I am hoping they give us a couple of months to play-test before asking for feedback.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pan wrote:
Bummer I love me some class dippin.

Pathfinder isn't going anywhere in a hurry.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As I home brew for setting I am only concerned withe the 'core only' working the way I like to tell tales with. 5e is getting A+ from me so far, for me the current 5e is what 3e should have been.

I know it has been there for a while but Potion Misc. Table being but back in brought a huge smile to my face. Making multi-classing special in the latest again caters to my ideals very well.

This edition will make me shelve 2e - and that from me is HIGH praise!

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well worth another thread. A VERY good read. Still the D&D I hoped it would be. Perfect, no, but a darn sight more in line with what I historically was use to when I played D&D. A modern take on an old game, nice. Very keen to roll out my 'go to' adventure Ravenloft (I6 not the awful 3.5e remake) and get a group together.

Really made my day glancing over the new & final packet. Will tide me over until the final product hits the stores. Of course I am hoping they don't decided on too much deviation from the philosophy we have seen to date. I don't want to have to go back to playing with dolls, sorry, miniatures in my D&D games ;)

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pan wrote:
Post more on MC restrictions please.

Not sure if I can give details (anyone?). But generally speaking you need a certain level of stat to multi-class. Think of the old restrictions on being dual-class in 1e AD&D. Very similar idea. This will mean that where you place your stats initially will determine any later multi-class path and will curtail the dreaded 'class dip' that is seen in 3.5e & PF (lesser extent).

S.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I work in research in the wood/pulp industry. Data shows that we are increasing in consumption of paper. Photocopy paper mainly drives this. So keep printing those PDF's, keeps me in a job ;)

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Multi-classing restrictions, lets say that word again, restrictions. They actually included RESTRICTIONS. Awesome. Seriously I was sick of the hippy hug a tree permissive rubbish that 3e era introduced.

I can hear it now; "But I want to be a Wizard, Druid, Fighter, Ranger, Battle Gimp, Panzer Tank. D&DN Sux, none of the Kidz will play!"

Now I can say as DM (NOT GM)... "Bite me." :)

WotC is right on track to have me buy their product. They really are making a game I like.

Happy.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
R_Chance wrote:
Thought I'd mention that the last playtest packet is up. I'm downloading it as I type this...

Cheers for the heads up!

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Anyone know what structure is more complex than the human brain?

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That is sad news :(

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Why use a clone when you can use 4e itself? Likely WotC will release as a PDF at some stage. Simply as time goes on unless there is a draw card point of difference clones for all previous editions of D&D won't really be needed. OSRIC is a good example, the clarifications/modifications to 1e are rather good and don't change the experience but do speed up play. Then again 2e does a good job of doing that also. Another example of Pathfinder, a clone of 3.5e that has enough material to make it a good option instead of playing actual 3.5e.

So I predict that the clone market will die unless the clones are different enough to not be true clones. Hope that makes sense?

S.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
lokiare wrote:
Also just for reference here is a recent winner with unrestricted conversation Elbot. Give it a try and see how human it is.

Again I disagree. All the examples you gave are limited to an instruction set or specific environment. Sure they 'learn' but true human imagination isn't something they can complete with.

The tests you give links to are a very, very, very small sandbox - and RPG is a VERY large sandbox. The human brain is still the most complex structure in the universe we know of. CPU/GPU's don't even come close.

Again currently a computer purchased for home with store brought RPG software can not provide the depth and interest of a person based RPG.

Not sure why physics engines are important?

As for Elbot.

I typed:
"Two guards stand at a gate near a walled city. What do you do?"

I got:
"I am attempting with the aid of intelligent conversation to get to know you human beings with all your contradictions and idiosyncrasies. Maybe I should have started off with something simpler, like a hamster."

Not exactly the opening for a good evenings roleplaying ;)

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
lokiare wrote:
Wow, you must not have heard about recent advancements in computer games. They have real physics engines and simulate magic and how it affects the environment (basically variables in the physics engine). So computers can now handle improvisation. They have computer programs that can heuristically learn from past experiences and can write stories and poetry (although they are very simple right now). I wouldn't expect witty conversations or best selling story lines from scratch, but if someone put their mind to it, they could make a pretty good run of a D&D style computer game with modern technology...

The best neural network computer I am aware of has a number of connections equal to a cat brain. Yet this computer can't carryout any functions that even come close to a cats sentience.

So I disagree that ANY current computer can carry out even the smallest fraction of running an RPG that a human can.

Physics engines aren't even vaguely useful for an RPG, they only allow visualizations of a set number of pre-programmed outcomes.

A computer can not handle even something simple like, after describing the players see a town with a wall with a gate and 2 guards, what do you do? The only responses, no matter how pretty looking on the screen, are limited to the person who coded the software and inherit hardware limitations.

Perhaps when SkyNet achieves AI status computers will be good at RPGs, but until then the human mind is a vital component.

S.

Andoran

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't think WotC is trying to compete at all with Paizo. Trying to appease the 3.5e crowd is a ship that has long sailed and it is called the S.S. Pathfinder. I like that WotC are trying to appeal crowd who think that the 3.5e base system is a behemoth that causes headaches rather than generates fun.

I currently refuse to GM any Pathfinder (or 3.5e) games, but will play in a heartbeat. D&DN is allowing me to get back into DMing without me feeling like beating a couple of my players to death with the rulebook each session.

If Paizo & WotC can drag some more people away from the idea that computer games actually can provide a true RPG then it is a HUGE win for the hobby. Using a computer game for RPGing is like playing tennis with your foot handcuffed to your wrist. Possible but not really the best way to play.

There is room enough for both games and more besides!

S.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Adjule wrote:

My impressions on 5th edition is a huge resounding "meh". I look through the player pdf, and I am just whelmed. Nothing in there screams "Play me!" when it comes to the classes. I find it strange that they went with odd ability score modifiers from races. Looking through that pdf, I think "I might be able to figure out something to play", and then I look at the monster pdf, and I scratch my head and ask wtf? Nothing in there makes much of any sense.

Maybe when they release the final playtest packet, I might see something that will make me go for it. But so far, nothing in there would make me give up Pathfinder.

Can I ask what was the problems with the monsters?

Next actually made me want to DM again - 3e/PF had killed that in me.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Torchbearer is indeed an excellent game. All the old RPG charm without too much rule clutter.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zardnaar wrote:
My solution has been to play 2nd ed and BECMI again. Probably DM my 1st game of 1st ed soon as well. I don't think the wizard outside a few annoying spells is the main offender in 3.x type games.

Was but another nail in the coffin...

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zardnaar wrote:
highest levels with wizards and they were still glass cannons.

Being a glass cannon was what kept Magic Users in check AND the rules supported this. I played H4 Throne of Bloodstone (for Levels 18-100) and after setting out my Archmage never had a full complement of spells. At 15 mins per spell per level a single 9th level spell took 2 hours 15 min to learn AFTER an 8 hour rest. This was shortened to 10 mins per spell per spell level. But serious resource management was required. The 3e, wow its morning, poof I know all my spells - seriously I'm just shaking my head. Then everybody wonders why magic out of hand in 3e?

The Wizards in Dragonlance would have never lost against the rabble and Knights under 3e...

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
I think that D&DN plays like a MUD... Thoughts? :)
Definitely text-based at this point; here's hoping the last packet has ansi colors. :P
The back-and-forth nature of D&D Next combat betrays a clear intention to appeal to Pong players.

Really? Come on, with the idea of a boss creature at the end of most adventures it is obvious that D&DN is basically a remake of Donkey Kong using the underpinning mechanics of Pong I grant you.

Cloudy, care to weigh in again with some insight?

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I wonder if that's why they needed to thieve?

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:

Were the different experience level progressions supposed to be in the interest of balance?

I thought they were just how the early designers thought the different classes 'should' progress, not an attempt to make the weaker classes level faster than the stronger. (If it was a balance attempt they seem to have had a peculiar view of which classes were 'weak').

How so? I think it did a good job at allowing a degree (not complete) of balancing - seems semantics. The other factor was that classes did quite specific things meaning that Thieves being a joke wasn't really the case in 1e/2e (I really liked the 2e way of thief ability pointing up) for example. Parties were much more paper, scissors, rock - of course many complain that it forced a certain combination of classes. This wasn't a mistake this WAS the games design.

S.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think that D&DN plays like a MUD... Thoughts? :)

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sebastian wrote:
Sebastrd wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Wow...you went through all the trouble of signing up on Pazio just so you could tell us this.
And necro'd a year old thread to do it. >:/
Maybe he misses the 4e edition wars and thought it'd be fun to play that game again.

I think he also missed the 80's & 90's...

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Actually thinking about it. Class --> Sub-class was a cunning system. I guess they would have to go back to balancing with differing XP charts. But hey I wasn't the sharpest teenager in the draw and I managed to figure out differing XP charts and even (later in life) THAC0...

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Bad, bad D&DN. Go to your closet. Or, fe-fi-fo-fum, the Cloud Giant will grind your bones for bread.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sebastrd wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:

Buff spells were also not as broken in 2nd ed due to the combat round length and time required for things like search rolls. 10 minute a level buffs ran off very quickly if you spent a turn (10 minutes) searching each 10' by 10's section of the dungeon. And if you didn't search and got a power word liquefy up the date when you used the toilet oh well tough.

A large part of CoDzilla being broken was the way the buff spells worked.

Then why change rounds when you could simply adjust the duration of spells?

They did 3e --> 3.5e when they saw how broken the buff durations were relative to a combat, actually relative to a day!

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
R_Chance wrote:

The explanation that drove any number of people off to play Runequest. EGG was really stretching for an explanation on that.

The distance moved was fixed. You could fight or not. A minute to move 60-120' while you are rushing to help your friends. So, 60' and fight the dragon. Or just amble 60' and smell the roses.

I'm not a huge fan of a lot of feats either. Especially the type you're alluding to. I use facing etc., feats are modified as a result. As I...

In the terms that hp's are explained in the DMG the description of what a round entails and 'damage' represents is consistent. RuneQuest (still playing to this day) hp's are a very different thing - losing a limb happens in many combats.

Of course outside 60' = 60 yards (or 180') - except for spell distances.

Agree about the feats, drop feats and keep skills - aka 2e. Feats that are not too game wrecking should just be folded into Class abilities.

S.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CloudGiant wrote:

Overall, my impression of the game is infinite sterility and laziness. For example: only four totem choices for the Barbarian. Really? Are Barbarians in D&D only familiar with four types of animals? Or can they for some reason only acquire power associated with four types of animals?

I've heard alot of people say that D&D Next is a return to old-school gaming. This is false....

Never played 1e with Unearthed Arcana I see. Darn Gygax & Arneson and their sterility! The difference in any class under 1e was whatever imagination the player choose to inject. I gather you prefer the type of RPG where unless there is a mechanical rule advantage to something it shouldn't be in the game?

Riverwind of Dragonlance fame was a noble barbarian (Que-Shu tribe) - class = ranger. Tanis was a fighter who seemed be very ranger like. How does that work then?

The only thing I can agree with you is D&DN has too many options available to truly be old school. So D&DN is old school like but not old school.

S.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
sunshadow21 wrote:
Movement rates in pre 3.x was definitely an issue, but one that needed to be dealt with by fixing the movement rates, not the length of the round. Taking cues about movement rates from 3.x and applying them to the longer round is more effective than shortening the round, which throws everything else off while fixing the movement problem.

I am not saying that 1e/2e was the perfect system, but I agree with the above that sometimes 3e designers threw the baby out with the bath water - as they say.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
R_Chance wrote:
The explanation of "many tries, one hit" was always extremely unsatisfactory.

But that wasn't how it is described in the 1e DMG. The 'to hit' roll just represented the outcome of the all the nicks and cuts and fatiguing you did to your opponent over the round. Over the 1 minute round the melee is swirling and non-static. No one is standing still toe to toe taking turns at bashing each other.

@bugleyman: I would say 60' while parrying, dodging, ducking, and generally not trying to get you head taken off by a dragon isn't too bad I would think. What is this flip-mat you speak of? A mat that flips - what use is that? ;)

The point being that with a 1 minute round, as previously stated, who cares about Vital Cobra Fist Mega-Strike as a distinct 'Feat' - this would just be something your character would be doing during the round which ultimately ends in (hopefully) some damage. But I accept that players keen on 3e+ like to state Mega-Strike and have mechanics to back it up. Me I'm happy with "I hit it with my sword".

S.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would like to see a return to 1 round = 1 minute. This alone removes much of the combat micro-management that, personally, I felt plagued 3e+.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

"balance around" is probably closest.

I despise the theory of balance that goes "Wizards are useless and die if they stub their toe at low levels and gods if they ever reach high levels, so that's balanced."

Having a decent number of hp at low levels cancels out some of the swinginess of the game, which is good, but scaling hp up throughout the game isn't really addressing the same problem. Late game rocket tag is more about saving throws than hp anyway.

I think the balance was a little more involved than that for 1e/2e, at high level a Fighter had excellent saves against magic, even without magical protection (such as a ring of protection). The chance of an instant kill wasn't that great - ok there was Power Kill. Magic Users under 1e/2e were rarely thought of as Gods, more magic wielding mortals. Even an Archmage required about 144 hours to recover all their spells once exhausted. Sure they could teleport out and then back in later, but consider the abilities of the other classes thinking about how deal with a power wizard was all that was required. Remembering under 1e if a fighter was in melee range then their attacks happened before rolling for initiative...

I contend that 1e & 2e to a lesser extent was more balanced than 3e ever was.

S.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hi,

I'm not sure which versions I have downloaded and have become confused (more so than usual). I thouht that the 'full' versions had hyper-links in the PDF's the lite version did not. Then I fine both my full and lite version of 6th printing Core don't have links but both the full and lite versions of the 3rd printing Bestiary do?

Can someone kindly clear this up for me.

Thanks,
S.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

There's a big difference between wanting starting characters to be a little less fragile (and more useful) than an old school wizard and liking the idea of hp growth slowing in the mid levels when you're already tough.

It's much easier to balance against around.

What do you mean by balance against around?

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think they should be the origin 1e AD&D versions for any meaningful comparison.

1 to 50 of 2,724 << 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.