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

Talonhawke's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 4,859 posts (4,983 including aliases). No reviews. 3 lists. 2 wishlists. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,859 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

No since normally suffocation renders you unconscious this won't wake you up meaning if you sleep you will probably die. Also flagged for move to the rules forum.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CigarPete wrote:

The chronicle sheets for Maelstrom Rift and Serpent's Ire had level ranges listed, so I would start with those or reducing to level 1.

As far as actual play experience, I don't understand the trepidation around character death. It's part of the game, and is nothing more than a resource tax - you screwed up or got unlucky (greataxe crits in lvl 1 scenario grumble grumle), go pay 7k gold. In the event of a pregen, it's go pay 1k gold after selling off their gear. I put both chronicles on real characters, fully expecting to pay or retire if needed.

I can assume there is more of a feeling of I have less control over events playing a pregen than a character I know. I would feel more comfortable failing using my own character that I have leveled since the outset and know fairly well than one I just picked and don't know how every piece of the watch works.


The idea above of unlocking the scenarios once a character hits 12th level might have a bit of merit if you move it to unlocking once that character is either retired or marked dead. It would however need a way to determine when that unlock occurs if you have a character who has a chronicle for playing it and a chronicle from a GM use or a replay. Possibly only unlocking them once you have either no active chronicles from it or track it only for the 1st play-through and only worry about when that chronicle is retired?

Keep in mind I am offering an outside opinion as I am not active in PFS.


The only thing I can really offer being as I am not active at this time is that if any lodges in southeast Arkansas are needing numbers let me know would love to actually get started with society play.


PRD wrote:
Swashbuckler Finesse (Ex): At 1st level, a swashbuckler gains the benefit of the Weapon Finesse feat with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons, and she can use her Charisma score in place of her Intelligence score as a prerequisite for combat feats. This ability counts as having the Weapon Finesse feat for purpose of meeting feat prerequisites.

Gonna actually say this might work you gain the benefit of finesse with those weapons. That would be a clear ask your GM case and expect table variation in PFS case but I could actually see this being allowed.


KingOfAnything wrote:
Another previous thread on this topic

That last 2 comments though I'm trying to laugh to loud at work


Tacticslion wrote:
Whatever was in the fridge.

Since that's past tense do we assume you don't know what you ate or just don't care?


But it doesn't change all longswords just the one. If instead you had an ability that allowed you to pick a type 1-h weapon and make it finessable then you would have something but the ability to make a single item of a type different doesn't make all weapons of that type different.

Looking at Mithril if you had a class feature that said "when wearing light or no armor" such as uncanny dodge for a rogue then mithril armor works. However if you had one that read "picky a type of light armor you suffer no Arcane spell failure while using it." then Mithril breastplates don't count.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or they boost his armor and saves to the 9s and let him tank since he has the main character bulls-eye and thus can protect everyone else by virtue of being unkillable


Redneckdevil wrote:

To those who are using the "per damage roll", I have a question. when a paladin lvl 10 with zero str reg attacking with a falchion smite evil a target who's evil, would the damage roll be 2d4+10 or would it be (1d4+10)+(1d4+10) for the way to figure out damage?

I believe it's 2d4+10

True and a 5th level shocking grasp would do 5d6+10 but that is on one hit each. Magic missile isn't 1 hit it is up to 5 each dealing 1d4+1 thus the variance in how to apply it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The last of my pot of red beans and rice........sadness ensues.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Rylden wrote:

Oops... small issue, forgot my Magus doesnt have the Dragonic Bloodline. So increase the level of the second questions magus, to allow for Skill Focus, and Eldritch Heritage(Dragonic)

@Talonhawke Where in Dragon Disciple is it written that the spells per day have to be applied to a spontaneous caster class?

It's pretty much a given that you have to add those levels in a class that allows you to qualify for the PrC. That CAN be the Eldritch Scion magus archetype.

Well a strict reading says "an arcane class you had before" So it would be reasonable to assume that any arcane class counts.


Rylden wrote:

Oops... small issue, forgot my Magus doesnt have the Dragonic Bloodline. So increase the level of the second questions magus, to allow for Skill Focus, and Eldritch Heritage(Dragonic)

@Talonhawke Where in Dragon Disciple is it written that the spells per day have to be applied to a spontaneous caster class?

I will have to correct myself there you actually could use it that way I got confused and was remembering the 3.5 version which only gave extra spell slots.


1. No they are too your sorcerer spells.

2. No you still can't technically spontaneously cast an arcane spell.


Jiggy wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

I personally dislike the term "adventurer," because I don't like the idea of so many people running around doing this that they need a name.

Imagine if the Rebel Alliance had just hired "a party of adventurers" to blow up the death start, or if Gandalf had simply posted a want-ad for "some adventurers" in order to take the ring to Mordor.

No, but that's pretty much how Gandalf sold Bilbo to Thorin's company. It's also pretty much Han and Chewie's gig between episodes IV and V.

The crew of Serenity in the Firefly series isn't too far off from "adventurers", and the show heavily implies that they're far from uncommon.

The so-called "pirates" in One Piece are a fixture of both daily life and world news, yet many (most?) of them are less like "pirates" and more like "adventurers". (In fact, the only reason I became aware of the show was because a friend was telling me about how it feels like it's basically somebody's D&D campaign. My wife once pondered this very issue of why it seems like so many random civilians are combat-capable, and resolved the dilemma by saying "Well, I guess if I just assume Pathfinder is like One Piece where you never know when someone will pop out and try to beat you up...")

The fellowship of the Ring is basically a band of adventurers, just not serially/professionally.

The protagonists in The Mummy are basically an adventuring group: first they're planning to delve a ruin for treasure, then they end up facing off against an undead BBEG for the fate of the world. Because THAT's never happened in D&D, amirite?

The concept of adventurers has quite a pedigree.

Jiggy if you really want to have a laugh Google Grandline 3.5 it is a web comic that portrays One Piece as a DnD game.


Dave Justus wrote:

The ARG text, which I wasn't aware of, is definitive. If a race is also a subtype, you only have to have that subtype, not that race for any racial restrictions.

Personally, I think this is a bad design. I think there should be archetypes and feats that only refer to the specific elven race, rather than only all humaniods with the elf subtype, but right now it would be impossible to make such a thing, at least with the standard language.

Actually it would simply require a special requirement that states this prestige class/feat/whatever is not available to drow/half-elves/or humans with that one feat.


Nohwear wrote:
Clearly there are two extremes that need to be avoided. On one end you have what is basically an arms race where only those players with high system mastery stand a chance. On the other end you have a situation where even combat aimed at high level characters rarely last more than one round. The question is where is the happy medium, and are we there now?

This is further exacerbated by the fact that a group can vary so much that a challenge to Group A is a cake walk for Group B and was just right for Group C.


Just based on my understanding of the rules I'll do my best here.

1. They don't those require you to take a type of weapon and chair and such aren't weapons. If a feat is simply active when wielding for instance a 1-h Bludgeoning weapon then your GM might allow it. (I would)

2. Not unless a character has a specific ability saying so which I don't think exist. If for instance you had a feat that said you treat a crowbar as a light club that would but otherwise no.

3. At current no and no.


Rysky wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Forseti wrote:
So, when the caster wants to hit someone in a lesser globe with his empowered fireball, it counts as a 5th level spell, but if he doesn't want to hit the person inside, it counts as a 3rd level spell. That's how it works, right?
That would be backwards it's 3rd level since penetration of the sphere would be beneficial. The real question is if my friends are in the Globe not a bad guy is it now a 5th level spell since hitting them is the more detrimental choice?
I would have it go off what is advantageous/disadvantageous to the spell itself, rather than the recipients. It wants to get the through the globe, do it would fail, regardless of whether the people behind he globe want it or not.

Which is how I would rule it's just some people seem so hung up on the "what ever is most disadvantageous" line that I wonder if they would.

EDIT:

Forseti wrote:


No, no, no.

The FAQ tells you to consider the caster's disadvantage. That's the litmus test for deciding the level you use. It's the general way you should decide these things. It's in black and white, how dare you not accept it.

See


Forseti wrote:
So, when the caster wants to hit someone in a lesser globe with his empowered fireball, it counts as a 5th level spell, but if he doesn't want to hit the person inside, it counts as a 3rd level spell. That's how it works, right?

That would be backwards it's 3rd level since penetration of the sphere would be beneficial. The real question is if my friends are in the Globe not a bad guy is it now a 5th level spell since hitting them is the more detrimental choice?


Rysky wrote:
Gabriel Cantrell wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Gabriel Cantrell wrote:
Ok fine. Then let me point this out. Does an Empowered Fireball have the save for a level 3 or a level 5 spell?
3, knock off the games and actually say what you want to say.
Not playing games. Making a point. So by your own admission then, an Empowered Fireball is a level 3 spell, despite using a level 5 slot.

Absolutely not, it has the saves of a level 3 spell, it is not a level 3 spell.

This conversation has already went around in here.

But its more than just saves or would that fireball penetrate a Lesser Globe?


So if I am understanding correctly practiced feats/ talents would apply after all other calculations and still cap at total levels correct?


I agree just I feel the use of level as the term here needs to be shored up and that might be something for someone to look at. In my example we use level three times and refer to 2 different numbers however the rod's text and the Globes match up perfectly both refer to spell level. That I believe is the crux of the arguement. Basicly we have a spell that has an actual level of 3rd using a slot that is 4th but the spell level (not the slot level since neither rods or globes look at that) is both higher than 3rd but lower than 4th at the same time until a particular effect is checked against it. That is where some clean up needs to be done. I agree the rods most likely were meant to use slot level not spell level and also to be applied last. I think the best answer would be to errata the rods to use slot level not spell level.


I guess its the wording of the Rods that is in most contention. The rods say what spell level they work with not what slot level they work with. Same as my Globe earlier. However because of the FAQ not only do meta-magic spells have a different slot level than their spell level but have 2 different spell levels based on what effect it comes into contact with.

Simply put an enlarged fireball is a 3rd level spell being cast with a 4th level slot. So if I want to use an ability to recall the used slot it has to work on 4th level spells slots. But if an enemy has a lesser globe of Invulnerability up then the spell doesn't hit because it's spell level is 3rd, however at the same time a lesser meta-magic rod which says it works on only 3rd level or lower spells can't work on it because it also is now being called a 4th level spell as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I only know as much as I do from family of friends down in that area.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bbangerter wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

So we can for instance have a sorcerer who wants to cast an enlarged fireball using a lesser quicken rod. In the area of effect is a wizard who has lesser Globe of Invulnerability up. How do we apply the FAQ?

1. It is more disadvantageous to cast as a swift action so the spell can't be used with the rod but still over comes the Globe. (Use higher level)

2. It is more disadvantageous to overcome the Globe so we can use the rod but its still a 3rd level spell and the wizard is save. (Use lower level)

3. Apply each circumstance on its own and treat this as a 4th level spell for the rod and a 3rd level spell for the Globe. (Use whatever is most disadvantageous for each spell level check)

Just gonna post my question and point of contention from the other thread. If it is as people are suggesting and 3 it really bothers me that spells can have 2 effective levels.

Being personally bothered by it does not mean the reading of the rule is wrong. (Lots of people are bothered by the hands of effort/physical hands FAQ - but it is still the rule).

+1 to what Ryric said. No response needed for this FAQ request (though PDT may choose to further clarify it anyway like they did the fairly recent "flanking is melee only or not" question).

I'll keep the rest of my responses restricted to the other thread.

So spells have 2 levels if meta-magic is involved? And for x number of situations x can change based on what would be worst? That seems to be a flaw not just my issues with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:

So we can for instance have a sorcerer who wants to cast an enlarged fireball using a lesser quicken rod. In the area of effect is a wizard who has lesser Globe of Invulnerability up. How do we apply the FAQ?

1. It is more disadvantageous to cast as a swift action so the spell can't be used with the rod but still over comes the Globe. (Use higher level)

2. It is more disadvantageous to overcome the Globe so we can use the rod but its still a 3rd level spell and the wizard is save. (Use lower level)

3. Apply each circumstance on its own and treat this as a 4th level spell for the rod and a 3rd level spell for the Globe. (Use whatever is most disadvantageous for each spell level check)

Just gonna post my question and point of contention from the other thread. If it is as people are suggesting and 3 it really bothers me that spells can have 2 effective levels.


bbangerter wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

So we can for instance have a sorcerer who wants to cast an enlarged fireball using a lesser quicken rod. In the area of effect is a wizard who has lesser Globe of Invulnerability up. How do we apply the FAQ?

1. It is more disadvantageous to cast as a swift action so the spell can't be used with the rod but still over comes the Globe. (Use higher level)

2. It is more disadvantageous to overcome the Globe so we can use the rod but its still a 3rd level spell and the wizard is save. (Use lower level)

3. Apply each circumstance on its own and treat this as a 4th level spell for the rod and a 3rd level spell for the Globe. (Use whatever is most disadvantageous for each spell level check)

3. Each aspect of the spell is checked separately.

And that bothers me, a spell should have one final level period not a level in some state of flux that we don't know if it is A or B until it encounters a check on its level. I mean if the wizard in my example was readying to counter spell then his own unmodified fireball would be enough since the sorcerer's spell would be 3rd level when checking if something can counter it.


So we can for instance have a sorcerer who wants to cast an enlarged fireball using a lesser quicken rod. In the area of effect is a wizard who has lesser Globe of Invulnerability up. How do we apply the FAQ?

1. It is more disadvantageous to cast as a swift action so the spell can't be used with the rod but still over comes the Globe. (Use higher level)

2. It is more disadvantageous to overcome the Globe so we can use the rod but its still a 3rd level spell and the wizard is save. (Use lower level)

3. Apply each circumstance on its own and treat this as a 4th level spell for the rod and a 3rd level spell for the Globe. (Use whatever is most disadvantageous for each spell level check)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
prd wrote:
Thrown Weapons: Daggers, clubs, shortspears, spears, darts, javelins, throwing axes, light hammers, tridents, shuriken, and nets are thrown weapons. The wielder applies his Strength modifier to damage dealt by thrown weapons (except for splash weapons). It is possible to throw a weapon that isn't designed to be thrown (that is, a melee weapon that doesn't have a numeric entry in the Range column on Table: Weapons), and a character who does so takes a –4 penalty on the attack roll. Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action. Regardless of the type of weapon, such an attack scores a threat only on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. Such a weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.

Based on the bold text I have I would allow it. The feat has no mention of melee but expect some variation since finesse is a prereq.


Rysky wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
i dont think it will be errat'd, considering rage cycling is built into the base class at level 17.
Still have to assume that we are doing it wrong. We thought that Monks could flurry with one weapon until it was "Clarified" in the middle of AoMF discussion. After a lengthy back and forth it was settled that enough people had been doing it "wrong" that it shouldn't be changed to needing two weapons.

That and 3.5 Barbarian's didn't have rage "rounds" or Rage Powers.

Tireless Rage was implemented so that in the endgame the Barbarian could rage in fights back to back.

Yep thus possibly now having unforeseen consequences. But we can hope that it holds. At least until we have a several thousand post thread in which it gets repeatedly brought to the Dev teams attention.


CWheezy wrote:
i dont think it will be errat'd, considering rage cycling is built into the base class at level 17.

Still have to assume that we are doing it wrong. We thought that Monks could flurry with one weapon until it was "Clarified" in the middle of AoMF discussion. After a lengthy back and forth it was settled that enough people had been doing it "wrong" that it shouldn't be changed to needing two weapons.


Carson Jarroc wrote:
Does jumping out of the way of a fireball provoke an AoO? No.

No but fireball's reflex save doesn't actually move you from the square.


vhok wrote:

Expeditious Excavation.

exact same type of spell but it says it does not provoke. create pit does not have this wording, I would say it does.

And this is what happens when you have to patch a spell. Since Create pit originally didn't move you there was no need for such text. So its not really a case of this spell disproves it since Create Pit never would have had such text.


Rysky wrote:
Khudzlin wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Just because they haven't yet errata rage to block rage cycling doesn't mean they haven't spoken out that rage cycling shouldn't be a thing.
There's a wondrous item called "Cord of Stubborn Resolve" (in Ultimate Equipment). Its effect is to replace fatigue with nonlethal damage (in addition to a +2 CON). In his guide, Jolly refers to it as "Belt of Rage Cycling". If Paizo had spoken out against rage cycling, I expect they wouldn't have made such an item.
Emphasis on the bold.

Yep and after the Flurry requires 2 hands debacle I often wonder just how long anything mundane shall last.


Newborn at my house or I would.


Lemmy Homebrew Corp wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Is there any enchantment that can cause a weapon to switch between having reach and not having reach? I've got a player who wants a custom enchantment to his quarterstaff to basically turn it into the Ruyi Jingu Bang, and I'm not sure if there's a precedent for such a weapon in the books or not.

Well... If this is for a home game, you could use these amazing house-rules to make one such weapon. Just build a staff and give it the "extendable" modification!

While you're at it, make it a Monk weapon too! :)

Awesome

For Lemmy:
Can't seem to direct message you wanted to ask permission before I posted this link to a bleach D20 system board I am on as a great way to do alternate form Zanpaktou.


Jiggy wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's a different definition of "stupid" than the NPC villagers are using when determining how to interact with the PCs. How do you interact with the people you cited as examples? Do you match how folks have suggested having NPCs interact with "dump-statted" PCs?

And do you treat the opposite side of the coin with that much awe? if a 8 or 7 is really causing people to notice how weak/clumsy/frail/dumb/senseless/crass you are do you treat someone with a 14-15 as a god among men in their chosen field?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

It really bugs me that so much gaming material is disseminated via video posts nowadays, rather than in good, old fashioned text.

(Or that smart people haven't worked out how to easily pass such a thing through some software to get a transcript).

Also just a general grievance with facebook, youtube, twitter, etcetera... Grrr.

Do the goblins need to get off your lawn with their newfangled music?:P

My grievance still not getting to play more than once every month or two.


JackalOfBane wrote:
Deaf creatures are immune to audible bardic performances. So if you're inspiring courage to your allies and they all go deaf, you have a 20% chance to fail at giving the performance, but none of them can hear it so it wouldn't go through anyway.

Exactly here is a quote

bardic performance wrote:
If a bardic performance has audible components, the targets must be able to hear the bard for the performance to have any effect, and many such performances are language dependent (as noted in the description). A deaf bard has a 20% chance to fail when attempting to use a bardic performance with an audible component. If he fails this check, the attempt still counts against his daily limit. Deaf creatures are immune to bardic performances with audible components.

As we can see here if anyone fails their save no musical boost for them, if you fail your save then you have a 20% failure chance however what I am not sure on is if its a 20% chance to not be able to maintain each round or is it just to start one?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bastard Sword wrote:
A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
Sawtooth Saber wrote:
Description: A sawtoothed sabre may be used as a Martial Weapon (in which case it functions as a longsword), but if you have the feat Exotic Weapon Proficiency (sawtoothed sabre), you treat the weapon as if it were a light weapon for the purpose of two-weapon fighting—the sabre remains classified as a one-handed melee weapon for all other purposes.

Just to show a text difference between the bastard sword and a weapon that is similar but not exactly the same in having differing levels of proficiency.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So hope to get my hands on this before our next game starts. My wife (GM) will probably kill me though.


I could actually see this one going either way. If they aren't SLAs then you do have the ability to cast arcane spells. Now that may not be the intent but I can see the argument.


I agree more information would be needed. But it seems to say the class already can spontaneously use cure spells. If that is the case then half of this ability is a prone shooter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just looking back at the op's example does the converse apply? IF having a -2 in a stat causes people to shun you like a leper then conversely does having a +2 or better mean everyone treats you like prince?


I have to agree RAW that is how it works. I am not sure that was the intended result however.


Majuba wrote:
Talonhawke, we (most of us) are pointing out just how much interpretation is assumed in the rules. If you fire a normal arrow from a +3 flaming bow, you have a +3 flaming arrow. If you shoot a +1 Holy arrow, you have a +3 flaming holy arrow. It's simple. Some argue otherwise. We are pointing out the absurdity of requiring the text to spell out everything.

I know but looking I actually can't even find rules that flaming would transfer over.


SCPRedMage wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Huh?
He;'s saying that if you hair split the +3 bow gives the arrow a +3 bounus that only gets through magic DR, not cold iron or silver DR, because it's not a magic +3 arrow its simply an arrow that can go through magic DR.

But, we know that a +3 enhancement overcomes that type of DR.

That doesn't need to be repeated.

Actually, nothing states that the ranged weapon confers its enhancement bonus onto the ammunition; the bow is +3, but the arrow it fires is not. The only thing the rules say is this:

Ranged Weapons and Ammunition, pg 468 wrote:
Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Similarly, ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon.

The text under "Overcoming DR" on page 562 is word-for-word identical, save for adding "(in addition to any alignment it may already have)" at the end.

Since the arrow itself doesn't have any enhancement bonus (because the rules don't say that it does, only that it counts as magic for overcoming DR, and has the same alignment), the arrow wouldn't overcome DR as a +3 weapon would; it would just overcome DR /magic, as well as any alignment the bow might have. It wouldn't overcome cold iron or silver DR, unless the ammo was cold iron or silver (and my example said no special materials.

Again, I'm not saying that this is how it's supposed to work, I'm just saying that this is the hair-splitting interpretation.

So now I am confused if nothing carries over to the arrow then is the arrow anything more than DR penetration? Do properties such as flaming or holy deal extra damage or are they only checked for things like DR and Regeneration?


pH unbalanced wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Streamwalker wrote:
Okay, my question was ignored, but after reading the rules I've come to the conclusion that by RAW incorporeal creatures can't deal critical hits or precision damage to other incorporeal creatures, unless they somehow have ghost touch ability.

Its a ghost.

They touch other ghosts.

You know that it's just a slippery slope from saying that a ghost's touch has ghost touch to saying an adamantine golem's fist counts as adamantine.

SSSSSSHHHHHHH!!!!! no no no


Kirth Gersen wrote:

NOTES:

  • Fast recovery is in response to constant complaints from the cleric in our Skull & Shackles game that the barbarian was soaking up all his healing. This makes healing the barbarian a little more effective, and is also thematically appropriate.
  • Superstition is baked into the class progression instead of being a rage power because (a) it has effects even when you're not raging and (b) pretty much everyone wanted it anyway.
  • I may be missing it but where and what was Fast Recovery?

    EDIT: Nevermind didn't think to look into feats.

    1 to 50 of 4,859 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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