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

The Red Mage's page

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 148 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 148 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Dire?

Dat x6 crit multiplier on a 20th level lethal keen scythe fighter.

I don't always threaten critical hits, but when I do, it dies.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Lethal doesn't make sense as a name. Longswords are already lethal weapons :P

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Blackvial wrote:
The Red Mage wrote:
That shaman is totally about to tip over.
maybe she's a little tipsy?

If she's anything like a real world shaman, she's definitely tipsy.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Minor gripe: Why does Djem So grant a benefit when fighting multiple opponents and a penalty when dueling only one? And why does it grant Weapon Finesse? It's supposed to be a slower style emphasizing brute force and effective against overpowering a single opponent.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That shaman is totally about to tip over.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
VRMH wrote:
Incredibly stupid guards are a standard fantasy trope. But usually for a one-scene gag purpose only.

Anything that can fool superhuman genome soldiers can fool even the most observant fantasy guards.

I'd give anyone using a cardboard box as a Stealth aid a +10 circumstance bonus. +20 for a mithral box.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Broken wrote:
The Red Mage wrote:
Honest Feelings

Thank you The Red Mage for looking over the IB6. For my players and myself we are really hoping this system works for us. It wasn't meant to remove gear or save wealth, just standardize certain treasure so a PC doesn't feel like a they are not equipped for a challenge.

It sounds like you have a fix that works for you group and you guys are good with it.

Thank you again for looking it over.

Sure thing, it was in good faith. You're on the right track in trying to solve a problem that has plagued the game for like 15 years. It just has a lot of room for improvement in my opinion.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I appreciate the revised WBL charts, but the fix itself is really convoluted. It isn't so much as a real patch as it is a more complicated way of achieving the same result as in the core game.

It's sort of a strange porridge of a lack of gear dependency (but actually just as gear-dependent) and wealth-saving for cooler stuff (but not really, because you're getting less WBL to spend on said stuff.)

Easier for me just to let my players get the big six for free at the appropriate levels without strings attached, and maybe swap slots around where necessary.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My half-orc bard was heavily influenced by Treantmonk's build, and I was definitely strong as a controller. It was a ton of fun to play that character. To bad the campaign is in extended stasis.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Guts: 20th level Fighter.

Guts? Fighter? He wears medium armor (breastplate), cleaves through everything with an unstoppable berserker rage, and has lots of untyped damage reduction. He tanks hits to his bare flesh constantly and never goes down all the way. I can't imagine him as anything but a barbarian, probably invulnerable rager. His rage is so unstoppable that he

:
saws his own arm off through sheer force of will to get into melee range with Griffith/Femto.

Not to mention he doesn't fight like a disciplined soldier. He's a force of nature.

Edit: His present era armor is pretty much half-plate though. Must've taken proficiency at some point after the golden age.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

20 million arrows.

Let them fight in the shade!

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Easiest way to solve this problem:

Cut the brake lines or puncture them for a small leak (harder to notice at first.) Don't forget to shred up the cable of the emergency brake- that's a rookie mistake.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Caustic Slur thread is filled with real gems from SKR.

Can't say I'm crying in my beer over him not handling any mechanics anymore.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:


Why not just raise spell failure to 100 percent when someone just simply wields a sword in the same room while you're at it, the way it was done in Saberhagen's books?

A fighter who misses his opponent is out a hit opportunity. He still has infinite amount of sword swings left in him. A wizard who loses a spell to arcane failure is out a daily resource he's not getting back until tomorrow.

That's a massive false equivalence. Standing next to a guy waving around a greatsword can and should impose a significant penalty to being able to alter reality at a whim using precise gestures, vocalizations and components.

There are so many ways for a wizard to not even get into a defensive casting situation it's not even funny. Not to mention having a huge pool of resources he can draw from if he (for some unknown reason) spends every round standing next to melee guys and somehow always fails his defensive casting, like using wands, school powers, pearls of power, staves, scrolls, his bonded object, using the SLAs of his summons, etc. Don't pretend like wizards' resources are meaningfully limited.

And any number of spells prevent any chance a melee martial might even have to physically get next to the wizard.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Has anyone ever tried changing the casting defensively mechanic to just being a flat arcane spell failure chance increase instead of a check? Something like 50%, 35% with combat casting, stacks with all other arcane spell failure chance. Would hurt just as bad at all levels. Disruptive would increase the failure chance by 25% or something.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MendedWall12 wrote:
Sarcasm is such a great way to point out something's potential or inherent flaws with language that denotes no such problem.

It's also a great way to talk about something that would send me into a blind rage if I tried to talk about its flaws earnestly.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MrSin wrote:

If I had to guess the idea was that they were taking a penalty so its a bad thing.

Of course getting hit by someone with a bonus to damage is a bad thing, and power attack can be a really good trade...

The funniest thing about the feat is this line:

"If the creature already has the power attack feat, the attack penalty increases by 1 and the damage bonus increases by 2."

So it essentially gives you the next increment of power attack for free. At the higher single digit levels, any CR-appropriate creature is going to hit most player ACs most of the time on its first attack. So it's a straight up buff.

Even sillier is that getting Caustic Slur'd is the only way I know of for a PC to get +14 to damage with power attack (+21 with two-handers!)
You'd normally need BAB +24 to do that.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:
You might want to reroll that Sense Motive check...

Wow. I guess Glibness really is that good!

:
Flurry of Sarcasm is apparently OP, please errata.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Another prediction: a completely spell-less ranger with an animal companion on par with a druid and nifty hunting tricks. You could call it the Hunter! Totally spell-less though. You know, cuz when I think of a word as catch-all and archetypal as hunter, I don't think of spells. But that's an obvious one.

Andoran

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

No, I mean, that's the actual flavor text.

"You are faster than most."

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scavion wrote:


I assume you don't allow blood money or simulacrum at your tables either.

People allow blood money and simulacrums at their tables? Whoa.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'd have atomic breath deal untyped damage.

It destroys everything, man. I don't care how immune a balor is. He's getting torched.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I sure hope they don't do anything silly like make a class that combines the best mechanics of the wizard and the sorcerer without their inherent weaknesses, minmaxing your character before you even pick your spells.

That would be pretty silly.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Obvious worst: Caustic Slur

Stealth worst: Extra Rogue Talent (powerful sneak)

Worst flavor: Fleet

You are, um... Faster than most?

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

They're releasing an advanced class guide? Cool!

Predictions: awesome new Style Feats, a repeal of the Crane Wing errata, errata that allows Vital Strike to be used with Spring Attack and charging, powerful rogue talents, lots of tasty archetypes, a handful of setting-neutral prestige classes, and maybe even a brand new base class (something we've never seen before, like an engineer or something), and no caster power creep at all.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Change wasn't needed, it was balanced and acceptable.

The main use of the feat was to provide a buffer against normally unblockable attacks like natural 20s or True Strike- which could spell doom for skinny finesse characters on crits.

My weapon master fighter/duelist was going to take it next level. He's focused on mobility, baiting AOOs to free up the party, has respectable damage output, and solid AC.

When I saw the Crane Style line, I knew more nice things would be had. That nice thing can be had no more.

My group won't be touching this errata with a ten-foot pole.

EDIT: Oops, sorry for the unintended necro. Not too terrible to raise more awareness for this though, aye?

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There are tons of tweaks that bring full casters down a notch, but as I'm pressed for time, I'll just post a really quick and dirty one.

Quicken Spell does not exist. Only feather fall and other incredibly minor spells have less than a standard action casting time. There is no way to cast more than one spell per round except feather fall and similar spells.

"I have an app for that" spells are kicked up a spell level or two (basically anything that insta-trivializes skills), and the particularly egregious examples (Glibness) do not exist.

Not panaceas, but they help a little bit.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I didn't know about Crane Wing. Cannot unsee that errata.

Can someone cast Modify Memory on me? I'll willingly fail my save.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:


And being constantly badgered insulted and called a child by a bunch of people hiding behind fake names and avatars who can't just accept my position constantly is annoying as well.

I'm happy to discuss the game. But don't try to be an internet tough guy and accuse posters of "hiding" behind fake names.

If I was talkin' crazy and then regretted it later, I wouldn't want that to be attached to my real name. Just a thought.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
137ben wrote:


Yea, there's that.
On the other hand, my players (including those who play wizards) asked me to nerf Ice Assassin because some of them liked the idea but didn't want to break the game.

Haven't heard of ice assassin, but I'm glad your players game responsibly in that regard.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Athaleon wrote:

[

I dont think he's a troll. In any game, people who play a certain class will vehemently deny that their class needs a nerf.

"Nathanael Love wrote:
I LIKE THE GAME THE WAY IT IS AND DON'T WANT WIZARDS NERFED TO THE GROUND

You sure?

But I know what you mean. MMO forums are particularly fun.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:
And now I'm whining. . . you can't just accept my opinion that I LIKE THE GAME THE WAY IT IS AND DON'T WANT WIZARDS NERFED TO THE GROUND and move on?

Dude, if you like the game how it is, don't buy this hypothetical 2e that has reasonable casters and less exponential caster progression.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:

I enjoy the game the way it is now.

I don't want a new edition.

Why do you have to insult me for liking Pathfinder?

You're overreacting and crying foul when no one has said they want to gut wizards, so my troll detector is going off. I've played wizards. I like wizards. Wizards have been friends of mine. Wizards will always be top dog in a 3.x-styled system. But a little humility on their part would go a long way for everyone else's fun.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:


Just because you hate wizards why do you insist on trying to force them to be taken away from everyone else?

Why is the way me and my group have fun wrong?

How is it that the two players at my table who play almost exclusively martials and often actual fighters have never had a problem with "OP Wizards" that would require some new edition where Wizards can't be player?

Balance out the most overpowered class a little to stabilize the game at higher levels = hating wizards.

One group's fun = better than game design.

Two outlier players who enjoy playing gimped classes = everyone enjoys it.

Troll detected?

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:
The Red Mage wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:


Suffocation and Mass Suffocation the two most powerful save or die spells EVER published were brand new, Pathfinder only additions.

But oh yeah, totally nerfed save or dies.

Cool. Does that make the game better for you?
Would it make the game better for you for me to not be able to play a wizard?

If you can't play a wizard just because he's taken down a notch, then yes. Because then more people who appreciate diversity would be having more fun, and PF1 would still exist for those who don't.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:


Suffocation and Mass Suffocation the two most powerful save or die spells EVER published were brand new, Pathfinder only additions.

But oh yeah, totally nerfed save or dies.

Cool. Does that make the game better for you?

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:

Is that a no?

You wouldn't want to play a game where all your good stuff was taken away, your kool aid defiled, and you favorite class reduced to a shadow of its former self?

So why do you expect me to?

Why would you think me or anyone else who enjoys the game now would want to double down on buying a ton of new books with nerfed classes?

Not nerfed classes, a reworked magic system.

Why do you think several aspects of the magic system (polymorphing, CoDzilla, save-or-dies, many others) were nerfed for PF? The game is better for it. 3.5 would better suit your needs.

Edit: In other words, I'd rather have a more balanced, less exponential, and less gamebreaking magic system rather than buffed mechanics for martials that further exacerbates the mechanical breakdown of the game at higher levels.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:
The Red Mage wrote:


Talk about crying the end is near.

Lessening the overwhelming impressiveness of spells would in no way throw casters into the garbage. You realize PF is an extremely high-magic system, right? Even with several game-breaking spells receiving nerfs, magic would still be better than mundane options in every way, if only because they bend reality to the will of the caster in a way martials could never do.

You realize I want to play an extremely high-magic game, right?

That's why I found one in the form of D&D 3.X and then Pathfinder and decided to play it.

I'm not going to decide to play a game that takes that away.

Then play PF as it is. A large contingent of PF players enjoy the system's versimilatude/rules based on real-life physics (except magic, for obvious reasons.), but don't enjoy high-magic being the only viable option.

This is a thread for what we would like to see improved for a new edition, not a rehash that carries over the same problems of previous editions.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:

Because many people love having things taken away from them and being told they should be happy and like it because "its better".

How about we give fighters nothing new, and put them on d4 hit dice?

Actually, that's my suggestion-- martials are too powerful-- all classes with full BaB get d4 hit dice and are only allowed to use Knives that do d3 damage and nothing else-- trust me its better.

You fighter players interested?

Evidently you've never played a martial, or any system other than 3.x.

This is false equivalence of the highest degree. Casters are far superior to martials. Martials don't need power creep, casters need a less broken magic system.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:
The Red Mage wrote:

No bandaids for martial characters, or giving them resource management abilities that are spells by another name, or just giving them a bunch of overwhelming static bonuses.

Just redo the core magic system. That's where the problem of 3.x lies in the first place. As long as magic works the way it does, PF will always be lopsided. I'm tired of the "I have a spell for that" situation that makes careful skill allocation redundant. Magic will still be just better. But it doesn't need to be this good.

Edit: I'm not suggesting I don't like the martial/vancian divide. It's one of the things I love about all pre-4e editions of the game and it's always made the system unique, though your mileage may vary on whether or not vancian casting is a pain. I really enjoy its versatility. I just don't think spells need to be so powerful.

Yet again, taking the Wizard out or ruining him is not going to bring people along to the new edition. Every single person who enjoys writing "Wizard" "Sorcerer" "Cleric" or "Druid" on their sheet is out straight from the gate.

Enjoy playing that game where only die hard martial fans play-- of course it already exists in a half dozen forms now, so not sure why we need a new edition to ruin the game and throw half the classes into the garbage.

Talk about crying the end is near.

Lessening the overwhelming impressiveness of spells would in no way throw casters into the garbage. You realize PF is an extremely high-magic system, right? Even with several game-breaking spells receiving nerfs, magic would still be better than mundane options in every way, if only because they bend reality to the will of the caster in a way martials could never do.

Andoran

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

No bandaids for martial characters, or giving them resource management abilities that are spells by another name, or just giving them a bunch of overwhelming static bonuses.

Just redo the core magic system. That's where the problem of 3.x lies in the first place. As long as magic works the way it does, PF will always be lopsided. I'm tired of the "I have a spell for that" situation that makes careful skill allocation redundant. Magic will still be just better. But it doesn't need to be this good.

Edit: I'm not suggesting I don't like the martial/vancian divide. It's one of the things I love about all pre-4e editions of the game and it's always made the system unique, though your mileage may vary on whether or not vancian casting is a pain. I really enjoy its versatility. I just don't think spells need to be so powerful.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A man after my own heart!

Dot.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malwing wrote:

I think it makes some sense, but considering that Acrobatics is already a combination of a few skills I'm compelled to max it out.

A wizard, for example, usually has some ranks in Fly for his flight spells. I just find it a little head-scratching that he'd now (presumably) get what used to be jump and tumble as class skills. YMMV if your GM thinks wizards should be trained athletes. And creatures that can fly really well can also be pretty cumbersome and sluggish on land.

It's a nitpick for sure, but since Acrobatics is already arguably a strange combo of old skills, adding Fly seems a little over-the-top. I haven't run into a case where a player feels maxing out both is too taxing.

EDIT: And PF rolled Balance into Acro as well IIRC. I also miss fighters being able to leap around, but that's another topic.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Acrobatics-as-Fly makes no sense. Oppose the hell out of that.

I can think of dozens of creatures off the top of my head that can soar across the skies but can't do a barrel-roll/headstand worth a damn.

Like dragons, for example.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

Hm. Maybe it'll be more useful here than it was in KOTOR...

That was a game that knew how to make TWFing the be all end all of combat, fo sho'.

Totally, TWFing was insane in KOTOR. My first run through was with a dual wielding sentinel (red and purple 'sabers), and in my second playthrough I wondered why my attacks suddenly sucked.

In PF though, there aren't a ton of ways to get flat bonuses to attack and AC through feats. Weapon focus, greater weapon focus, shield focus, greater shield focus and dodge are the only ones I think. And they all require you to pick a very specific weapon or use a shield. I've found that giving one-handers just a little gravy that eventually scales in the form of attack and AC works pretty well.

Edit: But our group has also nixed Weapon Finesse and removed it as a prerequisite for any feats that rely on it. Any light or finessable weapons can be optionally used with Dex. So it probably works for us better than RAW groups that have to deal with more feat taxes.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The one-handed fighting idea reminds me of a feat my group uses.

Dueling
Prerequisites: Dex 11, base attack bonus +1
You are especially skilled at fighting with a single weapon in your main hand.
Benefit: You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to attack rolls and +1 dodge bonus to AC when wielding a single melee weapon in your main hand and nothing in your off-hand. These bonuses improve to +2 when your base attack bonus reaches +8, and to +3 when your base attack bonus reaches +15.

We pretty much stole it from the KOTOR feat of the same name, but it's a nice bonus and it opens up an expansive homebrew feat chain for freehand types.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

3.5-

We had some doozies in the early days. All four of these players didn't last long in our group.

Tobias Danceholic: CE gnome necromancer who was burned at the stake by angry townsfolk after a few sessions.

Master Bates: half-elf ranger. Killed by a roof collapse.

Stiggs: incredibly annoying miniature anthropomorphic raccoon. Drowned unceremoniously after being tossed off a galleon by an exasperated NPC.

The Great Shirar: variant goblinoid sorcerer. One game he fell asleep in someone's backpack in a forest. We ended up fighting a dire bear and accidentally burned most of the forest in the process. We later discovered his charred remains in the backpack by a scorched tree.

Pathfinder-

Mountain Dwarf: a...mountain dwarf... with a warhammer musket. Still with us. And his player actually characterizes him really well (his name is one he bestowed upon himself for reasons that would take a long time to explain)

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
The Red Mage wrote:

I like my martials being able to do everything they can do all day long.

That's the thing about Deeds, you can do them all day long, but rather than having a list of class features of things the class always does, the Deeds are a list of abilities one has access to, much like a spell list.

Deeds are the martial equivalent of Spells, and Grit/Panache are the mechanics that fuel it. The specifics of Grit/Panache allow the character to regenerate their points based on combat prowess. You are basically guaranteed to get back your pool any time you land a crit or down an enemy. There are also DM fiat moments where the DM can just plain say: "That was awesome, you get back a grit point."

Cunning would be a fine name for an INT based Deeds list.

The main thing about the list of Deeds is it is a list of variable options available to martial characters that they have access to all of and not just the ones they waste their resources (feats) on. It adds something to the martial character that simply having an effective build does not.

I'm of the opinion that you don't need to codify every little combat action you can in the rules take as a nonmagic character. There are circumstance bonuses, flavoring, creativity in description and lots of player/GM overrides in my games, but YMMV. I also play home games so the freedom allowed by a less codified martial system is a big deal to me. I guess it's different for PFS regulars.

You can't do that with spells, because spells are extremely specific magical effects that alter the world in specific ways. They aren't flavored as easily beyond 'my spell looks like this' because they have a lot more tags attached to them in terms of what they actually do.

I know deeds are martial spells, and that was kind of my point. I don't want those for my martial characters, because I like that they play differently are require less bookkeeping.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Owly wrote:
I'm holding out for wicker armor, like Joxer wore in Xena.

Finally a use for Craft (baskets)!

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It could be some nice gravy but it leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

I like my martials being able to do everything they can do all day long.

Martials do need work in terms of power level, but I'd like to see a Complete Warrior-style book, with lots of *really powerful* always-on feats and options (including stuff like the old Tactical Feats), a couple of PrCs and archetypes, and maybe only a smattering of deeds/panache/arcana/ki. I think there are other ways for a fighter to get on the caster's level (,bro).

I've always liked the fact that martials play differently from casters in 3.x. It's one of the reasons 4E felt a little samey to me.

And I'm not sure about requiring every martial to need Int, Wis or Cha. It leaves no room for the classic powerhouse soldier-type without wits, reason or a dashing smile, but with a lot of battlefield experience. That would further the power divide between martials and SAD casters.

1 to 50 of 148 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 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.