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

concerro's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 2,622 posts (38,295 including aliases). 3 reviews. 8 lists. 4 wishlists. 25 aliases.

1 to 50 of 1,634 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I remember that thread. :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Nah Wraith ya did good.

Shisumo did a great level 5 comparison and you did a great level 11 comparison.

This is important because a lot of peoples games end before even hitting level 10, heck level 5 might be just about the end of a players adventuring career.

In PFS you get up to level 12ish, so the level 11 comparison shows just how good a first time built investigator is compared to a Rogue.

I can only imagine the gap grows wider by 20.

BTW theres a chest wondrous item that keeps your mutagen from decreasing your mental stats.

I did not know the investigator got mutagens. I thought they only got extracts. I didn't see Alchemist Discovery, and it is the first one listed.

I see it now. I might try one of these in a real game now.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hazrond wrote:
Dear god. S is playing a dhampir and he managed to talk the DM into letting him take abilities from the vampire template as feats, he says at 3rd level he is going to take Create Spawn, and he is talking about using it on my character. Personally i think the DM isnt stupid enough to actually allow this and i messaged him about it but S keeps saying that the DM said he could "pick any he wanted"

Leave the group and join Find a new group. I have been in 3 groups so I know there are decent ones out there.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:


It looks to me like your build is always better at combat and needs inspiration or buffing extracts to compete with the Rogue in skills.

Would you be in agreement with that assessment?

The inspiration is a class feature just like the rogue talents are that make skills better. That allow the +X to be lower slightly, but still makes the investigator at least equal.

As an example the rogue has +1 on diplomacy and bluff, but the inspiration will give an average of about 3.5 per roll. The investigator can do this 9 times per day if needed. I doubt 9 uses will be needed.

For intimidate the rogue has a +19, but the investigator uses bluff or diplomacy to get people to act friendly toward him. I took the points I would have put into intimidation, and used them to spread around other skills. The investigator is ahead in knowledges and those even have free inspiration uses, so they don't even eat into my 9/day.
The inspiration also has the rogue behind again in linguistics due to free uses despite having an +18 just like the investigator.
The rogue is one better in perception, and sense motive. The investigator is ahead by +5 in stealth.

The rogue is +1 better in social skills(not including intimidation) before inspiration or any extracts.

The rogue flat out loses in knowledges.

The rogue is out with regard to linguistics also. Yeah the bonus is the same, but the investigator gets that 1d6 every time with no cost.

The rogue is +1 better in perception and sense motive before inspiration or any extracts.

The investigator has a +5 in stealth

The investigator still has almost 10000 gp. He can easily erase the +1 advantage in the wisdom or charisma based skills. He won't pull far ahead, but pulling even can be done with an ioun stone.

I would say the investigator has the advantage in skills also.

PS: I did not think things were that close in skills until you brought it up.

edit: For the skills where inspiration is free I would say there should be no complaint since it is not a limited ability in those areas. No, I am not accusing anyone of complaining, and I also realize I misread the question the first. The race is very close without inspiration's limited uses in some areas.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:


Investigator still better even while using their trap class feature instead of just studied combat.


I was tempted to not use studied strike just to keep the attack bonus up. Well since I have time. I will run the "best conditions" without the precision damage and see what I get. :)

60.84 for the investigator even without precision damage. So this means that when going up against some creature that is immune to precision damage or that can't be targeted properly the investigator can still do some damage. If I take away the rogue's sneak attack in the same situation I get 25.53 for the rogue.

I guess this also shows that the rogue is too dependent on sneak attack, and that a combination of a "to hit" bonus, and sneak attack would have been better, even if it was less sneak attack dice.

edit: I really did not like how using the precision damage turns off the "to hit" bonus for the investigator.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oly wrote:

And people who point out the rogue's inferiority will be accused of "hating" Rogues.

It's more like the opposite. Let's say that those who try to claim the Rogue is as good as the Investigator succeed in convincing whoever (PF devs, GM's, PFS, whoever) that in fact they are.

They'll only succeed at convincing those not to give Rogues an edge in design or house rules to balance their weakness.

I read somewhere that PF Unchained will give rogues full BAB. That won't make them equal to Investigators if done, but it would make things a lot closer. Combined with improving Rogue Talents, it could make them equal. But if you "win" the argument and convince everyone that Rogues are good enough now, you'd prevent that from happening or convince GM's to house rule it out.

I like the flavor of the Rogue plenty (not as good at straight up combat, but outwits opponents to defeat them). It's just the case, right now, that to get that flavor-- the same types of abilities-- but be worthwhile overall, you're better off as an Investigator.

That book is supposed to come out in April. It is almost February. Most likely it is already being printed or about to be printed.

Even if the rogue is shown to be on par which I doubt will happen the rogue is getting some help finally. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you are a sleuth the idea is to avoid a fight if possible, but you should be prepared to fight if you have to. Since I doubt the rogue can come out ahead I pushed the skills side more than the fighting side to see if he can out-skill(sleuth) the invesigator.

Rogu the rogue:

Male half-orc rogue 11
LN Medium humanoid (human, orc)
Init -1; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +26
AC 19, touch 11, flat-footed 19 (+6 armor, +2 deflection, -1 Dex, +2 natural)
hp 69 (11d8+11)
Fort +9, Ref +9, Will +9
Defensive Abilities evasion, improved uncanny dodge, orc ferocity, trap sense +3
Speed 30 ft. (20 ft. in armor)
Melee +3 falchion +14/+9 (2d4+7/18-20) or
. . dagger +11/+6 (1d4+3/19-20) or
. . morningstar +11/+6 (1d8+3)
Ranged +1 adaptive composite shortbow +8/+3 (1d6+4/×3)
Special Attacks sneak attack +6d6
Str 17, Dex 8, Con 12, Int 18, Wis 13, Cha 10
Base Atk +8; CMB +11; CMD 22
Feats Extra Rogue Talent[APG], Extra Rogue Talent[APG], Great Fortitude, Iron Will, Power Attack, Skill Focus (Perception)
Skills Acrobatics +4 (+0 to jump), Appraise +10, Bluff +17, Climb +5, Diplomacy +17, Disable Device +17, Disguise +17, Escape Artist +10, Intimidate +19, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +12, Knowledge (local) +18, Linguistics +18, Perception +26 (+30 to hear the details of a conversation or to find concealed or secret objects (including doors and traps)), Sense Motive +15, Sleight of Hand +5, Stealth +20, Swim +4; Racial Modifiers +2 Intimidate
Languages Abyssal, Common, Dark Folk, Draconic, Dwarven, Elven, Gnoll, Gnome, Goblin, Halfling, Kelish, Orc, Osiriani, Thassilonian, Tien, Undercommon, Varisian
SQ orc blood, rogue talents (canny observer, charmer, fast picks, follow clues, hard minded, honeyed words, quick disguise), trapfinding +5
Combat Gear caltrops; Other Gear +2 shadow, improved mithral chain shirt, +1 adaptive composite shortbow (+3 Str), +3 falchion, arrows (40), blunt arrows (40), dagger, morningstar, amulet of natural armor +2, belt of giant strength +2, circlet of persuasion, cloak of resistance +3, eyes of the eagle, handy haversack, ring of protection +2, backpack, bedroll, belt pouch, chalk (10), flint and steel, grappling hook, hemp rope (50 ft.), masterwork thieves' tools, mess kit, mirror, piton (10), pot, soap, thieves' tools, torch (10), trail rations (5), waterskin, gold 9637, 1,137 gp
Special Abilities
Canny Observer (Ex) +4 Perception to overhear conversations or find concealed or secret objects.
Charmer (3/day) (Ex) Can roll 2d20 for Diplomacy check and take the better result.
Circlet of persuasion +3 competence bonus to CHA-based checks (skills already included).
Darkvision (60 feet) You can see in the dark (black and white vision only).
Evasion (Ex) If you succeed at a Reflex save for half damage, you take none instead.
Fast Picks (Ex) Can use Disable Device to open a lock as a standard (rather than full-rd) action.
Follow Clues (Ex) Can follow tracks using Perception (rather than survival).
Hard Minded (Ex) A rogue with this talent is hard to fool with mind-affecting effects. At the start of her turn, if she is still subject to any mind-affecting spells or effects, she can make a Will saving throw with a standard DC for the effect's level, and if she su
Honeyed Words (3/day) (Ex) Can roll 2d20 for Bluff check and take the better result.
Improved Uncanny Dodge (Lv >=15) (Ex) Retain DEX bonus to AC when flat-footed. You cannot be flanked unless the attacker is Level 15+.
Orc Blood Half-orcs count as both humans and orcs for any effect related to race.
Orc Ferocity (1/day) If brought below 0 Hp, can act as though disabled for 1 rd.
Power Attack -3/+6 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Quick Disguise (Ex) Disguise checks take less time.
Sneak Attack +6d6 Attacks deal extra dam if flank foe or if foe is flat-footed.
Trap Sense +3 (Ex) +3 bonus on reflex saves and AC against traps.
Trapfinding +5 Gain a bonus to find or disable traps, including magical ones.

Rogue speaks a lot of languages

The rogue talents chosen are there to make Rogu better at skills, which to me is different than just having more skills. As an example honey-eyed words allows for 2 rolls on a bluff check 3/day.

No sneak attack no power attack 10.35

Power attack no sneak attack 10.76

Power attack no sneak attack vs DR <---not worth calculating

Flank assumed for sneak attack
Sneak attack, no power attack 33.06

Sneak attack, no power attack vs DR 5 28.31

Sneak attack and power attack 29.35

Sneak attack and power attack vs DR 5 26.10

This is not good, but let's assume the best case scenario

Haste grants 56.44(59.16 if I do not power attack)
I will just replace it with weapon focus since it does not seem to be helping. Now I am at 64.38

My first ever investigator. I hope I don't have to choose any spells. Yeah, I have never read the rules in detail for this class before. <Goes away to read the class description>

A couple of points

I felt like the investigator was ahead before I even chose extracts but with the extracts in place to boost skills I think the investigator is clearly ahead. With studied combat in place the investigator should be ahead in damage also.

Igor the Investigator:

Igor the Invesigator
Half-orc investigator 11 (Pathfinder RPG Advanced Class Guide 30)
LN Medium humanoid (human, orc)
Init +1; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +25
AC 19, touch 12, flat-footed 18 (+6 armor, +1 deflection, +1 Dex, +1 natural)
hp 69 (11d8+11)
Fort +9, Ref +11, Will +10
Defensive Abilities orc ferocity, trap sense +3; Immune poison
Speed 30 ft.
Melee +3 falchion +15/+10 (2d4+9/18-20) or
. . dagger +12/+7 (1d4+4/19-20) or
. . morningstar +12/+7 (1d8+4)
Ranged +1 adaptive composite shortbow +10/+5 (1d6+5/×3)
Special Attacks studied combat (+5, 4 rounds), studied strike +4d6
Investigator Extracts Prepared (CL 11th; concentration +15)
. . 4th—echolocation[UM], freedom of movement, restoration
. . 3rd—fly (2), haste (2), tongues
. . 2nd—barkskin (2), investigative mind[ACG], invisibility (2)
. . 1st—comprehend languages, cure light wounds, disguise self, identify, long arm[ACG] (2)
Str 18, Dex 13, Con 12, Int 19, Wis 10, Cha 8
Base Atk +8; CMB +12; CMD 24
Feats Extra Investigator Talent[ACG], Extra Investigator Talent[ACG], Furious Focus[APG], Great Fortitude, Power Attack, Skill Focus (Perception)
Skills Acrobatics +5, Appraise +8, Bluff +16, Climb +8, Diplomacy +16, Disable Device +22, Disguise +16, Intimidate +4, Knowledge (arcana) +11, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +8, Knowledge (engineering) +8, Knowledge (geography) +8, Knowledge (history) +8, Knowledge (local) +12, Knowledge (nature) +8, Knowledge (nobility) +9, Knowledge (planes) +8, Knowledge (religion) +8, Linguistics +18, Perception +25 (+29 to hear the details of a conversation or to find concealed or secret objects (including doors and traps)), Sense Motive +14, Sleight of Hand +5, Spellcraft +18, Stealth +25; Racial Modifiers +2 Intimidate
Languages Abyssal, Celestial, Common, Draconic, Dwarven, Elven, Giant, Gnome, Goblin, Halfling, Infernal, Orc, Polyglot, Sylvan, Tengu, Tien, Varisian
SQ alchemy (alchemy crafting +11), inspiration (9/day), investigator talents (canny observer, charmer, coax information, eidetic recollection, expanded inspiration, honeyed words, perceptive tracking), keen recollection, orc blood, poison lore, swift alchemy, trapfinding +5
Other Gear +2 shadow, improved mithral chain shirt, +1 adaptive composite shortbow (+2 Str), +3 falchion, arrows (40), blunt arrows (40), dagger, morningstar, amulet of natural armor +1, belt of giant strength +2, circlet of persuasion, cloak of resistance +3, eyes of the eagle, handy haversack, headband of vast intelligence +2, ring of protection +1, alchemy crafting kit, backpack, bedroll, belt pouch, flint and steel, ink, black, inkpen, masterwork thieves' tools, mess kit, pot, soap, torch (10), trail rations (5), waterskin, 9,844 gp
Special Abilities
Alchemy +11 (Su) +11 to Craft (Alchemy) to create alchemical items, can Id potions by touch.
Canny Observer (Ex) +4 Perception to overhear conversations or find concealed or secret objects.
Charmer (3/day) (Ex) Can roll 2d20 for Diplomacy check and take the better result.
Circlet of persuasion +3 competence bonus to CHA-based checks (skills already included).
Coax information (Ex) Can use Bluff or Diplomacy to force an opponent to act friendly.
Darkvision (60 feet) You can see in the dark (black and white vision only).
Eidetic Recollection (Su) Can always take 10 on Knowledge checks, use 1 inspiration to take 20.
Expanded Inspiration (Ex) Free Inspiration on Diplomacy, Heal, Perception, Profession, Sense Motive (if trained).
Furious Focus If you are wielding a weapon in two hands, ignore the penalty for your first attack of each turn.
Honeyed Words (3/day) (Ex) Can roll 2d20 for Bluff check and take the better result.
Immunity to Poison You are immune to poison.
Inspiration (+1d6, 9/day) (Ex) Use 1 point, +1d6 to trained skill or ability check. Use 2 points, to add to attack or save.
Orc Blood Half-orcs count as both humans and orcs for any effect related to race.
Orc Ferocity (1/day) If brought below 0 Hp, can act as though disabled for 1 rd.
Perceptive Tracking (Ex) Can use Perception to find and follow tracks.
Poison Lore (Ex) After 1 min can use Know to ID poisons, 1 min more to neutralize with Craft (alchemy).
Power Attack -3/+6 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Studied Combat (+5, 4 rounds) (Ex) As a move action, study foe to gain bonus to att & dam for duration or until use studied strike.
Studied Strike +4d6 (Ex) As a free action on a melee hit, end studied combat vs. foe to add precision dam.
Swift Alchemy (Ex) You can construct alchemical items in half the normal time.
Trap Sense +3 (Ex) +3 bonus on reflex saves and AC against traps.
Trapfinding +5 Gain a bonus to find or disable traps, including magical ones.

No studied strike no power attack 13.69 Investigator is ahead

Power attack no studied strike 18.52 Investigator is ahead

Power attack no studied strike vs DR 5<---not worth calculating

For purpose of studied strike I will assume studied combat was in play for the first attack, and then turned off for all other attacks in that round

studied strike, no power attack 31.61 Investigator is ahead. It really makes no sense to give a rogue a free flank in these contest because in a game everyone should be trying to flank anyway, but even with the flank the rogue is ahead here by 2 points since the investigator was only pushed to 31.92

studied strike, no power attack vs DR 5 25.57

studied strike and power attack 36.41 Investigator is ahead

studied strike and power attack vs DR 5 31.23 Investigator is better against DR 5 than a rogue is without facing DR.

best case scenario--> flanking, haste(can give himself haste), both added 72.81

edit: Igor also has about 9000 gp left and I did not purchase any extracts to add to the book because they were not needed. I just took the ones I got automatically except for Freedom of Movement and Greater Invis. I also for to pay for them so assume I am a little poorer than my 9000+ gp suggest.

9844gp to be exact

1 person marked this as a favorite.

959 a claim is not proof. Anyone can make a claim. I dont care for the rogue and I have never looked at an investigator so I was interested in the results so I could avoid doing any leg work. I will post a rogue and investigator when I get home if nobody else does. That will also get rid of the system mastery excuse sincere it will be the same person making both characters. I can also do DPR and DPR vs DR 10 and DR 5 with and without buffs and when precision damage is and is not in play. Someone else can handle decide anything else such as specific monsters that fly or made to do a lot of damage in melee such as giants. They can also look at the "sleuth" aspect. If this is unfair to someone then say why. I will not be home for a few hours however.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
A Medium-Sized Animated Object wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
A Medium-Sized Animated Object wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

Fair enough. Seems a misunderstanding. :)

I agreed, and pointed out that this disparity in what the player wants and what the player needs is a big part of why the rogue doesn't work the way players want it to.
That and that players want one thing, need another thing, and the rogue delivers neither.
... and so is perhaps not the right class for them. Agree! They should probably play a duelist.
Do you mean the bad prestige class?


I mean a character that approximates the archetypal duelist. Do you want to argue semantics, now?

I have learned you have to be specific around here. Certain words such as "assassin" must be defined so people know when you are talking about the profession or the PrC. Duelist is another.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is no rule saying creatures of size X can only have Y reach. It just happens they typically have Y reach so the extra long limbs are not an issue. If the argument is that reach needs to be calles out the changing into a huge elemental means you only have 5 ft reach since reach is no given as a special ability in any polymorph rule.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Your cohort is more like someone that looks up to you. He is not just someone has no desires of his own and does whatever you say.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Inbox me the name of that module, if you don't mind. It sounds like fun.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is nothing wrong with not killing the players. Now if the players start complaining about it being too easy then feel free to ramp things up a little.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Devil's Advocate wrote:

Check it out, everyone! The Eschew Materials feat lets fighters cast unlimited 9th-level spells!

Eschew Materials wrote:
Benefit: You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. If the spell requires a material component that costs more than 1 gp, you must have the material component on hand to cast the spell, as normal.

See that! "You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less..." It says it right there in the first sentence. And it doesn't say that spells you cast require you to spend spell slots or mythic power. As long as it's a spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less, you just cast it for free whenever you want.

Also, the Quick Draw feat lets you draw a weapon even if you have no free hands or other prehensile limbs! It says, "You can draw a weapon as a free action..." It's granting you the ability to draw weapons even if you would otherwise be physically incapable of drawing weapons! After all, the ability to physically draw weapons is not a prerequisite for this feat, and the feat explicitly grants you that ability! If you have no available hands, you can just telekinetically draw your weapons!

Well, either that or an ability that says, "You can do X without doing Y," is granting you the ability to ignore Y whenever you do X, not also granting you the ability to do X. But that's crazy talk. That argument assumes that the English language grants readers the latitude to consider context and common sense when determining which of two clauses within a sentence is dependent upon the other. And, as we all know, the English language is an infinitely precise computer language, any sentence of which can have only one meaning when parsed, regardless of context.

Interestingly enough, the reason this doesn't work is because it doesn't provide a mechanism for casting spells. Arcane surge...

It works by strict RAW to me if the other one works. Of course this just highlights the point that you(general statement) can't go around shouting "RAW" because the words will still mean different things to different people. Maybe if it is something such as "you get a +1 to attack", which is very direct, but other than that RAW does not hold as much weight as many think it does.

PS: Not directed at BigT. Just making at point

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover wrote:

I know about published material. I'm just wondering what folks do with their homebrewed/improvised stuff. A combo of 3 arcane spells ensures that a 1st level arcane caster villain has a +10 AC versus good PCs. That means that, if the wizard also has a decent Dex and a Size bonus, they're nearly unhittable.

A 4th buff on the same caster ensures that they have an inexhaustible ray of frost (ranged touch) with a +4 to hit. The right build gives the wizard a Ranged ray of frost (ranged attack) +4 (1d3+7) while they themselves are untouchable with a 24 AC. All at level 1.

That just seems more challenging than a CR 1/2 fight should be. WBL that caster can have as many as 5 level 1 scrolls if you count them as part of their gear; more if they have Scribe Scroll for free or you spend their WBL from offense/defense on the appropriate scrolls.

This then gives you a level 1 caster with the above stats who surrounds themselves with grease and mist making them concealed and the PCs can't charge. He then, what, just peppers them with rays until either the PCs are all dead/running away or they wait out his buffs? Again, this is a CR 1/2 threat.

Wow. Arcane casters really DO get all the fun stuff...

I was speaking for when I used to do homebrew adventures and published modules.

Normally a module will say _____ has X,Y, and Z activated, but I would not have them with every buff in place if they were less than hour/level spell if they did not know the PC's were in the building.

If an enemy escapes, an alarm spell, or the PC's are detected by other means then the BBEG gets more buffs.

I sometimes have the fully buffed version statted out, along with 1 or 2 more versions. That allows for me to make less on the fly adjustments.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I try to be fair to the PC's. If they are quiet and/or quick enough the casters will have less buffs up. So far I have not had many stealthy groups which makes things easier for me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I get the point you are trying to make, but what you are proposing is very different from the things you are against.

For the sake of argument let's say I agree this is 100% RAW, but not RAI:

You are taking one reading of the ability that you know is not going to work that way and comparing it to abilities that may or may not work a certain way.

Simulacrum as an example reads like many people argue for it. It is RAI to me, however it is also terribly written in such a way that it needs a rewrite. I have been intending to rewrite for my own games, but I have never gotten around to it.
It falls more into "yeah this is rules legal, but you still should not do it" camp.

This argument you are making is more into the "You know this is not RAI" camp. Just like the "dead" condition per RAW.

It is almost as bad as the poster who recently tried to argue that you can take AoO's against yourself recently.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.
Me either, I also don't know any GM's who would put up with the sno-cone wish machine, or planar binding shenanigans, but those get thrown around as "RAW" all the time. This ability is clear as day in the RAW. There is no hemming or hawing. The ability specifically and explicitly states "you can cast ANY arcane spell," by burning a mythic power point.

Actually some of those are RAI and RAW, but getting them to pass a table is another discussion.

Some of those shenanigans are RAI, but RAI and "a good idea" are two different things.

What you proposed is not even RAI, and I don't think the issue here is that you posted it. The issue is that you posted it as if it was acceptable to do in a real game. You may have just meant this as a mental exercise, but it did not come across that way.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.

There is also the problem of being able to cast a spell not on your list. This ability does not provide that. It only allows you cast a spell that you expending a slot.

"I can cast a spell and keep all of my slots" does not equal "I can cast a spell even if I have no spell list".

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I did not even realize this had been answered. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Sorry, i make it a habit of ignoring rules lawyers. Precisely because they are rules lawyers. Now if they were to speak up only when needed, that would have been awesome.

We don't read minds so we assume we are always needed. :)

As a rules lawyer I shall also start to petition for the more PC term "rules advocate". :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the devs assumed you would not to go outside of your natural class list because they gave no mention of how to convert spells over. However some people thought that the word "any", while not printed, was valid.

I think the intent is clear, even if the RAW is not. The ability is not stopping you from choosing a spell you can't use, but you still can't use it. I think it would be better if the FAQ just flat out said something like "you are limited to your class list for choosing new spells unless otherwise stated"<======Not the exact verbage I would use, but I think it is close enough for the purpose of intent.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Slyph Oradin wrote:
Could you do this in PFS, or just normal pathfinder?

Not in PFS.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The book suggest 2d6+6 as the default rolling option. To reduce the spread you can up the minimum, so the dice have less impact

10+2d4 or 3d4+6 or
2d6+6(special) --->In this case 1's and 2's both count as 2's

Of couse that means no stat is worse that a 12 which ups the power curve.


Give them 15 point buy, and them let them roll 2d3 that they can add any where they want on a 1 for 1 basis, but still cap it as 18 before racial modifiers.

If they happen to roll a 6 they still wont be much better than a 20 point buy. If they get a 2 then they still at least have a 15 point buy with a little extra.

Another option is to have them roll 3 stats at 2d6+6, and use 10 point buy on the other 3 stats. That should give them at least two good/decent stats.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JJ Jordan wrote:
I hate to put more pressure on GMs, since their plate is already full, but the characters stat arrays shouldn't matter a lot if the GM is doing a good job managing the spot light of the game.

I don't plan spotlight time. I do put various situations in the game to make it so that unless you have built a character that is bad at everything that you should find something to do. Personally I don't think it is the GM's job to "spot light" your character. The game has social situations, combat of various types, traps, some problem solving, and so on. Between all of that you should have a character can contribute better in some way at some time. If not then planned spot light time won't help because someone else will be better at you in each of those situations anyway, even during time that was planned for you. The only exception would be something RP based that is written around your background story, but background story moments do not help a player fell less marginal if he has crappy stats, and super character" is doing everything else.

Real life example: I tend to roll well, and I so with a druid whose primary goal was to be good in combat in animal form. Due to my high perception I found all of the traps, and bad hiding bad guys, and I killed them in melee, even in humanoid form. What I could not kill my animal companion did. Our scout had rolled terribly so did not want to really risk scouting. A few times I chose a mobile and/or small form and went ahead to check things out. Now you will probably reply with "It was a druid". I will admit using one of the game's best classes did help me do this, but if that player had better stats he would have had a higher perception, and hit points. He admittedly said that was what stopped him, so even if my druid who rolled well had not existed he still would have been reluctant to scout, and he would still would not have found those traps.
Of course not rolling for stats would remove have made this situation a lot less painful. This is how I manage spotlight time--> I make sure the player has the means to create his own spotlight time, and you give them a variety of situations to use what they have.


PF is a d20 system. If two melee characters are fighting side by side, one has an additional +1 STR over the other, it wouldn't even be noticeable in a short fight. We're talking about a difference of 5% of attacks that will miss for one character will hit for the other. An observer would see no difference in fighting skill.

It might not be a +1 in the main stat. It might be a +2 or more, and the player will notice when. Also many times the rolls(for stats) create a much larger difference across the board that shows in the game.

It's all psychological to the players but the characters themselves would barely notice.

The characters most likely would not care, since they are not real people. They would likely be happy to have someone else who is great at ___. I know I prefer getting teamed up with talented people in real life. The players however might not be so happy playing Robin to everyone else's Batman.


Now if you're straight up rolling and one person get's a 40 point buy equivalent and another gets a 5 point buy, you will notice the difference. But if both players are mature then you have an interesting party dynamic that we don't normally get to play with.

I don't think it is so much a maturity thing since we all know someone will emerge as the MVP. However, most people at the least like to know they are useful at the table, and/or they get to do use their talents. Sometimes the difference in stats causes this not to happen.

Now of course you will likely say that if super character can do everything the other character can do that he should step aside and not use ability X*. However the player will know this is a metagame decision, and may not like it. Had they had equal stats this may not have been an issue.

*Another dynamic is that the other characters combined leave one character in a position where is not the best for any situation, so they have to step aside occasionally, if that player is the type to want the spot light.

Another real life situation: I was GM'ing and there was a player who was decent at many things, but good at nothing. After the game he came to me about times when he wanted to do _____. _______ came up at important times in the game, and being unsuccessful would have caused the party a lot of trouble, so they did not want to leave it to chance.
Basically he wanted to be the the character that saved the day, but did not make a character that could save the day in any situation. Now of course I could have made the situation easier to bypass, but then the "why are you coddling my character" would have come up. <----This was not due to low rolls in this situation, but the same player only avoided the situation before because the game ended before his low rolls doomed his character to the party tag-a-long

Rather than having the best man for the job step aside, and manage all of this spotlight time, if your players care about it, why not just use point buy?

Now if the players know you will create situations specially for them, and the other players will step aside, and that does not bother them, then rolls are fine.

I was slated to run an AP, and half of the group wanted to roll so I told them that everyone rolls and then records the stats. They can then choose any rolled stat array. That way we dont have someone being forced to use an 11 point buy while someone else has a 37 point buy. Everyone can use the 37 point buy.

PS: I don't think anyone rolled a 37 point buy. I just chose a high number to make a point. I think the highest was close to 30.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't it's broken. I think the GM does not like encounters being bypassed, but that happens to me when I run AP's, and when I used to write my own adventures. It can be annoying, BUT, as a GM it comes with the territory, just like having the party one round a boss through a series of lucky roll(s) or unlucky ones.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In 3.5 such a spell counted as a "purely mental" action, but it was never outright stated, that you could not spellcraft it. However a few statements led to this belief that is what the intent was in 3.5.

Using a spell-like ability is a purely mental action

A spell-like ability cannot be used as a counterspell, and it is not subject to counterspells. A counterspell involves recognizing a spell as it is being cast, then quickly altering that same spell so as to create an opposite effect that cancels out the original spell. A spell-like ability is essentially hardwired into its user's psyche, and its power is released mentally. The process is sufficiently different from spellcasting so it that doesn't allow a foe to identify the spell-like ability, and a counterspell cannot interfere with the spell-like ability's magical energy as it can with a spell. As noted earlier, a spell-like ability is subject to dispelling (provided the spell it duplicates is subject to dispelling). When a spell-like ability can be dispelled (as most of them are) one can effectively counter them with a dispel magic spell. While spell-like abilities are not normally subject to counterspells, dispel magic is not really a counterspell. When you use dispel magic as a counterspell, what you're really doing is casting a quick, targeted dispel effect at the correct moment to negate the enemy spell and not creating an opposite magical effect that cancels your enemy's spell.
3.5 FAQ wrote:

A spell-like ability is essentially a spell without verbal,
somatic, or material components
(and is described on page 180
of the Player’s Handbook as being activated “mentally”) so
that qualifies as purely mental.

So since SLA's could not be identified and SLA's were equal to a spell with no component it follows that the intent is for such spells to be beyond the reach of spellcraft.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:

You see, this is where you and Wraithstrike are being deliberately obtuse. It doesn't have to mention combat, I'm referring to combat because of the OPs scenario. I'm stating that it is required in this scenario due to the combination of being in mortal danger coupled with an invisible attacker.

I was not being deliberately obtuse. I thought you were speaking of combat in a general sense. I really had gotten off the topic of the OP's post and was speaking of invisible creatures making noise.


The difference between you and I is that when I read the rules, I see what is written and attempt to apply them holistically. To make the balanced and playable. You and the other RAW Message board warriors (aka Wraithstrike) are rules-parsing lawyers attempting to score points on a message board.

First of all if you were not new around here you know I go by RAI more than RAW, but I also know not to make rules up because I want them to work a certain way. Personally I don't care too much what the rule is because if I come to an interpretation I really don't like I will just change it*, since I am normally the GM.

*As an example, I am not giving anyone a perception check every time a bow is fired.<---I also posted this upthread.

I also don't see anything in the rules even suggesting what you are saying. Now I am assuming your opinion is that like some other rules Paizo did not write them well enough. If that is the case I would suggest you show precedence, which I have had to do when the RAW did not match RAI, or start a new post asking for an FAQ.

edit:removed unneeded sarcasm since it added nothing to the discussion.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shasfowd wrote:
So I run a roll20 campaign that allows players to make max level characters and fight high teir monsters. Needless to say, the tarrasque is in a Gem owned by a wizard. I want this to be a fun experience for everyone, and that is NOT winning in 2 seconds. I'd like to know some spells and any other thing overpowered like Trap the Soul.

Even if you get rid of save or die spells martials can kill things in one round. I have two characters in my game that can do over 300 point of damage in one round, and they are not even level 20 yet. They can basically solo almost anything CR 20 or less that is in the book.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nyaa wrote:
Anguish wrote:
Opuk0, you could recommend they play psionic manifesters... then they wouldn't have somatic or verbal components. Of course, every time they manifest, it snows dead butterflies around their heads for a moment, or smells intensely of mastadon farts, or everyone within a few feet thinks they've acquired tinnitus, but hey... you can't win 'em all.
Which they can suppress with a concentration check, which they can't fail if they expend their focus to take 15 on it.

IIRC the check is only a 15. It may have changed with DSP, but I dont think it is too difficult. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Serisan wrote:

There is actually a PFS scenario in which an NPC bard does what the OP's players are trying to do.

** spoiler omitted **

Author: Mark Moreland. Take that for what you will.

Sometimes authors break rules. As an example a certain module has illusions doing nonlethal damage, but by the spell and the illusion rules that is not possible.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
leo1925 wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
By RAW you can still use Spellcraft to identify a spell even without Verbal and Somatic components - maybe there's some kind of brief magical glow that people can see and identify.
Technically you are correct, but spellcraft also says that it uses the same modifiers as perception so one could make a case of a spellcasting (without any components) being unable to be unidentified, but then you are running to issues like how can you identify SLAs.

The devs have also back the position that the RAW is the RAI. I don't like it however. Personally I think if the spell is silenced, stilled, and you do not use a component, then it should not be able to be identified, and I feel the same way about SLA's. Otherwise I see no reason why people can not identify SU's, other than because the rules do not say you can.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ask the GM to come here to present his side because honestly it does not matter to many GM's if a player replies with "Some people online said.....".
If he comes here it might help get to the root of the problem.

PS: I am not saying you were going to use us against the GM. I just wanted to say that in case you were thinking about it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Note to self: Avoid stealth/invisibility threads.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your examples don't hold much weight because they are not bringing new information that we do not know, and you are not using real numbers. I have also seen how much damage PA does in real games when used by PC's, and certain NPC's.

Yes accuracy is important, but it can also still not do as much damage overall if another character just has more damage potential. PA trades off accuracy for damage potential, and just like any other ability you have to know when to use it.

Me having to explain this to you already tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

Sit at one of my games when I am using a giant to power attack you, and the actual game experience might change your mind.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jrat Bumpkins wrote:

As someone who has played with Nefreet many times, I'd like to say you are very very wrong in your assumptions. Not only is he a super nice guy, he is one of the most dedicated GMs I have ever met. Allways a great time. :D

I think people sometimes fail to understand that PFS is ultimately a marketing device for paizo. (Not that there is anything wrong with that)so of course they want/need you to buy their products to continue to write quality adventures and keep the campign alive.

To (well semi) quote the great Dead Kennedys. You can take herolabs and shove it.

I don't think anyone said he was a big meanie. :)

We are saying he is overstepping his bounds. :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the best way to do this is to ask the player what he wants to do in the game, and explain to him why certain choices take him closer to the goal.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

7th, many of the posters in this thread have claimed they'd go to the VO and complain about my ruling, or take it up with Campaign Leadership, and that using HeroLab is completely legal in PFS.

I will tell you now, your efforts would be in vain.

HeroLab is NOT supported by PFS. It is not referenced in the Guide to Organized Play or the Additional Resources. Nowhere (to my knowledge) has Campaign Leadership ever endorsed its use. HeroLab is no more legal for use in PFS than any other 3rd party material. Until that fact changes, I am completely in my right as a PFS GM to refuse HeroLab at my tables.

8th, I'm a pen-and-paper gamer. I create every character on a CRS that I custom myself. THIS is the most common character sheet I use, which is modified off of the CRB sheet with larger boxes, less weapon spaces, and no equipment section (since the ITS fulfills that need, now). The ITS is modified with more lines and has spaces for consumables.

But, as I've already stated, I have no problem with someone printing out a HeroLab character sheet and filling it out themselves. I recognize that not everyone has the skill or desire to come up with their own sheets. I'm fine with characters written out on graph paper, even. It's the use of HeroLab at the table that I disdain, and so long as it's within my power to stop, I will do so.

Lastly, I'm aware my position is extreme. I'm aware many people have succumbed to using HeroLab and thusly feel the need to defend it. I'm okay being the villain here. 98% of the time I'm laid back and easy going, open to creative solutions at the table, love roleplaying more than rollplaying, and go out of my way to make my games a fun experience.

HeroLab represents 1% of the time that I absolutely put my foot down.

*runs out the door as he's very close to being late to work*

Herolab is not a source at all, so that is not even a valid reply. That is like saying dice towers cant be used because they are not a rules source.

So, no you can not ban herolab and you have cited nothing to equate it to being source material like most 3pp products are.

By your logic pen and paper are not allowed because they are not made by a company other than Pathfinder.

You have no right to control how a player gets to their calculations. Do you ban calculators also?

That is the problem with PFS, people like you who don't realize they don't get to make up random rules.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
richard develyn wrote:

I think a more interesting question (for me anyway) is whether players should plan their characters with foreknowledge of what's coming ahead.

The problem with this is that if, for example, a GM kicks off a giant-killing campaign, and players produce giant-killing PCs, what happens when half-way through the campaign the AP goes into an undead theme for one of the modules and the PCs aren't set up for it?

Do the PCs then have the right to complain to the GM that they were misled?

Does that mean the GM should have told them, say, "this is a giant-killing campaign but round about 8-10th level expect to have to deal with undead"?

That doesn't seem right to me.


If a GM knows he will change monsters mid-campaign I dont think he should advertise it as an undead campaign.

However I also dont think a player should build a character that can really only fight well against one creature type.

There is a such thing as too much specialization, even in Pathfinder.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
rstencel wrote:

I was first introduced to making character with hero labs, and bought that software as well as pdf's to make my characters. Was great for year or so till an experienced player started coming in and found out was using hero labs, and questions every single thing on every one of my characters because he knows use hero labs. Have yet to see him question anyone else, even though there are others there that have been caught with mistakes to their builds. Though he finally did find something that hero labs messed up on, as there was a feat that was only supposed to be usable by orc's, that hero labs listed as usable by anyone.

Really takes the enjoyment out of playing PFS however, when have to keep breaking out the pdf's. Not a fan of 5E but find myself looking for 5E groups just to get away from this.

5e groups probably have ignorant power hungry fools in them too.

This guy is just being a jerk. While Hero Lab definitely has bugs it is much more accurate than any player I have ever seen (most definitely including myself) and a hero Lab sheet is almost certainly going to have less errors than a hand done one

Most people i know have less errors than herolab but I like it for its speed. I then go back and check for errors.

BTW: @Jeff you are taking that comment out of context. Stop trying to read between the lines when there is no need to.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
avr wrote:
There are characters who don't need to plan. Any full prepared spellcaster, especially wizards, can throw 100% of their skill points and feats away and still be effective. Banning planning just makes life relatively harder for the fighting types.

I would not state that as a universal truth. It really depends on the GM and how he runs his games. If the GM runs on easy mode then sure, but if he runs a moderately difficult or harder game then some planning could be required even if every feat or spell is not chosen in advance.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ElterAgo wrote:

Not quite. Or at least not always.

The guys I'm talking about only wanted those characters because they don't fit.

If we had been in a campaign on the savannah, he would not have wanted a rhino cavalier.

The other guy only picked the swamp druid because we were going to be interacting with nobles.

The gal specifically built here own character as a sneaky mc-stabbert, then intentionally tried to play it as an in-your-face front line combatant.

wraithstrike wrote:
... The GM should know what people are playing before the character is even made, and let them know why it will be a bad idea. Sometimes he may just need to say "no".
Many/most players I've met in recent years are extremely resistant to this. What they are considering is a big secret and they get very upset if you try to tell them it isn't allowed or doesn't fit.

Having read your other post about them going out of their way to be different, the answer is they want to feel special. Depending on what other problems they did or did not cause I would either not run for them as a GM or run more open adventures that would allow more things to fit in.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some players just don't understand how certain things work. The GM should know what people are playing before the character is even made, and let them know why it will be a bad idea. Sometimes he may just need to say "no".

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
and most of the people on this forum purposefully misinterpret the rules to further cripple the rogue. Even without that toxic approach, the rogue still suffers systematic oppression from every aspect of the rules.
What rules are these?
I believe the community guidelines suggest against purposefully derailing threads.

You brought it up, and all topics eventually go off topic, but I will take your response as "I dont have anything, but I dont want to admit it."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alex G St-Amand wrote:

NOTE: This isn't to start a debate.

Note 2: Probably need a better title.

something I have noticed about like, dislike, difficulty, etc...

When people say something about an AP and compare it to another AP by the same 'author'

Ex: Someone has problem X with Iron Gods, the person mention having similar problem with Jade Regent, Shattered Star, Wrath of the Righteous, and/or etc...

or, Someone dislike Y about Mummy's Mask, and disliked similar things in Skull & Shackles, Reign of Winter and/or etc...

So, I'm guessing some of us have an harder time with the works of one author more than the other.

I really don't note particular authors all that much until someone else mentions it.

The common point I have noticed is that the the first book is normally the best book IMHO, and somewhere between books 4 and 6 one book is not liked nearly as well as the others.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Krith wrote:


I'd disagree with your assessment. First off, I've never claimed to have a +36 perception bonus or any dex bonus to armor class. If you feel your tests are an accurate way to measure what a Pathfinder character can do, I imagine the PCs in your campaign are either amazingly ordinary, or you have some Olympian level players at your table.

Second, and more importantly, the argument isn't whether a PC would get hit by the Archer, it's whether the PC, not being flatfooted and knowing where the Archer is and where the arrow is coming from, can effectively defend himself. Remember we're discussing Precision Damage here, not a normal attack. The definition of sneak attack states "If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage." I'm arguing that knowing where the attack is coming from and when, and not being otherwise flatfooted is a valid argument for a negation of the SA.

I pointed out that the same rule applies when an invisible character is using visible items to further the argument; I find it ridiculous to allow an invisible character the benefits of invisibility when they're covered in visible items, but that's just me. If you're giving the invisible knight wearing visible full plate total concealment and bonuses to hit, run with it. I think it's a bad hole in the rules of invisibility.

Again, the rules specifically state the DC to hear a bow being drawn which to me, means the designers intended to allow reactions to said bow draw with a perception check. Whether or not the archer is invisible isn't at issue because that spell doesn't cover hearing. Everyone seems to feel that when these two rules conflict, magic wins out, and that's fine. I just disagree.

I see you skipped some of my post.

1. The rules say sneak attack happens "anytime" a target is denied dex.

2. The rules say that if an opponent is invisible to you that you are denied dex.

3. They do not say that if you know which square he is in aka pinpointed that you suddenly get to use dex against his attacks. This is supported by blindsense which lets you pinpoint invisible opponents, but still says that you are denied dex against them.

4. Stop confusing flat-footed and being denied dex. They are not synonymous. Flat-footed is an actual condition just like being stunned or blinded. Being denied dex is a symptom of being flat-footed but it can also happen by other means.

5. The rules do no care about realism, and even if they did you are not dodging arrows in real life. If I point a bow at you when I release the arrow you will be shot. Human reaction time is .2 seconds. A bow can shoot an arrow on average around 180fps(feet per second. 180/5=36 feet in .2 seconds. A powerful bow might have a faster time, but I felt like 180 was fair.

Now that .2 is reaction time alone. If someone is aiming a bow you not only have to react, but react properly so as to not put yourself into the path of the arrow if the aim of the archer is slightly off, and this is a visible person. Against an invisible person who you have no way to know where he is aiming your chances drop significantly.

6. As for your classic stories idea-->Those have nothing to do with the rules. As an example the best assassins kill people in the dark, but sneak attack is actually made worse if the target has concealment because it won't work. Also in stories people with swords have routinely killed those with magic. In PF magic is king. That is why casters can serve as solo BBEG's and do decently well, why people with only sharp pieces of metal do not do as well past level 5.

So far you have provided nothing to show that RAI says you get your dex vs invisible attackers except "It is not realistic", and "I don't think it makes sense".

7. Noticing an opponent in Pathfinder means you know they are around. Pinpoint(see the blindsense quote by another poster)=I know what square they are in. With invisible creatures knowing what square they are in still means they get concealment, and it also means you are still denied dex.

8. The way the game works is that you must prove by RAW that you are right or at least show a pattern that dictates the RAW is not matching RAI. Someone's idea of realism is too subjective to count as a rule. That is why I brought up the paralyzed person being allowed a reflex save earlier.

I am not being snarky*, but pointing out inconsistencies in your argument.

*Tone of voice can be hard to read online at times.

edit: I also thought you were arguing real work realism so ignore point 5.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Now time for the break down by the rules:


Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.......

Note that it says anytime.

Invisible: Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See Invisibility, under Special Abilities.

The rules say that invisible opponents ignore dex to AC. They do not say that if you know the invisible opponent is around that stipulation goes away. Also note that using stealth is not a requirement for invisibility to work. You just have to be invisible.

So since someone is invisible the entire time greater invisibility is in play that means they get to sneak attack the entire time greater invisibility is in play.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am sure those with the living world theory still hold back so their theory does not hold up. If I were to use tactics as if fantasy land was real, then the higher level bad guy would be hunting the PC's down in many cases. Then they would die before they were actually strong enough to fight him.
Another example that would fall by the wayside is fighting a group of people one on one. Once the PC's have caused a certain amount of trouble and killed certain other allies it is obvious they are powerful so instead of letting them kill all of your minions, and your mid-boss equivalent, you meet them with a good portion of your minions, and your right hand man with you. However the problem once again is that while this make sense the PC's will likely be dead.
You can have a living world without having the PC's "need" to run away. To me what makes a living world is one where the party's actions actually change the campaign world.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Going back to the main topic I dont think the feat in question is intended to replace foci. I do think that those monster stat blocks according to my examples above are just not working per RAW.

Even if you change the feat to include foci, that does not change the fact that many monsters do not even have the feat or hands, so this is part of a bigger, but in my opinion still small issue.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sinfullyvannila wrote:

UMD doesn't give a reason why you can't take 10. Barring an explanation, a logical inferrence is that the skill is innately stressful and distracting.

Assuming that someone can vet that table description as official, that's damning.

It does not have to give a reason. It just says you can't, and unless a rule says it bypasses the rule you want to ignore then you can not ignore that rule.

1 to 50 of 1,634 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.