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

golem101's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 1,906 posts (1,911 including aliases). 18 reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 1,906 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Manimal wrote:

If I used the term "Toon" rather than PC, what would you say? What arguments would you use for or against it?

Thus far, one of the more convincing arguments I've heard is that using lingo from a different type of game (in this case, MMOs) could cause confusion; however, this particular word doesn't seem all that egregious—most people, even having not played an MMO, could pick up from the surrounding context that "Toon"=PC.


Honestly I have no real arguments against it. Tabletop lingo (PC, character, etc.) was used since a while ago in most digital RPGs - both single and multiplayer - and now the digital lingo is making its way back to tabletop. The same could be said about calling low level enemies "mobs".

Cross-pollination, feedback influences, whatever you want to call it.

I'm more concerned about talking about PCs/toons only as tanks, DPS, healbots and such, limiting the tabletop experience in equivalents from the digital framework and discarding or not taking in consideration anything else (social interaction, investigation) that doesn't quite compare to combat proficiency.
As in many ways pen&paper RPGs are more varied in mechanics and inner working than the most common MMO games, I find that this kind of equivalences tend to... castrate what could (and should) be a more complex and/or complete gaming experience.

But that's just me.


James Jacobs wrote:
A few of the NPCs will probably utilize some Mythic rules, but the AP is for non-mythic PCs.
James Jacobs wrote:
This adventure path isn't about baby steps. It's about us pushing the boundaries after doing over a dozen other adventure paths, some of which have started to take those baby steps ("Rasputin Must Die") already. The time for baby steps is behind us! :-)

Enthusiasm falling... back on the fence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nic Logue? Will resubscribe. Will do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cheliax only has a Companion AFAIK, not really a book (just like Andoran, Taldor, Qadira, and until a few weeks a go, Osirion).
It deserves a proper Setting book, given its major role in the history, politics, and action of the Inner Sea.


Casmaron/Kelesh hardcover.



Dwarven holds, as said by Bunnyboy.

In this order of importante.


Best of luck, Sean and Jodi.


I've had a few human or humanoid fighter BBEGs, but I have to admit they were equipped with artifact-level gear (single piece, obviously), or surrounded by a throve of followers to buff/negate magical one-shots.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Blakmane wrote:
Perhaps a little devil's advocate, but I sure would be angry if my GM saved classes for special snowflake NPCs and denied them to his PCs. The players are supposed to be the heroes, not the supporting cast.

While I absolutely agree, I also feel compelled to say that they're the heroes because of what they do, not (only) because of what they are.

Important NPCs must be special as much as the playing characters, even exotic or exceedingly rare, and even moreso due to their limited playing time in a show focused on the PCs.

Players requesting to have "all the options" to perform as protagonists is not a valid argument - at least in my book.
Players requesting to shine as protagonists more than NPCs in a given story is perfectly reasonable.


Lamontius wrote:

bare cavalry


Stark naked knights FTW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seen it. Once, then they learned.

Short story, the group charged into melee, crashing headlong into an orc multi-tribal horde.
After a couple of rounds of cleaving and arcane blasting, the warchiefs shouted orders, and the first line of orcs started foaming at the mouth. Then they went in, oblivious of losses, grabbed the wizard and the bard (easiest grapple victims), and brought them away.
The group panicked.
A few hundred yards away, orc shamans started bringing up crude contraptions to ritually slaughter victims on the battlefield, to appease the orcish gods.
The group panicked some more.

The rest of the party went through a lot of hurt, while trying to get their comrades back to safety, harassed by lowly troops and slowed by the occasional elite enemy (orc warchiefs, ogres, an handful of giants), and ran for their lives as soon as possible.

Back at their base camp, they also suffered the indignity of an army officer berating them for risking their lives of most capable warriors and spellcasters just for a few dozen orcs.

tl;dr: split the party. Wreck their strategy.
No battleplan survives contact with the enemy, neither should a lousy one such as six people against a whole army in an open field.


1. Yup. Tabletop RPGs, boardgames, wargames (even that old grognard stuff with hex maps and card counters!!), videogames (mostly puzzle/platforms, RPGs and FPS).

2. Not needed.

3. Not needed. We agreed very early in our relationship that each one had his/her own hobbies and need for space/personal time. Gamers do understand.
Other times we share miniatures to paint, model kits to assemble, manuals to read, etc.

4. At my FLGS, while buying the Tome of Horrors. Ah!

5. She pushes me further, with something along the line of "Oohh, shiny...get it!". Can be hard on the wallet.

6. No spawn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hastur, Hastur, Hastur.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

New desktop!


shadowmage75 wrote:
golem101 wrote:

As far as user interfaces are involved, unifying the desktop and mobile environment is simply stupid. I'm not using my CAD the same way I'm fiddling with my tablet, get over it once and for all.

Head of departments may disagree, but that's because they know jack$#!& about drawing with CAD software for hours on. Try doing that on a mobile touchscreen device, you monkey.

And this is true for a hundred other professional softwares.

I don't disagree that, on your end, you wouldn't want to work CAD all day on a tablet, but perhaps you don't see the bounty it might provide for production. I'm building a comprehensive report that shows use of mobile tech, travelling along with the object (right now it's practically a ream of paperwork) opens up feasibility and communication. Perhaps there's an error in the print? Instead of going to the supervisor, the supervisor calling the engineer, the engineer having to be available, answer the question back downhill to production, a simple real-time message could be sent, the digital print annotated and revised at a later point when the engineer's available at a desktop environment.

As far as homogenizing operating systems, I don't see it too far off simply because we all use the same hardware anyway. Obviously Microsoft thinks they're going to be king of that hill, and I think that's where they're clueless. Apple and Microsoft are literally in operating systems to dumb down computer use for the least capable to do so. The complexity of what computers do, however, is steadily increasing, requiring something more like Linux, where the OS can be modded to support specific operations, appearance, etc.

I do have a tablet, with a couple of CAD apps, which I do use to make annotations, corrections and updates "on the field" (naval engineering).

Do I appreciate the sheer usefulness of the whole thing? Sure I do.

Do I like the CAD interface (precision, usability, responsiveness, etc.)? Nope.

Do I think the two things should look the same on the two very different environments (desktop with keyboard and mouse vs tablet with touchscreen)? Nope, again.

Is the tablet apt to be used for prolonged typing (as in writing lines of code, or just detailed reports), or digital drawing with layers, filters, effects, and a hundred other professional kinds of work? Nope, for the third time.

An handheld, portable device such as a touchscreen tablet is really usful for minor corrections, small and absolutely not complex updates, or even generic sketching a layout of a new work. But it's close to useless for detailed, in depth or long term working (don't get me started on batteries duration).
It's a cool gadget to keep up to date various small thingies, and that's it. End of the line. I need a different tool, with a different environment and user interface to get my job done properly. Having a full options range on the tablet would clutter it to oblivion, while streamlining the one on the desktop (ribbon interface instead of toolbars has already been a nasty step in that direction) would take away the true power of the software at hand.

A single, unified user interface is ANTTDNW (another nice trick that does not work), at least with the current technology.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As far as user interfaces are involved, unifying the desktop and mobile environment is simply stupid. I'm not using my CAD the same way I'm fiddling with my tablet, get over it once and for all.
Head of departments may disagree, but that's because they know jack$#!& about drawing with CAD software for hours on. Try doing that on a mobile touchscreen device, you monkey.

And this is true for a hundred other professional softwares.


Adventures (collected or not) sell mostly to DMs.

Character options/splatbooks sell to DMs and players*.

At least, this was the baseline in 3.5 days, don't know if it's the same now.

* yes, I know, the DM is also playing the game, etc.


Thanks, but the FATE system holds very little sway at my table (and in my library). I'd rather run the original EP, so to say.


It sounds Chaotic Neutral.


Add a "strongly", "mildly" and "weakly" quality to each axis of alignment.
Strongly lawful weakly evil.

Can't figure out its use, but oh whatever.


Creepiest larvae ever.


Not level based, not d20, once again Thousand Suns.

Eclipse Phase intrigues me as a setting, but I can't feel the d100 system as appropriate (gut feeling, not really a rational thought).


Little Red Goblin Games wrote:

Added Great City & Zeitgeist. Link

Does anyone know the name of the Way of the Wicked setting?

Talingarde (name of the continent-island), but I don't know if it has its own setting - IIRC, no.


Don't know if it counts as a full-fledged campaign setting (more like a plug-in partial setting), but the Mor Aldenn stuff is quite nice.


18 people marked this as a favorite.
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:


Every time we are camping for the night I dig a 10-ft deep trench around our camp so we will get some early warning and a buffer from mindless enemies attacking our fortified position.

Sorry but my brain kinda crashed into a brick wall and refused to read further after this.

You dig a 10 ft. deep (about 3 metres) trench every time you camp around a defensive area. Every time. 10 ft. deep.

Even with a gross approximation, how long is this trench? Do you accomplish this herculean feat alone? Do you have some kind of magic assistance in doing this?


Cosmo wrote:

Next up on the "Overheard at the Nuclear Waste Office" Thread:

"Hey... is that barrel supposed to be moving on it's own?"



1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yet another vote for Call of Cthulhu - the d100 version.

More recent systems, The One Ring (set 5 years after the Battle of Five Armies) which deals a lot with travelling and social interactions with the people of the Middle Earth; and A song of Ice and Fire RPG, which has a robust social interaction system and an equally developed domain management part.

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 3rd Ed. (with the Lure of Power supplement) can be easily used for a political/social campaign in which physical combat is the least frequent option.

Also, Thousand Suns is a good sci-fi game that has combat not in the forefront, and I seem to recall that Rogue Trader features an interesting commercial focus, with a great concept of managing your own space vessel and its crew.

A lot of Cortex based games, like Leverage, also do not have combat as the main element of the game.


- Ten of the old Dungeon Magazine issues in PDF containing the AoW AP (bundled for ease)
- Throne of Night #1 (PDF)
- Shadow, Sword and Spell - Basic, Expert and Threats (bundled for ease)
- Thousand Suns (print; I already had the PDF)
- Tales from the Wilderland, translated (The One Ring RPG)


Sorry, I don't get the part in which you have to choose a deity and you have all the dwarven pantheon written down on your sheet.
Does your character worship all the pantheon (which at my table would be a perfectly reasonable premise for a cleric)?
Does your DM require a more specific choice since character creation?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see bigger tiles, like the ones produced by Rakham for its Cadwallon/Confrontation lines (they were called something like "reversible hybrid tiles"), massive 12" x 12" laminated card tiles.
As they were really modular, it was easy to assemble a few of them to build a sprawling city harbor/slum/noble quarter, a forest area, a sewer complex, and even some cave system or dungeon area. Kinda like geomorphs.

But they would also heavily interfere with flip mats and map packs, which I understand is not a good idea.



Engineering an insurrection against a stronger and already fortified adversary requires some build-up work. And the Fungal Jungle holds all manner of weirdness, both in enemies and treasure.




1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is amazingly useful.


There's a mini-gazetteer of the Land of Black Blood in Pathfinder #18. And of course, the section dedicated to Orv in Into the Darklands.


With 8 players I have to max HPs and add 50% to the number. ;-D

Remember that a large PCs group is gonna mop the floor with enemies of a CR equal to their average level, even with a hefty number of critters. Too many and you'll just make the encounter more cumbersome, not more challenging.

At the same time, "boss-type" monsters should not be a CR value higher than the recommended 3 points. Deadlier monsters suddendly become able to insta-kill characters with a little effort.
Just maximize their variables and be sure to play them at their deadliest.

Don't refrain to use hit-and-run tactics to wear out the group resources.


For 6 PCs just use either max HPs (best for elites) or +50% to overall number (best for lesser critters); add a few mooks to solo encounters or add some environmental advantage for the baddie.
When you'll get to higher levels, you may need to actually add a couple levels to NPCs or HDs to creatures.

Don't really bother changing the treasure amount: the gain from a larger group largely overcompensates the sparser loot.

I DM an 8-strong group, these are the basics that work best.

I freakin' hate this tablet's auto-composer.


Defiance Games re-launch.

It's sci-fi, and the 65$ pledge+stretch goals is almost too good to be true.


3:16, without all the existential angst. No map, just three range increments.
A bit more detailed, Thousand Suns.


awp832 wrote:

bizbag, I already talked about that in the first post I made. blahpers kindly reiterated for me.

I'm not saying fish can breathe on land. I'm saying, 'even though fish cant breathe on land, that doesnt mean you cant summon them there'. A porpise can't breathe underwater. Couldn't you summon a porpise underwater?

If you summon a creature where it can't breathe, well then it is holding it's breath, now isn't it? It can hold its breath a number of rounds equal to twice it's CON score before it has to start making CON checks. That should be more than enough time for all but the longest of summons.

Your shark with no land movement speed can't move, but it could attack anything within it's reach.

While I fully support the idea of being allowed to summon an acquatic creature on a dry surface, I also wouldn't rule it as able to normally attack, even without movement.

The shark taken as an example would trash wildly around, with zero reach, lacking both the appropriate limbs and a medium (such as a body of water) to properly propel itself against enemies using its fins.
The automatic suffocation and lethally inhospitable environment are enough to make an animal panic (the celestial/fiendish templates don't improve Int).


T. B. wrote:

Alright, thanks for the suggestions, I'll give these a look.

Though I continue to search for a system that has truly 'dangerous' magic- as in, high risk, high reward, with the caster and allies just as likely to be damaged as the target. Magic that is weird, dangerous, not fully understood, but played with anyway- kind of like nuclear power in the 30s, if you would.

Dungeon Crawl Classic has one of the most "dangerous magick" systems I've ever seen.

Otherwise OpenQuest, Cortex Classic, or an adequately customized DragonAGE.


I'd like to see a Von Neumann type ship gone wrong - a Bracewell probe gone Berserk due to human interaction.

Lots of action, lots of philosophical issues, moral dilemmas, unscrupulous BBEG, etc.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
That is sad news :(

It is sad news, but the sadness started for me back when they went web only. It makes me very curious as to what D&DNext, the edition made to unite all the divided gamers out there, is even going to have for regular, accessible support.

RPGs have always been a niche hobby, and times have certainly moved on from the eighties, but I don't think WotC/Hasbro really gets how much having a monthly magazine with awesome van-art on the cover every month popularized the hobby.

It's 2013. Paper is dead. The concept of a periodical publication is dead outside of academia, and even there its days are numbered. Video game magazines are folding, specialized publications are barely making it through every month, Kobold Quarterly died a sad death after a valiant attempt to become Dragon Reloaded. People don't learn about cool hobbies from periodical stands anymore, they learn about them from social media and blogs.

I like my dinosaur way: evolution slow and steady, maybe with a couple too much dead branches, but sparking inspiration even at wrong turns.

These new social mammalians mutate too fast, even discarding choices before having effectively perused them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
PathfinderFan64 wrote:
I can't believe how people keep defending Gary.
We defended Nic after Razor Coast too.

Best 35 $ placed in a preorder - ever!!

(and many thanks to Lou and everyone else involved in the project too, obviously)

Given how much I've enjoyed WotW, I'm more than willing to give Gary an undisclosed amount of slack.


Tabletop. I can't get really involved/immersed in PbP games.


In a long-running campaign this could have been a plot device (even if a rather ham-fisted one, it seems to me).

In a one-shot adventure... dick move. But maybe it's not a one-shot, or it's a longish one-shot. Or that fateful battle is the prelude/basic premise of a brand new campaign.

In any case you shouldn't be worried: your PC will resurface when the plot device has run its course, or you were supposed to discard the character at the end of the adventure anyway, so there you go.


Lord Snow wrote:

Golem 101 - to each his own, I suppose. To me it seems that a +2 bonus, which will always translate into an in-game bonus, accomplishes the original intent of the mechanic of enhancing stats - that is, if Bob is stronger than Jay, I want there to be a roll the Jay would have failed, while Bob would have succeeded - that's a +1 on the roll right there :)

And as to your claim that a +1 works half of the time, which is more than "rarely" - if the intention is to get something done, I want it done 100% of the time if that's possible. Unless a human is unusually dexterous (that is, unless the human put a +2 in dexterity), I want the elf to be a better archer. I want the elf to be better at sneaking.

This is really not about power grabbing as I am a dedicated GM who is often annoyed at how powerful my player's characters are. I'm just saying that it makes a ton of sense, from a design perspective, to use a bonus that's always relevant. It's a good integration of game mechanics and flavor.

I will say again though, to each his own. If it seems like bad design to you, just change your game ;)

Ah, that requires a more granular mechanic - degrees of success. Many RPGs have it (right off the bat: WHFRPG 3e, A Song of Ice and Fire RPG, Thousand Suns, even DragonAGE in a small measure).

Let's say elves have an automatic degree of success in agility (Dexterity) tests to better portray their preternatural grace. Irrelevant of actual ability modifiers, with the same dice roll result an elf will perform better than a human; even with a failed roll he may be able to negate the worse consequences.
The ability mod influences the overall dice roll result (which in turn may or may not determine how many degrees of success there are), but it ends there.

As in the d20 system such a submechanic is missing, the concept of a "always on" better archer/sneak/crafter/poet/whatever is left to the DM/player interaction and visual description of the action, and not quite reflected in rules-based gameplay.

My complaint against the flat modifier instead of the dice roll, or the +2 to ability (+1 mod) instead of the occasional odd value stems straight from the fact that such a change in the system skewers it - or shifts it - into a different league*: one where the player relies more on a sure average determined by modifiers and marginally (OK, it's an exaggeration) influenced by the dice roll, instead of the other way round - to make a reference to the original quote that started it all.

Having an odd bonus that changes a odd ability value into a real +X mod is just that: when luck is on your part, that small advantage that sort of remained dormant turns out to be critical.
But it doesn't affect the quality of the performance (degrees of success) that in-game may reflect a racial perk or else. Such as an elf archer that hits the bullseye effortlessly while his human counterpart is sweating from the concentration needed to pull it out.

Removing this small element makes the game poorer, even if it allows for a more reliable mechanical effect to represent advantages (or disantavantages).

*: I'm perfectly fine with any league or play style (gritty, heroic, etc.): I'm biased against changing the basic, average framework of the game - not really designed for a specific goal - and thusly making other kinds of play more difficult or not possible without a personal custom job and large scale overhaul.
tl;dr: I don't want you to play my way, I simply don't like to be shifted into a more... constrictive (?) type of game.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
You seem to be lumping ability mods into the same pile with mods that directly apply to d20 rolls, and it's important to separate the two.

Correct. A mistake on my part.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:

In summation: No, the mods didn't change because due to whiny players. They changed because the rules changed.


PPS: Your final comments about being special imply that you want some players to be special while others are mired in mediocrity. Which makes me rather glad we don't game together.

The mods changed from the occasional odd (+1, which still stays for the Bless spell IIRC) and dice roll (1d4+1) to a flat +2/+4 because there were complaints about "weird math" (sic) and "ineffective" mods. And there were complaints indeed. More to follow.

Weirdly the 1d4+1 roll from a few spells went from a +2 (+1 mod) onward, but the complaints were only for those two poor odd +3 and +5 and the times in which they didn't came across as full fledged ability mod changes. More to follow again.

PPS: a whole ocean will keep the risks at a minimum. Hopefully. :-D

Lord Snow wrote:

Also, there's really no point in odd bonuses to ability scores, I think. What a bonus to an ability score from your race conveys, is that members of your race are better than the average human at doing X. So for example, an Elf is defined by being quicker and more intelligent than a human, while also more fragile. If the bonuses would have been +1, you would never actually feel the difference in play, only theoretically know it's there. A +2 bonus conveys a +1 on rolls made with the appropriate ability, and that's the entire point.

Same goes to magic items that enhance ability scores. A mechanical change SHOULD reflect something in-game, and a +1 bonus is rarely enough to do so.


As ability values can be odd or even, a odd modifier means a bonus half of the time. While an even modifiers means a bonus always. But half of the time is not "rarely". It's half of the time.

I won't go into examples of characters with all odd vs all even values for abilities, or human commoners vs elf ones and ther 10/11 which statistically become 9/10/12 (sic, again), but I'd rather tell where this comes from: from the WotC boards of the time past.
Which deeply scarred me with multi-page threads where this kind of (IMO) poisonous line of thought was loudly exposed. "I want my character to have a bonus all of the time, not just half of it". I swore an oath to myself to never step back again in face of such... unpleasantness. Sometimes it works better than expected, sometimes it doesn't, it's magic, it's weird, it keeps the thrill going rather than the calculations for averages and surefire results.

Lord Snow wrote:

I think you might have misinterpreted him. I'm pretty sure what he meant was that he's annoyed that everybody want their character to be good at everything, while he feel that every character should be good at some things and bad at other things.

Of course everybody wants THEIR character to have 18 in all stats, be the strongest, smartest, quickest, most attractive, character... but he claims that this shouldn't be this way.

It's not that he thinks some player characters should be stronger than others. It's that he feel all player characters should be a bit weaker.

Yes. Obviously my poor attempts at humour and quoting the Invincibles don't translate quite as expected. Sorry.


Lord Pendragon wrote:

There's always that one guy in any group that is a little too involved in the game. The guy who sends the rest of the group emails on what his character's custom weapon might look like, or writes up snippets of fiction based on the party.

I am that guy.


I think I put you on my spam folder a couple of years ago. Sorry.


Rynjin wrote:
golem101 wrote:
but I do know why it was changed: because of complaints from people who got the short stick from a freaking dice roll and weren't able to deal with it.
"Dealing with it" when the dice f@** you on a single attack roll or save or whatever is a lot more palatable and infinitely more well designed than having the dice be able to f~!* you not just THERE but at charop and either make or break your character from the start of the game.

Roll 4d6, take away the lowest result, do that six times, rearrange as preferred. If the whole string of values is not good enough, repeat.

"But this way I can roll infinite times to get all 18s!"
"I like to think that you're enough of a grown up to know when to stop"

(roughly translated from the original at my table)

It's not the value that determines outcome, and only occasionally is the dice roll. Most of the times, the culprit is the player's decision.


Bill Dunn wrote:
golem101 wrote:

I never understood why suddenly odd modifiers gained a stigma, and every modifier suddenly became a flat +2 or +4.
Simple - with an even number bonus added to a stat, it always makes a difference no matter if the initial stat is odd or even. If the bonus was odd, like +1, the recipient would get no effective benefit if their initial stat was even.

But he would if the initial stat was odd. And having to roll for modifiers gave the feeling of something unpredictable, weird, possibly not so good possibily better than expected... hey, that would be some kind of magic!!

Sorry the sarcasm wasn't so obvious in the first place, but I do know why it was changed: because of complaints from people who got the short stick from a freaking dice roll and weren't able to deal with it.
Everyone deserves something, you can't rely on bad/good luck in a game, and then we get races with no negative stat adjustements, because everyone is special. So, suddenly, no-one is. Aaarrgh.


I find the idea of animal companions for rangers and druids absolutely moronic.

The fact that every druid is able to change shape into a virtually infinite number of combat-oriented animals is equally laughable.

The most succesfull characters I've seen at my table were a fighter, a multiclass fighter-wizard, and a monk, all of them hailing from the 3.0 rules.

My players have always thought of PrCs as a waste of time.

I think that the Illumians are cool.

Combat is overrated in gameplay balance and depth.

Excluding obvious loopholes in spells, 3.0 was better than 3.5.

I never understood why suddenly odd modifiers gained a stigma, and every modifier suddenly became a flat +2 or +4.

1 to 50 of 1,906 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.