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

knightnday's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 1,855 posts. 40 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,855 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
phantom1592 wrote:

I hate talk about bloat. There is no Bloat. Bloat is not the problem. Those are OPTIONS for people who want them. Starting over with a new system doesn't erase bloat... it just starts the clock over again.

They will not 'fix' the Core Rulebook with a 2.0. They are STILL errating the CRB now... it's ever evolving. The moment 2.0 comes out there would just be a whole new list of things that people hate that need to be clarified, codified, or redone...

I personally do not want to start over with the base what? 7 classes??? We waited almost 10 years to get a swashbuckler base class... and the psychic magic, and all the other cool stuff... why would I want to reset the clock and buy all new again??

I think they can keep doing things like unchained with redone versions of classes giving us MORE choices... but to just disqualify the entire Advanced/Ultimate line?? Yeah, I don't see that solving any problems.

I cannot favorite this post enough. I don't want to rebuy all the same material again.


Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

I don't know anything about the industry but I don't see how Paizo survives without publishing a new edition periodically.

In order to keep the lights on, Paizo needs to keep publishing books. If Paizo keeps publishing books the number of options, rules, subsystems and so on grow until the sum is bloated, unlearnable, and unworkable. The only solution seems to be to reboot from scratch periodically, and redo everything with the benefit of however many years of experience and insight they managed to keep the cycle going for.

What's the alternative? Stop publishing new player options/rules and just write increasingly detailed setting information? Ignore bloat until it scares away all your potential new customers?

"Bloat" is the all-too-human need to have everything or else one believes they are missing out. You need the Core book to play, or an internet connection and the resources that are provided. There is as much bloat as you buy into.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps they are adapting by creating new and interesting content (Starfinder, different APs, rule expansions) rather than slapping a big ol' Now New Edition! on the same three books and remaking the same material with the new edition's stats?

I've wandered through a number of editions of a number of games, and not all of them were better than their predecessors. Some went off in directions, both in rules or support material, that many fans were less than happy with.

For that matter, if I asked the local game stores their opinions they'd tell me that most of the RPGs should shut down since they sell more Pokemon, YuGiOh, Magic, and Warhammer minis than RPGs by a wide margin. I am less than convinced the average game store has a firm take on Paizo's financial situation.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gregg Helmberger wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:

I mean, even though I know I might not buy another Paizo book because of how they are currently handling things, it doesn't mean that they should stop making the current edition. I am but one jerk on the internet, just because I dislike what they are currently doing doesn't mean they should listen to me and do a severe change.

Pathfinder's numbers are down and 5E is the new 800-pound gorilla. I know a lot of people who've switched from Pathfinder to 5E, partially because it's the new thing (and the new thing always has attraction) and partially because it does actually provide a different experience at the table.

So it's not just one clown on the internet (or two clowns, since I want it too). It's a lot of people who are silently dropping away and moving their money to other products without bothering to come to this forum and tell the world about it. And as long as Pathfinder continues without a shakeup significant enough to pull attention back to it, that trend will continue and maybe even accelerate.

It's not a case of "don't rock the boat because it's winning the regatta," not anymore. There's a new big kid on the playground and you can't beat him doing the same things you were doing before he showed up.

Funny thing is, people were saying this during 4E as well. And they'll say it when D&D moves to 6E. Some people want the newest and shiniest, and some don't. What we also don't see/hear are the people who move away and then come back, or play multiple systems at the same time.

Just because 5E or 4E or another game system entirely exists or was updated or some people have moved to it because they believe it fixes some problems doesn't mean that Paizo needs to suddenly ditch everything to somehow keep up with the Joneses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm happy with the mix I'm seeing so far of creatures, and am looking especially towards the rougarou.


Irontruth wrote:
knightnday wrote:

Except in the movies you're noting there were supporting stars that had name star status .. or do you think they cast Anthony Hopkins as Odin on a lark?

Star Wars: The Force Awakens is one of your examples. No one went to see the two unknowns. Oh, they liked them afterwards (for the most part), but people went for the nostalgia, for Han and Leia and Luke and R2D2 and Chewy (member Chewbacca? /Soutpark) and for continuing the Star Wars mythos. They could have cast a potted plant as the lead and it would have made money. Same goes for Jake Llyod and Hayden Christensen in their respective movies, only they were not anywhere near as well received as Daisy and John.

You can call it a myth, but it is something that the studios seem to believe in given that they are willing to pay millions to get the hot names in their movies, whether or not they might fit into the fan base's idea of what the character should look like.

If the lead is going to be unknown or untested, they often load the cast with well-known actors and actresses in the supporting parts, have an acclaimed director or producer, or otherwise try to tilt the odds in their favor. There's a reason why (other than as a dire warning to future humans) that movies have things like "Produced by Michael Bay" above the title.

You're addressing other issues, not the one I was responding to.

The claim is that Hollywood doesn't cast unknown actors in major movies.

I provided evidence that it does. Your rebuttal doesn't actually prove me wrong, since you're actually affirming that I'm right by pointing out that Hollywood can balance out unknown leads with big name supporting actors and directors.

But you cannot use your points as evidence without first admitting that Hollywood casts unknown actors as leads in big budget films.

Well, as this isn't a formal debate class I can pretty much do whatever, as can anyone else. But sure, they cast unknowns (which I affirmed) and then I explained why they do it. You are in a hurry to be "right" rather than have a discussion, I fear. So if it makes you feel somehow better, you can be right. They cast unknowns.

As a note? I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I don't care if you are wrong, or right, or blue. I'm idly pointing out what's been going on in Hollywood since Hollywood was a thing. The fans can WANT a no-name actor(ress) for their movies, or even a cast of no names. That doesn't mean that the studio will pony up big dollars for a movie, however.

Tangentially, which of and how many of the supporting roles are people willing to give up to "big name" stars in order to have the Major played a virtual unknown?

It just depends on what you are willing to give up to get the movie. Special effects? Actor? Costumes? Advertising?

Maybe I am wrong and money isn't their concern. Maybe a movie of virtual unknowns will be able to carry the movie on the big screen as opposed to being the ScyFy channel movie of the week. It's been that sort of year, after all. ;)


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Why is no one getting riled up about movies coming out of France? or the U.K.? or China? or Japan? What about unions and actors guilds people... do studios have complete freedom over what they do? or are they bound by certain laws and regulations about staffing and filming locations? does casting a movie in the USA come with certain obligations to give parts to American actors?

I don't know the answers to all this, but I know there's an entire industry thriving on making movies - just look at the credits at the end of any movie. Legal is a huge part of the equation. I just don't have enough information to base an informed opinion on this subject.

I agree with the above posters that money is probably the biggest, number one reason for casting though. When the casting of a Japanese or African or European or Russian or [...+n_Ethnicity] character goes to an actor of a different ethnicity, are reparations or compensations made to the authors or creators of the said characters? do they have a say in it, or did they sign that privilege away when the studio bought their intellectual property? I don't know. Maybe someone from the movie industry that's on this thread can comment, but this appears to be a complex issue that would benefit from such facts and a dreaded backstory to understand all ramifications...

From what I've read in the past, the amount of control the creator has depends. Many get a credit and a paycheck and don't have a lot of say, whereas JK Rowling was adamant about only UK actors for the Potter movies. I'd guess that is something that you'd work out ahead of time and how much control they give is how much they want the property, and whether you can leverage that for more creative control decisions. IIRC, Alan Moore routinely hates everything about all his movies, so I'd guess he just gets paid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is a problem that Hollywood created and is working to change and needs to work harder on it. But trying to ignore the reason that it exists is also not a winning solution.

There isn't a pressing need for a live action GitS. But to get one made there were sacrifices that had to be made and ScarJo was one of them. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't (47 Ronin, for example, which I liked but apparently no one else did.)

Heck, The Great Wall was getting clobbered by online posters because it has Matt Damon in it before anyone knew what it was about. Just the mere fact that some white guy was in the movie was enough to provoke outrage despite the director mentioning that Damon wasn't taking any Chinese actor's role.

GitS might be great or it might be trash, but it doubt it will come down to whether or not ScarJo carries the movie or if a Japanese actress would have done better. Some movies are good regardless or in spite of the lead.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Except in the movies you're noting there were supporting stars that had name star status .. or do you think they cast Anthony Hopkins as Odin on a lark?

Star Wars: The Force Awakens is one of your examples. No one went to see the two unknowns. Oh, they liked them afterwards (for the most part), but people went for the nostalgia, for Han and Leia and Luke and R2D2 and Chewy (member Chewbacca? /Soutpark) and for continuing the Star Wars mythos. They could have cast a potted plant as the lead and it would have made money. Same goes for Jake Llyod and Hayden Christensen in their respective movies, only they were not anywhere near as well received as Daisy and John.

You can call it a myth, but it is something that the studios seem to believe in given that they are willing to pay millions to get the hot names in their movies, whether or not they might fit into the fan base's idea of what the character should look like.

If the lead is going to be unknown or untested, they often load the cast with well-known actors and actresses in the supporting parts, have an acclaimed director or producer, or otherwise try to tilt the odds in their favor. There's a reason why (other than as a dire warning to future humans) that movies have things like "Produced by Michael Bay" above the title.


Thank you to everyone at the Paizo family. Stay safe and have a good year.


dot


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Got my copy the other day and loved it. I'm hoping that with the success of the book that we'll see more support for these races with regard to miniatures as time goes on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Goodness, let it go or take it to PMs. This pissing contest got old a page or so back. You are both right. You are both wrong. You both win. Everyone feel better now?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or we can just let it drop and go back to discussing how allowing ScarJo to play an anime character is or isn't a good idea and/or if this movie will be any good despite or because of her.

From the trailer, it at least looks nice and almost gave me a nostalgic twinge to play Shadowrun/Cyberpunk again. Almost.


Whitewashing or not, the real reason is, as always, money. A live action movie with the kind of special effects that this movie will require means they need a name, someone who the average movie-goer would know.

Sure, it would be great if they cast a Japanese actress. That said, she would not be known in a wide assortment of markets and that means a loss of money for the studios and probably a lot less theaters that it'd be shown in.

It isn't a matter of casting an authentic Japanese actress, or for other movies an LGBT actor, or handicapped or whatever. It's the studio wanting to make the most bang for their buck that they can. So they cast Scarlett as the Major, or Daniel Day Louis in My Left Foot, or Jared Leto in the Dallas Buyer's Club. It's the names that put butts in seats. ScarJo puts butts in seats, and a largely unknown but accurate Japanese actress won't.

Yes, it's whitewashing and yes, it largely sucks. But unless and until people separate the names from the movies AND want to shell out the Big Bucks for unknowns in major movies it isn't going to change.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm hoping for a good movie, casting besides the point.


Pan wrote:
Ill give it a chance. I cant knock it until I rock it. The trailer looks like it will at least be a fun ride even if the source material was flushed.

I agree, and I'll treat it as I do other "remakes" or re-imaginings, like the new Ghostbusters or any of the varied super hero movies, movies based on books, comics, and so forth.

They are their own thing and often deviate in some or many ways, and can quite often be good in their own rights. Plus, the original medium is always around in case you don't like it or don't want it. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Very interested in this, as are my players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What a great idea and a good looking mini to boot!


Be interesting to see how the various suits against Mr. Trump go as well. IIRC Gloria Allred was slavering at the thought of dealing with him. And then there's the Trump University, and so on.


Rednal wrote:

In other news, lots of Marijuana initiatives seem to be passing.

...

Maybe we want to make it the 70's again...?

I hope not. I had to wear some really ugly clothes back then. :/


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I often wonder exactly what people thought/think are in these emails? "I totally did Benghazi and here's how!"?

@Killer_GM: Yeah. Now they can have the corrupt Trump who has big ideas and will hire "the best people".


You voted for a dead gorilla? Ok...

As for whether or not she is better or worse than Trump, it's a matter of degrees and where you draw the line, I suppose.


Rednal wrote:
Sharoth wrote:
~grumbles~ I don't drink, but I want one right now.

I feel exactly the same. XD;

My most realistic expectation right now is that Trump is basically a show president - it'll be the VP making a lot of the decisions. And that doesn't make me feel better.

Yeah. I imagine he'll get bored when the new wears off and will build some more golf courses.


It's definitely become an interesting race. Not the blow out on either side that some were predicting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Voted by mail a few days ago. Good luck, all. Stay indoors should the Purge start. ;)


I saw it at the late 3D showing last night and it was a blast. It's not as action packed -- or at least not in the same way -- as some of the Marvel outings but it had good flavor, excellent acting from the majority of the cast, and the scope of the images were amazing.

If you worry about God wizards in games, think about having to deal with what some of these guys are doing.

Not spoiling much here, but the style that the magicians use to create spells and combat each other in many places more resembles martial characters than magicians. The trailers don't show as much of that as is in the movie; there is a great deal of hand to hand and enchanted weapon combat.


A person (or people? still fuzzy on that) decided to use a product page to attack one of the authors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Could you tell me what there is for grippli? Thank you!

Mostly frog stuff.

** spoiler omitted **

-Skeld

Thanks! My son will be happy to hear this, he is a frog freak.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think of it as misleading. New or old to the game, one would expect that you'd read the back of the cover blurb, check the website (wherever you buy it from), and so on.

The company is allowed to stray from what is "expected", which is what they are doing now, to see if they can mix it up. As always, I suggest waiting to see what the actual product is before getting upset about it.


Could you tell me what there is for grippli? Thank you!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like it. I want it. I like the idea of the experiment and hope that it yields more along this line.


James Jacobs wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Will there be more revealed about flumphs and their role against the Dark Tapestry?
God I hope not. I think we've said enough about flumphs. I'd rather not spend more of Paizo's energy building up the lore of a goofy monster we can only use because of the SRD—if we're gonna build lore for a goofy monster, I'd rather it be something we made up ourselves.

I understand completely. I'm less interested in the flumph and more if there are more enemies of the Dark Tapestry that we'll see in the future, outside of the usual suspects (PCs and their ilk.)

Thanks for answering all these questions, as an aside.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I buy everything. I may not use everything in every game, but it is an interesting read most of the time and I can mix in different ideas and concepts into different campaigns.

It's all options and as has been mentioned above, you don't have to use it all, or buy it all. Do what is good for your table. :)


Will there be more revealed about flumphs and their role against the Dark Tapestry?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll echo the idea to let her help pick out the ring. That's what I did with my wife, and she appreciated getting something that suited her instead of something that was not her style.

Congrats!


thejeff wrote:
knightnday wrote:
lucky7 wrote:
I heard bigly. Did a spit take.
Yeah. He really, really, really needs to learn some new words that don't make him sound like a third grader when he debates.
Why? It's not like he's going to debate again.

True, but he might want to sound better on his inevitable TV appearances, new channels and shows.


lucky7 wrote:
I heard bigly. Did a spit take.

Yeah. He really, really, really needs to learn some new words that don't make him sound like a third grader when he debates.


Eh, we just use Comeliness if/when anyone wants to have an appearance score. It's worked for us.


She did so and so at 3 o'clock in the morning, but I won't even mention that ...

YOU JUST MENTIONED THAT!


I'd like to see a question along the line of "Please answer this without referring to your opponent, using the word huge, worst ever, I know more, and so on."


Lots of people support me so therefore I am right!


Donnie knows everything better than everyone. It's amazing.


Seems he has the sniffle mic again.


Bandw2 wrote:
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
When you set up such restrictions at the onset, the players know exactly what they're getting into.

okay so this is an old post, but I've seen this posted multiple times now.

If as so many put it, it's hard to find another group to game in, then playing your game because it's the only one around, doesn't make it a good game.

For instance(using the described setting in another post), I can't be a magus teleporting around the battlefield. Can a blink? It's a quick teleport between dimensions over and over again...

can monks teleport via their ability or do they get nothing at that level?

if short range teleport are okay, and teleporting between the material and astral plane are okay, I'd have to ask, how far can I teleport before god intervenes and stops me. why is the astral(or is it ethereal, i always forget) plane okay?

can I teleport to planes? if so can I teleport to a plane and then anywhere I want back to the material plane?

Can I spend player time trying to re-invent the teleport spell? I'm going to do careful research on all the divine intervention castings and try to find someone who is going to try to do it soon and record any magic that happens, then try to replicate it. Can I not do that, if so, why?

If I get the true name of an outsider, can I use it to teleport me around?

Like here's the point, removing teleport or any other specific kind of magic outright isn't easy, as has been said.

This is the sort of thing the GM should have worked out before removing elements. In the teleport example, if I were doing it, I'd have substitute abilities to replace teleport when it is given, a rational (whether or not the players ever find out In Character) for why teleport doesn't work, how to handle planer travel and more.

It isn't easy, but it isn't that hard either if you want to do it and put some work in.


It's possible there will be some new ideas that we haven't seen in the last forty or so years. Perhaps a chapter on electronics at the table, for example. On how to run a group where people want different levels of power, however, is less compelling as a book.

If you don't have the time to make a book now, why would you if you signed a contract? From what I recall from previous posts about jobs in the RPG field, they'd want someone with some material under their belt, especially before they unleash you on a book that, let's face it, would be a questionable seller.

This topic is perfect for a blog post, a forum, a very small ($1) PDF. A full blown print book is, IMO, too much time and energy to devote to something that has already been covered over and over in various GM help guides over the years.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wise Old Man wrote:
Knightnday, but what if they actually came out with the book, would you say that you were wrong?

If they actually decided to make the book, I'd probably say "This is the one book that I have no interest in buying."

I owe everything else they've put out to date. That said, I cannot imagine what they could put in even a 32 page player's companion that would be useful to the situation that couldn't be summed up in a free blog post of "Everyone try to compromise or find your own way."

There is no magic formula. There are no analytics. There is no spreadsheet. You have to be able and willing -- willing being a very important part -- to deal with other people honestly and put yourself and your wants to the side. If you cannot, you have to find a group of people that all want the same thing you do, which is equally hard since they are all likely to want THEIR characters to be the best.

The magic bullet doesn't exist. This proposed book cannot fix a problem that exists in interpersonal relationships, not game play.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Wise Old Man wrote:

All I want is some party rule sets for characters who take the spot light away from the party. I said that not everyone will get along in a group, but if at least some percentage can, that's better than nothing. And yes, I believe that a book like that can help a percentage.

Party rules can't be hard to make, it's whatever a party does is equal to their level. I'm sure you can fit max damage charts in there per level, max attribute bonus per level, max this and that per level.

I know what you're thinking, "There's already third party books like that"
Yes, but if its by Paizo, the PFS can use it as an Optional rule, according to GM specific.

I don't want to start a flame war as someone mentioned previously. But it seems to me that some people like to rearrange words in a way that is more suiting for them to argue. Probably because of something to do with always wanting to sound right. I myself am a character optimizer, I just don't like to be mistreated by others when I'm writing something on the boards or nagged by other players for whatever reason that they're not satisfied with about my character being too powerful. I want everyone to be on the same playing field, so I can make whatever I want without any problems. Is that someone who sounds like a bad, crazy, deranged person?

People sound like I murdered someone.

Imagine if this book already existed and I said we did't need it, I'd get crapped on regardless. Its inhumane.

P.S.
If you are curious about what I said earlier in this thread, you know how to get there.

No book, by Paizo or others, will cause that event to happen. It's similar to asking for some sort of official document so you can say what you want about religion/politics/social events/cheese and no one on the internet or in person can naysay you or give a different opinion.

You are not being mistreated. You are experiencing life, and the internet. Both are full of people that will not agree with you and many will do so vocally.

No document is going to force a table to be on an "even playing field", for whatever that means, because people are going to have different desires in optimization, in play style, in rule use.

You seem more concerned about this mistreatment than trying to find a happy medium with whomever you play with or finding a group that embraces the same style you enjoy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JosMartigan wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Pan wrote:
Saldiven wrote:

The best gaming situation is one where everyone in the group is looking for the same thing. When the players all have very different ideas as to what constitutes "fun," it is really difficult to appeal to everyone.

Speaking as a 30+ year GM, it's just plain too much work to try to balance out a campaign where there are wide variations in expectation from the players. Trying to do that destroys my own fun. I used to try to do that, but it was stressful and almost never successful. So, these days, I always have a "session zero" type meeting where we hash all this kind of stuff out head of time.

This is a good view of the situation. Honestly, TTRPG is a small niche and requires group play.

This is what annoys me when people are quick to say "just find another group".

Its not trivial to find another Pathfinder group with people I want to play with.

Than maybe the answer is more flexibility on your part. The Internet has made online play the option it wasn't 5 years ago.
This. Or, worst case, you don't play for a while until you find a group that is right for you.

The last 2 responses above seem seriously disrespectful to someone who has GM'ed for 3 decades. I can vouch for the fact that finding a group that's a good fit can be extremely difficult. There are some areas where gaming is like a secret society, hidden from access. In others, people who want nothing but hack and slash or are avid power gamers have taken over.

As an older person who has played since 2nd edition and remembers leafing through the 1st edition red box, It's offensive to have other gamers tell me to stop being "so this" or "so that", meanwhile their narrow view of what gaming is, is actually as prejudiced as they are claiming I am because I like story, depth, and living breathing characters, instead of emulating video/computer or games or seeing exploitable stats and others who think the goal is to "win" the game - having a "me vs. the GM" attitude that turns into an arms race.

I wasn't being disrespectful, but rather honest and talking from experience. I've well over thirty years behind the screen myself and sometimes you cannot get a good table of people you can deal with. That isn't a hit against any poster, but rather a fact of life. A fact that happened in my life as it happens.

Now, I'm perhaps too picky or selective so that might have something to do with it. But speaking for myself, no game is better than a bad game, or a game with people I'd rather not play with for whatever reason.

So I apologize if you found my comment offensive, it wasn't my intention or desire to offend. Rather, I was giving an honest response of what myself and many others have had to endure.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Pan wrote:
Saldiven wrote:

The best gaming situation is one where everyone in the group is looking for the same thing. When the players all have very different ideas as to what constitutes "fun," it is really difficult to appeal to everyone.

Speaking as a 30+ year GM, it's just plain too much work to try to balance out a campaign where there are wide variations in expectation from the players. Trying to do that destroys my own fun. I used to try to do that, but it was stressful and almost never successful. So, these days, I always have a "session zero" type meeting where we hash all this kind of stuff out head of time.

This is a good view of the situation. Honestly, TTRPG is a small niche and requires group play.

This is what annoys me when people are quick to say "just find another group".

Its not trivial to find another Pathfinder group with people I want to play with.

Than maybe the answer is more flexibility on your part. The Internet has made online play the option it wasn't 5 years ago.

This. Or, worst case, you don't play for a while until you find a group that is right for you.

1 to 50 of 1,855 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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