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

magnuskn's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. 6,743 posts (6,745 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,743 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'll just post a link to my review on this board of the AP. Draw your own conclusions from there as to what you think appropriate. The less I need to think about this AP, the happier I am. :-/

Link


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Skeld wrote:
Aside from Borsk Fey'lya going out like a boss, I hated that book. To me, it represented everything that was wrong with the entire YV storyline.

Oh, so true. SO TRUE.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ah, yes. Star by Star. The only book I ever burned. Haaaaaaaaaaaaaate it. Gah, flashbacks.

And the less said about the mess Travis made, the better.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
magnuskn wrote:


Still, gotta know how much I need to place for my six players in that first group. I am very much aware that the first modules of RotRL can seem a little scarce on treasure even for four players!

Well it will depend somewhat on what your characters consider loot - what they find - and what you allow to be sold - some tips:


  • goblins are expected to have the gear listed in the bestiary - I pegged each goblin gear value at 52 (prior to selling) - warchanters were 135 and commandos were 673.
  • Aldern (if taken on his offer for a boar hunt) actually *buys* a horse for each player - that's 75 (or more if you are generous and say each mount has tackle and a saddle)
  • Unless your players are very dead set on their own thing they should get free room and board while in sandpoint which helps
  • I suggest checking out the (free) wayfinder mag from this site - there is a side adventure to explore choppers isle that is very cool - I added a masterwork weapon for each PC as a reward when they were done personally.
  • If your players find *everything* and sell *everything* you will need to add about 2k to hit level 4 wbl for a 6 player party. Shouldn't be too hard to do - the problem will be they should level to 5 pretty quick in the 2nd book and will fall behind as most of the exp from that first part is based on rollplaying. They should catch up by the end though due to some very nice treasure hordes.

Anyway those are my thoughts.

When adjusting for 6 players you also have to consider how you're adjusting. Are you boosting all the encounters? If so, then new gear for the new critters will cover part of the extra automatically. Some will need to be added to cover those foes that don't use gear.

If you're not, then characters will wind up at lower level, but still powerful due to numbers. They need less treasure to stay on track.

I will boost all encounters appropriately, but a lot of encounters in AP's don't even have treasure. I'll adjust accordingly as soon as I can do the WBL breakdown in a few weeks. I can already say that all the encounters with ogres later on will tax suspension of disbelief a bit, since I don't think that there is a huge market for ogre hooks in civilized areas. I'll just have to place extra stuff here and there to compensate.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I should probably bookmark this thread to reference it whenever I get to do a homebrewn campaign or want to throw in some extra monsters. To, ahem, know what, errr, "not" to use. ;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CWheezy wrote:
James says he puts double WBL in adventure paths, such as rise of the runelords. level 15 wbl is 240,000. There is no way for it to be possible to have double that much gold with ZERO CRAFTING. Maybe he is forgetting you have to sell things for half, so maximum posssible wealth is only 240,000 by level 15? I read through rise after the campaign ended and our party did not miss 76 +2 longswords (aka being down 150,000g each

I actually did wealth breakdowns for several AP's (Jade Regent and Carrion Crown, I think also for Kingmaker) and the WBL came more down to 125% of what four characters should have at the end of each module. That is with selling everything which is not an artifact, with 50% of normal wealth for equipment and 100% for art and jewels. I tried to take into account how likely it is that the characters will even get certain items, i.e. I didn't count equipment from characters where a diplomatic solution was very likely. However I did count in equipment which was hard to find.

With RotRL, I find myself in the unique position of still playing it while also GM'ing it. We just started last week with Burnt Offerings with my group of 15+ years, while I am still myself playing Spires of Xin-Shalast, just having found the entrance to the Pinnacle of Avarice. I don't want to spoil myself for the last leg of the journey, so I am holding back on doing my WBL accounting until we got Karzoug down.

Still, gotta know how much I need to place for my six players in that first group. I am very much aware that the first modules of RotRL can seem a little scarce on treasure even for four players!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Characters aging in real time is pretty much a bad idea. Comics come out in one month jumps, hence a lot of stories can't be told in "real time" with only 32 pages per month.

Not even to mention that some heroes have more endurance in popular culture than others. If you need to retire the popular heroes after a while (Marvel has now 50+ years of history, let's not forget that), it will go bad for you if your next bunch of characters were not as popular as the last one.

It's an all-around bad idea.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I was predicting this reboot from about a year ago, I think. Way too many storylines were going with time travel stuff and character arcs were progressing in ways which made characters practically irredeemable (all the members of the Illuminati) and then there was the time jump in Avengers just a few months ago. The writing was on the wall.

However, how I react to this will depend on what comes out after the crossover. If they use this to essentially restart the timeline completely, they will lose my loyalty to the line. Having an unbroken continuity is one of the things which made Marvel comics unique to me. Having characters like Kitty Pryde be the sum of their experiences is what made them likeable and understandable.

If Marvel now goes the DC route of just ending the lives of their characters and replacing them with new versions with different live stories... what is the point of giving them any loyalty and investing emotions? From that point on, they all are constantly under the threat of the publishing company pulling the plug again for another reboot, just like under DC.

If Marvel just makes slight changes, i.e. they situate some characters in the main universe and (finally) end the Ultimate universe, then things will be okay. I don't know how they'd get around the damage they have done to some of their mainstay characters like Reed Richards, Tony Start, Namor, Black Panther and others this way, though.

All in all, I'll keep calm until the crossover is done. If they go with a full reboot, expect some fire spitting, however.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
magnuskn wrote:

I probably would have not written the party out of Korvosa for two entire modules, but that would be rewriting the second half of the AP entirely, which of course can't be expected.

The standard Paizo AP includes a mix of urban, wilderness, and dungeon crawl. There are some exceptions, but that's the default. In design terms, an AP that never left the city would favor certain classes over others (rogues over druids, say) and there'd be whole categories of spells and feats that would never become relevant. Also, while some of us love the mean streets of the city, six straight modules of urban adventure might get a bit wearisome. (See, e.g., the near universal agreement that while hexagon-based exploration of wilderness in the first installment of Kingmaker was awesome, by the fourth it had become pretty tedious.)

Also, in this particular case, the PCs spent two modules and 5-6 levels outside the city getting better, smarter and stronger so that they can come back and lead the revolution against the Queen. That makes thematic sense, and I don't have a problem with it.

Eh, Pathfinder AP's have taken a lot of chances lately with their setting, so I think that they could break with those thematics you mention in the future. Of course that doesn't really bear out for a reprint of CotCT.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dreaming Psion wrote:
7. "I take down the tank with my dual-wielded pepperbox pistols! OH YEAH!"

And I thought I was the only GM stupid enough to allow this.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Jason Bulmahn

Ezren on WoW
Borean Tundra

Well, you have the good sense to play a Mage, it seems. :p


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, but not with mythic, you two weirdos. ^^


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I probably would have not written the party out of Korvosa for two entire modules, but that would be rewriting the second half of the AP entirely, which of course can't be expected.

More involvement in setting up a rebellion in the city would have been nice. Could be that we are getting this with the upcoming Cheliax AP, though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Huh, I would have categorized monsters as "not fun for their CR" which do present only a sub-standard challenge for the party, not the reverse.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

While I am (probably) not getting this myself, since the GM I play with doesn't like third party classes and neither do the players in my own campaign, I think this might be an interesting class for the people who saw the anime Tokyo Ravens.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gebby wrote:
No, not basically a new edition. Its not like your going from 2nd to 3rd or 3 to 4, changing a few classes and few rules doesn't change the edition. When a new class or archtype comes out does it mean 'oh my god, we got a new edition'. Are u saying with Pathfinder Unchained we have a new edition. Can you use books without any issue at all, books produced before and call it a new edition. I figured someone would post like that.

Yes, if they produced a CRB with the revised classes, that would be a "revised" edition (or a "new" one, depending on your terminology), by their own definition. The developers have said, multiple times in the past, that they very conciously do not re-design mayor aspects of the existing classes, because it would mess up references to class abilities from other books.

Sorry, but if they do what you want them to, they could just as well go and fix the other many problems people have found with this edition, too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, looking back on it after having GM'ed it, the story had its share of problems which were not so visible by just reading it, as I outlined in my review of the AP. The real problem was, of course, the mythic rules.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The one who wins initiative wins the fight. It's as easy as that.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gebby wrote:
I know everyone fears a new edition

I don't.

Mythraine wrote:
I would agree with this. Say in two years after Unchained has come out and people [hypothetically] agree all the revamp classes are better, do a CRB update with the UC monk/rogue/barbarian and other updates etc in it.

So, basically a new edition.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Wait, you almost already took your group through an AP which has just stopped being published? How much do you guys play each week? :p


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
captain yesterday wrote:

Have you thought of scraping mythic before they're over

you're starting to sound like magnuskn:-p

Hey, I'm not the only one who ran across those issues, far from it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Werthead wrote:

From the horse's mouth:

Quote:

DR: How much of a role did George Lucas play in shaping the series?

Lucy Wilson (Director of Publishing at Lucasfilm): George Lucas has been involved in all of the spin-off Star Wars publishing, but only on big concepts or plot points. The initial five-year NJO plot outline and early thoughts on who might die were sent to him in the form of a Q&A memo and subsequently discussed by phone.

Shelley Shapiro (Editorial Direct at Del Rey): I would characterize his role as limited but important. He's the one who said the alien invaders could not be dark side Force-users, that we couldn't kill Luke, that we had to kill Anakin instead of Jacen(we had originally planned it the other way around). Other than that, he occasionally answered some basic questions for us, but that was rare. Mostly he leaves the books to his licensing people, trusting them to get it right.

Again, I remember people saying that the editors later disavowed that quote on TheForce.Net. I'm really not in the mood to try to hunt through a backlog of 10 years, though, not even to mention that they moved sites and the structure of the boards isn't the same as it was.

So, point to you. At this point, I am past caring, but, man, I was angry as hell about the entire disaster of killing Anakin for several years.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
captain yesterday wrote:
No, its not

Yes, it is. The modules barely connect to each other. Module four was a complete de-tour, but also modules two and five have you doing just stuff in-between to get to the end of the module, so that you can gather the clue to where you need to go next. The big bad of the entire AP is a non-entity until literally the last fight. The writers of the AP even acknowledged that they messed up in that regard in the foreword of the sixth module. Modules three is also barely connected, but at least you get to fight the main bad guy organization towards the tail end of that module. Only in module six does the party really catch up with the people who started the events of the entire AP.

Reign of Winter has got a bit more tightly connected plot, as you know from book one to book six what your task is (which Carrion Crown really doesn't do until the end of book three). However, the way of getting there is doing barely connected stuff in books three to five. Book one and two are pretty well connected to each other and book six is... eh. I found it pretty uninspiring.

However, RoW has the single best module Paizo has ever released, which is book five.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
leo1925 wrote:


Isn't Reign of Winter story driven? Have i heard wrong? Is it more like Jade Regent of Shattered Star?

More like Carrion Crown. A series of barely connected vignettes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Curse of the Crimson Throne, duh.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'll keep it to a "What Tangent said", because, seriously, not worth it getting the mods to work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm not going to argue the semantics of the spell anymore, since people are so dead set about keeping their blanket immunity level one spell which works against level nine spells. Not in my group and not with the other one where I am a player, either.

And Nocticula gets around the Spell with her aura of awesomeness, anyway. No matter how you want to interpret it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Werthead wrote:
Quote:
While I don't have the exact narrative at hand, IIRC this story was disavowed by the Del Rey editors after it came out.
The Del Rey editors themselves confirm the story in the interview published at the end of THE UNIFYING FORCE itself, so there's not much wriggle room for misinterpretation.

Well, that interview apparently was on the CD-ROM which is conspicuously missing by now in my book, so I can't confirm or deny. I only know that I was an active member on the TheForce.net messageboards at that time and I distinctly remember several reliable people pointing out that the editors at Del Rey did not confirm the story.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well, so do I. :D


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
captain yesterday wrote:
i'm also going to guess that Magnuskn works in linguistics and or law:)

Historian, actually.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

James offers opinions, not actual rulings, he has made that clear many times in the past. However, nice to know that charm spells don't even fall under the protection from evil purview.

And I definitely have seen threads where the wording of the spell was discussed extensively, so, again, nice try.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CWheezy wrote:
Saying "Your" there implies that it is only his conclusion. What would be more accurate is "Everyone else's conclusion ever"

If you say so. Although that there are several threads on the subject would point to your statement being a bit, uh, factually challenged. ^^


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
rknop wrote:

"additional" would be the word you'd use to say that there were prior attempts.

When you buy a new car, you don't have to have had a car before. It just says that it's a car that's fresh and hasn't been around. That's the sense of "new" in Protection from Evil.

Really it's extremely clear, but you're also clearly extremely stubborn, so the most important thing is that the two of us never play in a game together.

I disagree about your semantic conclusion. I think that's all there is to say about that. Given that I'd probably be the GM in any game we'd end up together, I concur that we better not play together.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tels wrote:
magnuskn wrote:

Yes, "new" attempts. Which linguistically specifies that there were prior attempts, which presumably you were not immune to. I'm baffled that people try to read the spell as giving you blank immunity from the start. The sequence is made quite clear from the spell.

PC -> Gets mind controlled (i.e. was not immune) -> gets new saving throw with +2 bonus -> makes save -> now has that spell suppressed -> furthermore is immune to new attempts to mind control.

The only thing I find unclear is if you also immune to new attempts of mind control if you failed the second save and therefore your comrades can't even rescue you with a timely counter-dominate. ^^

Except any new attempts is not conditionally bound to being under the effects of a spell from a past attempts.

The wording suggests that it is. Because otherwise the preceding sentences would have not been included at all.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yes, "new" attempts. Which linguistically specifies that there were prior attempts, which presumably you were not immune to. I'm baffled that people try to read the spell as giving you blank immunity from the start. The sequence is made quite clear from the spell.

PC -> Gets mind controlled (i.e. was not immune) -> gets new saving throw with +2 bonus -> makes save -> now has that spell suppressed -> furthermore is immune to new attempts to mind control.

The only thing I find unclear is if you also immune to new attempts of mind control if you failed the second save and therefore your comrades can't even rescue you with a timely counter-dominate. ^^


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oh, okay, we were actually talking about the same thing, Tels. ^^

However, I would posit that you still are vulnerable to mind control if you have PfE cast on you before a mind control spell was cast on you in the first place. The text very strongly suggests that you are not immune at that point, but rather get to make the second saving throw with a +2 modifier... then if you make that save, you are immune to further mind control effects for the duration.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You can't base such a conclusion logically on phrasing not being exactly like you say it must be. Please try to explain why we even have the preceding sentences if the last sentence confers to you a blank check immunity in the first place. It doesn't make any logical sense.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Two things.

1.) Taking this last sentence as meaning the target was immune to all mind control effects from the start does make the preceding sentences of the spell completely meaningless. Hence, this interpretation makes no sense.

2.) Even if you want to take the meaning that the spell makes you immune to all mind control from the start, that doesn't work, because in the sentence the word "new" delineates that the prior sentences dealing with mind control are to be taken into account, meaning that the simplistic interpretation of this singular sentence is wrong.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

<sigh> Okay, let's go through this in detail

Quote:
Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects, such as charm person, command, and dominate person. This saving throw is made with a +2 morale bonus, using the same DC as the original effect.

Full stop here. This clearly delineates that the character with PfE gets a second saving throw if s/he failed the first one. This makes it pretty clear that you don't get a blank check immunity from the spell.

Quote:
If successful, such effects are suppressed for the duration of this spell. The effects resume when the duration of this spell expires. While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target.

And this part says that you need to succeed at this second saving throw to get the immunity (and suppression of the first effect, which had to be successful to trigger PfE in the first place) against mental control effects.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Werthead wrote:
This was down to Word of Lucas. The original plan was to kill Jacen and keep Anakin. And then Lucas decreed that it was too confusing to have two Anakins running around (the NJO books came out alongside the prequel trilogy) and ordered him killed off. It apparently threw the plans for the series and the following books off-kilter, and it shows.

There is some dispute if that actually is what happened. While I don't have the exact narrative at hand, IIRC this story was disavowed by the Del Rey editors after it came out. Of course they have a vested interest to protect Lucas, although the way fans hate the guy at this point, it wouldn't really matter anyway.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
rknop wrote:
Krinn wrote:
The spell no longer makes you immune to mental control, it's just harder to control you as it takes 2 failed saves instead of 1 to get dominated. Immunity was a 3.5 thing.

Incorrect. Quoting the Core Rulebook, page 327 under the description of "Protection from Evil":

Quote:
While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target.

Incomplete quoting of rules doesn't really help with determining the full effect of the spell. Check some posts above, where it is quoted in full and where we discuss why therefore the "total immunity" interpretation doesn't work.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Grand Moff Vixen wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Kalphazor wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
After the PaizoCon banquet, I think the answer is "Paizo's own VTT". :)
Hey i know this thread is long dead but i have been trying to find a way to get into that game so that me and my friends can all start playing dnd again, i was hoping you might have some information about it or somthing?
At this point, it's pretty much vaporware.

At this point, your speculation is just that, unsubstantiated rumors.

Have evidence to the contrary? Feel free to share.

It has been in development for years and they also said years ago that it'd be ready in a few months. Since then... silence or "still working on it". Which meets the definition of vaporware.

Or you could just check out the correct sub-forum on this messageboard dedicated to the thing, if you don't believe me.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kalphazor wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
After the PaizoCon banquet, I think the answer is "Paizo's own VTT". :)
Hey i know this thread is long dead but i have been trying to find a way to get into that game so that me and my friends can all start playing dnd again, i was hoping you might have some information about it or somthing?

At this point, it's pretty much vaporware.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Very likely not. ^^


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
NobodysHome wrote:
I just worry when people talk about "action economy" as a key focus.

It actually is one of the most important balancing factors in normal campaigns. In Mythic, well, yes, but the other mentioned problems have a much higher weight stat in seeing how broken mythic is.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

We had the exact same type of research you did, and found that it was left unclear by the devs. Since everybody agreed that it is ridiculous that a level one spell foils everything up to demon lords, we went with the more subdued interpretation of the spell.

There are bosses of entire AP's who'd otherwise get completely neutered by this level one spell.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

And please stop the OT stuff, there's an entire forum for that.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
NobodysHome wrote:

*IF* you ignore her "aura of cheesiness" (which you pretty much have to, since otherwise they can't attack her in the first place), then Protection from Evil makes you completely immune to her mind effects, and she doesn't have quickened dispelling to get rid of it.

We've always felt Protection from Evil was one of the cheesiest, most powerful spells in the game. In Wrath of the Righteous it's a game-breaker. I have to give all my bad guys Dispel Magic, which is similarly cheesy, but at least it gets me away from fights like the one where the "BBEG" was all about mind controlling PCs, and it was basically, "Well, the BBEG doesn't have Dispel Magic, and none of its abilities can affect you without it, so I guess it just runs away."

A bit more than anticlimactic.

Well, yeah, her having that aura kind of is one of the things which prevents TPK's by player stupidity. Why would you ever want to take it away from her?

NobodysHome wrote:

EDIT: The text of the spell is pretty darned clear on this subject.

PRD wrote:

Quote:
Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects, such as charm person, command, and dominate person. This saving throw is made with a +2 morale bonus, using the same DC as the original effect. If successful, such effects are suppressed for the duration of this spell. The effects resume when the duration of this spell expires. While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target.

So it all boils down to another, "As a GM, do I just put in mooks that spam Dispel Magic in every fight, or do I just accept that my PCs are never going to get mind controlled?"

The answer is obviously a delicate balance: Not every fight should have dispelling mooks, but intelligent enemies who use mind control as one of their main attacks and who have studied the PCs should absolutely have such mooks.

Actually, the text is quite clear that you first have to get mind controlled, then you get a new saving throw (with a +2 morale bonus, ooooh how useful against Nocci's DC) and if you succeed at that one, you get the immunity. So, um, no, it doesn't make you immune overall to mind control.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I hope your adjustments help you out. Try to make your martials not take foebiter as a legendary weapon ability, that halves the insane melee damage on critical hits already.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Those Oni will be useful in the JR campaign I'm going to start running again in a few months. Thank you! :)

1 to 50 of 6,743 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.