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

ohako's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 835 posts (836 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 4 Pathfinder Society characters.


1 to 50 of 835 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

@Nohwear That paragraph in the ubran hunter archetype is really strange

a) I don't know if this matters, but swans and camels are vicious bastard animals. I don't really understand how an urban hunter can make one of those look non-threatening. Maybe hairstyling? The right mouthwash?

So, a bystander watches someone's pet swan bite someone's head off.

b) an urban hunter can 'calm' the bystander with a Handle Animal check? they're not an animal, how does that work? the hunter rubs menthol on the bystander's tummy?
c) what does it mean to 'calm' someone, anyway? Like, does the swan have maximum ranks in Intimidate and the Dreadful Carnage feat and the hunter needs to keep everyone calm?
d) What about that hunter's tiefling witch/barbarian buddy cackling and evil eyeing all those bar mooks? How would you calm someone who saw that?

@Kevin yeah, I saw that thread. a) the banhammer (and the thread) predate the recent 'all spells are shiny' FAQ, and b) I figure I'd actually put forth the concise argument that was asked for.

I've never done this before (advocating a PFS legality issue), and there might be a format or template I'm missing here, but here goes anyway.

We now know (thanks to a recent FAQ) which spells are noticed by onlookers, and which aren't (answer: all are noticed, even without noticeable components).

I have always wanted to pull off the 'these aren't the droids you're looking for' scene from Star Wars, but under the recent FAQ, I basically can't (with a few exceptions).

Here are all of the PFS-legal exceptions I can think of

1. A rakshasa bloodline sorcerer could pass off a charm person as an innocuous spell, but only if innocuous spellcasting was seen as otherwise harmless.
2. A 9th-level sandman bard.
3. A (presumably non-sandman) bard using the Spellsong feat.
4. Someone casting a spell with only somatic components (deaf oracles say hi) and the feat Secret Signs.
5. A Dawnflower Dissident, although to get charm person with this build you'd need to be a separatist cleric with the Charm domain (and thus to qualify for the prestige class you'll need another way to cadge scimitar proficiency), or a juju oracle (of Sarenrae...weird)

So there's five different ways where casting spells in front of onlookers without their knowledge is already legal in PFS. If the goal is to prevent covert casting, that catbag has sailed.

So let's talk Cunning Caster for a minute. It's a way to cast spells covertly, only it requires a successful Bluff against everybody in the room, and there are big penalties for using components of any kind. And let's also say that it's pretty obvious which character would be an optimized user of Cunning Caster: the mesmerist.

So here's a list of optimizations that a mesmerist gets to using Cunning Caster

a) Cha-based spellcasting, which gives a bonus on Bluff checks (and opposed Cha checks while using charm person)
b) a built-in bonus to Bluff checks
c) hypnotic stare, which gives a penalty to a target's Will saving throw (and possibly also Perception checks)
d) psychic spellcasting, which forgoes verbal and somatic components completely.

Suffice to say, they'd be good at it. So here's my arguments.

1. There are already a bunch of ways to covert cast. Cunning Caster doesn't stop those ways that are already out there.

2. Mesmerists do not have any other good options for covert spellcasting. All the other options (even Secret Signs) rely on classes or abilities that aren't the mesmerist. And don't forget: there's language in the hypnotic stare feature that prevents the stare's target from being aware the stare is happening. Why is that language even there, if there are no built-in class features or legal feats that can take advantage of that? What are they supposed to do: ~look into my eyes, yes, that's it, aren't my eyes very pretty?~

3. It's still two rolls. Let's say you're a barbarian, and you want to smash a bad guy's face with a hammer. So, roll to hit. Say you're a wizard, and there's something about the shape of that column finial that seems familiar. So, roll a knowledge check. Almost all of the things PCs want to do to affect their environment are one roll to do (or fail). There is a reason why using feint to sneak attack is such a bad idea. So you feint? Fine, you still have to roll to hit, with a 3/4 BaB class against a giant with a monster natural armor bonus anyway. Same with casting defensively: you don't do it unless you have to. Nobody likes those odds. I'd say the only saving grace of phantasmal killer is that the effect of its target failing the two saving throws is so powerful: they die. No other spell with two rolls would possibly be worth it.

4. I got one more: telempathic projection, charm person's psychic kid brother. How is this spell even usable unless you can cast it on the sly? Even with the no-save ability, unless you covert cast you're going to instantly bring your target to a hostile attitude if they see you casting. What's a +5 bonus going to do when you've effectively just flipped the table?

So, I'm all done. Maybe Cunning Caster will be made legal, or maybe we just get to wait for Ultimate Intrigue. Or maybe we get to wait for Ultimate Intrigue to find an updated version of Cunning Caster that's also PFS-banned. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For completeness sake, I'll also note that the feats Cunning Caster and Subtle Devices from Heroes of the Streets can give a caster a skill check to pass in order to cast covertly.

Sadly, those feats aren't currently PFS-legal, whereas the others are

the list for covert casting any spell (not just elixir of love), as it stands today

a) the rakshasa bloodline (for sorcerers)
b) the sandman archetype (for bards)
c) the Spellsong feat (for non-sandman bards)
d) the Secret Signs feat (for deaf oracles)
e) the Dawnflower Dissident prestige class (for, wow, separatist clerics of Sarenrae with the Charm domain or juju oracles who worship Sarenrae)
f) the feats Secret Caster and Subtle Devices (for practically anybody)

try playing a rogue? sure, you can still kill the whatever, but to do it really well, you have to move around, get into a flanking position, worry about flanking from somewhere else...

I find it's pretty exciting. Then again, I don't get to play very often.

FLite wrote:
More amusingly, you can ask your GM if your eidolon can use you as a masterwork tool prop ("surely you wish to aid the hero of the crimson tower" gestures at summoner)

I do like that one the best, although the eidolon I have in mind is going to have a hard time referring to its summoner as anything other than 'medicine chest', 'healer's kit', or 'utility belt'.

Let's say you're playing a summoner who's really really shy, and an eidolon who isn't (and who has taken ranks in social skills).

Now let's say you get a chronicle sheet that gives you a bonus to a social skill based on some in-game interactions during the scenario (+2 to Diplomacy vs. Aspis Consortium tengu, +2 to Intimidate vs. Ulfen humans living in Sargava, whatever).

The summoner has no interest or ability in using social skills on any NPCs, much less bluffing left-handed one-eyed genies from Nidal. Can the eidolon gain the benefit of the chronicle instead?

Uh, I switched my PFS Strength-based slayer/rogue to a slayer/urogue. Pretty easy decision, actually. Does it matter to me that I've got an option I'll 'never' use?

I dunno, how many times in my career am I going to take Strength damage from poison, or from a shadow, or get hit with a ray of enfeeblement? I like the idea of just busting my kerambit out of my hairdo and just going to town with that. Sure, it's not greataxe damage, but it's still competitive.

Uh, hey, @mdt, I quoted Ultimate Equipment right there. It says you can use two materials when making an item, but only the prevalent material applies.

So, what does 'prevalent' mean?

If the darkwood is more prevalent, does that mean that if I add cold iron to the stabby part of the spear, it won't cut into a demon?

If the cold iron is more prevalent, does that mean that if I take a weight of iron, and another weight of cold iron (of equal volume), and put them on a scale, that the cold iron will weigh more?

(An aside, does a darkwood spear have the special properties of a wooden stake?)

Now consider an urgrosh. It is perfectly legal to make the axe head of an urgrosh out of cold iron, and probably legal to make the spear haft (and, I guess, the point) out of darkwood. It weighs 6 lbs, and you can chop up demons into kindling with the axe head.

Now take this perfectly legal urgrosh, chop the axe head off and glue it onto the other end, and you sorta have a halberd if you squint. Which material is more prevalent?

hmm, I wonder a little about the effect the feat is intended to have: you cast a spell (or use a magic item) and nobody notices. Great if you want to maintain invisibility using a ring of invisibility, that's for sure!


A character can walk around invisible, or magically disguised, or just using Stealth. You're effectively hiding your identity. Effects like Spellsong and Secret Caster exist, which make the same thing happen: nobody knows where the spell came from.

I think that an invisible or disguised caster (or just someone who wanted to be sneaky) would definitely want this feat, because it fits in with everything they're already trying to do: that is, to crack an encounter without using combat.

There's a spell I'd like to cast in a social situation: telempathic projection. If my target or my target's friends saw the casting or noticed the spellcasting, I'd probably be attacked, on the presumption that the spell could be charm person or fireball. How exactly can I use this spell in a social situation if I'm not sneaky about it?

Cunning Caster and Subtle Devices should be legal for PFS, or spells that aren't applicable in combat should be removed from the additional resources.


Ultimate Equipment wrote:
Weapons and armor can be crafted using materials that have innate special properties. If you make a suit of armor or a weapon out of more than one special material, you get the benefit of only the most prevalent material. However, you can build a double weapon with each head made of a different special material.

A spear: 2 gp.

A cold iron spear: 4 gp.
A darkwood-hafted spear: 362 gp.
Tip it with cold iron: 362 * 2 = 724 gp (or possibly you don't double the masterwork component, so 300 + (62 * 2) = 424 gp)

A spear weighs 6 lbs. A darkwood spear weighs 3 lbs. A cold iron spear can be used to hurt a demon when you stab it with the pointy end.

If you stick a cold iron point onto a darkwood spear shaft, and you stab a demon with it, do you pierce the demon's damage reduction? If you do, does the spear suddenly gain 3 lbs of weight?

Okay, so far so good. Consensus holds that I can bluff the guards into not noticing the casting, and then I can get away with various spells that aren't totally obvious.

One more question before busting out the kitsune mesmerist with a snake familiar: would psychic spells, without metamagic, still incur Bluff penalties for using thought and emotion components?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Trying to wrap my head around this new feat and the recent FAQ on spells and casting. Here's the reference material.

Heroes of the Streets wrote:

Cunning Caster: When casting a spell, you can attempt a Bluff check (opposed by observers' Perception checks) to conceal your actions from onlookers. If the spell requires material components, you take a –4 penalty on the Bluff check.

If the spell requires somatic components, you take a –4 penalty on the Bluff check. If the spell requires verbal components, you take a –4 penalty on the Bluff check. If the spell requires a focus or divine focus, you take a –4 penalty on the Bluff check. If the spell produces an obvious effect (such as a summoned creature or visible spell effect), you take a –4 penalty on the Bluff check, and even if your check is successful, observers still see the spell effect (though they fail to notice that you are responsible for it). All Bluff check penalties are cumulative.

Core Rulebook FAQ wrote:
Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.

Let's say a gestalt mesmerist/druid is trying to get to the naval port at, uh, Os Misely with a couple of wanted protocol androids. He casts a psychic suggestion at a couple of, uh, dormtroopers. He's using Cunning Caster to conceal his spellcasting.

Question #1: According to the FAQ, every spell has an obvious effect (twinkly CGI lights or some such). Does this mean that every use of Cunning Caster starts out with -4 on the Bluff check?

Let's say the dormtroopers are fooled into not knowing where the suggestion came from. However, any troopers that aren't suggested get wise to the fact that somebody cast a spell (because it's obvious). So, either you have to convince all the guards that one of them is a shapeshifting traitor (perhaps you could suggest it to one of them), or if that fails the troopers all pull out their claster rifles and you get to have a thrilling flame blade battle in the parking lot of a hive of scum and villainy.

Question #2: Do I have that right? #2b: Can anyone think of a case where Cunning Caster could be put to any use?

that feat is cra-mazing. Pretty sure that Merciless Butchery got ruined in the ACG errata thanks to some min-maxing on, uh, a few forumites' part to get the level requirements down to level 9. What's the minimum level for this foolishness? 6 from Greater Grapple, yeah?


I was specifically thinking of giving Bodyguard and In Harm's Way to an unchained demon eidolon, and use the combo to

a) protect its summoner from nasty spells
b) protect itself from those same nasty spells with energy resistance and spell resistance

I'm not entirely sure if this question has been asked before. If it has, my apologies.

Advanced Player's Guide wrote:
Bodyguard: When an adjacent ally is attacked, you may use an attack of opportunity to attempt the aid another action to improve your ally's AC. You may not use the aid another action to improve your ally's attack roll with this attack.
Advanced Player's Guide wrote:
In Harm's Way: While using the aid another action to improve an adjacent ally's AC, you can intercept a successful attack against that ally as an immediate action, taking full damage from that attack and any associated effects (bleed, poison, etc.). A creature cannot benefit from this feat more than once per attack.
Core Rulebook wrote:
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.

Question #1: Can a character with the Bodyguard feat spend an attack of opportunity even when it won't make a difference? That is, can you activate Bodyguard in response to a magic missile or fireball?

Question #2: If a character with In Harm's Way and spell resistance steps in to guard against a scorching ray that targets an ally, would spell resistance be checked?

eh, I actually consider this for my PFS character. Part of the reason is, well, I don't want to carry more stuff than I can remember.

a) carrying a greataxe, presumably can stow it on my back like in WoW
b) a shortbow w/arrows slung over one shoulder, same
c) a cold iron spiked gauntlet on one hand
d) a spring-loaded wrist sheath with a dart in it on the other arm (cloaked in a goofy wizard's sleeve, counts as a concealed weapon enemies don't know about, if I had the Underhanded rogue talent, which I don't)
e) a silver light hammer on one hip
f) a sap on the other hip
g) a bronze (who knows? maybe there's a DR/bronze monster out there) kerambit tied into a slipknot in my hair (an actual concealed weapon, which I can't draw fast enough to count for Underhanded, even though I'm still too ugly to make use of that talent (remember, it's minimum: 0!))
h) two bandoleers with eight pockets each (daggers, potions, and vials only), because I pretend that my character can only count up to eight
i) one belt pouch with a set of thieves' tools in it
j) another belt pouch with a healer's kit in it
k) wearing light armor, with a barbed vest on top of it (which I keep forgetting to use)
l) all the miscellaneous goop (rope, food, blanket) in the backpack
m) oh! and my weapon of last resort, the toothy alternate racial trait!

how's that for a well-equipped half-orc?

find something that trades out wild shape, you don't want it. Looks like the only archetype you can pull off that loses wild shape, isn't race-specific, and doesn't do weird things with nature bond is Nature Fang. Go be one of those.

What do you want? The Swamp domain!

Ultimate Magic wrote:
Natural Healing (Su): You can channel energy (as a cleric of your druid level) a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier, but only to heal animals, plants, and vermin. You may reduce the number of dice healed to cure ability damage (your choice) to all affected creatures, curing 1 point of ability damage for each d6 that the channel energy is reduced. You can take other feats to add to this ability, such as Extra Channel, but not feats that alter this ability, such as Elemental Channel and Alignment Channel.

Go fool around in the Underdark, or on an elemental plane, or really anywhere that doesn't have sunlight: you're all set.

So yeah, go rock out with some kind of swamp thing assassin-type dealy. Sounds good.

Mark Seifter wrote:

FAQ Friday returns!

FAQ wrote:

What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?

Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.
Didja miss it?

Neat! Thank you!

yeah, I'm think if there actually is a paladin, a monk with a vow of chastity, or an Erastilite I might just make the summoner ditch the eidolon and go to town with fiendish wolves and see how that goes.

and yeah, I'd never hit on other PCs if I didn't know their players wouldn't find it funny. same goes for NPCs and the GM.

right, so, I've had this idea in my head for a CN summoner whose eidolon is a chaotic evil 'succubus-in-training'. Surprisingly, this is (for now) PFS legal. Now, in PFS (and also all other games I would consider playing in), you have to play nice. So no obvious psychopathy, PK-ing, or what have you. That's fine.

This character (or, uh, this character's eidolon) would be more interested in tempting PCs and NPCs into doing things that they think are wrong, but are not necessarily evil acts. E.g., offering consensual relations to standard-code-of-conduct paladins, monks (or others) with a vow of chastity, or married worshippers of Erastil. Basically tempting others to indulge in sin (which aside from all the horror movie nonsense, is really a demon's raison d'être).

Keep in mind that an eidolon (unchained or otherwise) has no business carting around something like a scroll of suggestion, a wand of unnatural lust, or eyes of charming. This is for RP-only.

In D&D alignment-parlance, is this evil (and thus is a no-no for PFS), or merely chaotic? Regardless of that, if the party was made up of real-life grown-ups (and you know, you know them well enough), would it be a bad idea to bring this concept to the table anyway?

Ultimate Combat wrote:
Felling Smash: If you use the attack action to make a single melee attack at your highest base attack bonus while using Power Attack and you hit an opponent, you can spend a swift action to attempt a trip combat maneuver against that opponent.

I don't have the text of Dirty Fighting (from the Dirty Tactics Toolbox), but I gather the gist is twofold:

a) you can dispense with most of the obnoxious prerequisites from Felling Smash
b) that you can avoid the attack of opportunity from using a maneuver if you are flanking your target.

The trip attempt from Felling Smash is a swift action. If you don't meet the conditions from Dirty Fighting, do you suffer the attack of opportunity?

Familiar Folio wrote:
Master’s Guise (Sp): At 11th level, a decoy can transform into a perfect likeness of its master, as the alter self spell. It can hold this form for up to 1 minute per caster level; upon changing back, the decoy must remain in its natural form for an equal amount of time before transforming again. This ability replaces spell resistance.
Advanced Race Guide wrote:
Change Shape (Su): A kitsune can assume the appearance of a specific single human form of the same sex. The kitsune always takes this specific form when she uses this ability. A kitsune in human form cannot use her bite attack, but gains a +10 racial bonus on Disguise checks made to appear human. Changing shape is a standard action. This ability otherwise functions as alter self, except that the kitsune does not adjust her ability scores.
Advanced Race Guide wrote:
Realistic Likeness: You can precisely mimic the physical features of any individual you have encountered. When you use your racial change shape ability, you can attempt to take the form of an individual, granting you a +10 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks made to fool others with your impersonation.

Can a kitsune wizard of at least 11th level with the Realistic Likeness feat and a decoy familiar cause their familiar to adopt the likeness of any humanoid (per alter self) the master has encountered?

hmm, now that I think about it, I think a kitsune with Realistic Likeness, Fox Shape, and a fox familiar with the decoy archetype (which would allow it to alter itself to any likeness the master can) sounds like a winner.

1. Go to a dinner party.
2. Instruct your familiar to look like you. (via master's guise)
3. Give your familiar a fearsome guise trick to reinforce the illusion.
4. Have your familiar mingle with the dinner guests while you go off and do crazy adventurey things. Or alter yourself to look like a different guest and talk to yourself, I guess.

actually, I have two feat trees for consideration, both going 1-11. any advice would be appreciated.

elf mesmerist (shoots bad guys)
1 Point-Blank Shot
3 Precise Shot
5 Reckless Aim
7 Intense Pain
9 Vital Strike
11 Elven Accuracy

I guess you could go Faerie's Strike here with a high Wisdom

kitsune mesmerist (has foxy powers)
1 Realistic Likeness
3 Empath
5 Fox Shape
7 Iron Will
9 Familiar Bond (fox)
11 Improved Familiar Bond (fox)

No idea if a mesmerist with a familiar is a good idea. Might be a cute target for a fearsome guise trick. I keep trying to jam Voice of the Sibyl in there somwhere, but it doesn't stick.

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

Nope. Guess what? It's a swift action every turn to keep the Chakras going, so go you on your DR 3/- or your 2d8 non-typed single-target breath weapon, pick one?

Chakras are freaking terrible.

You are correct. The chakra system is indeed incredibly timid. The design decision apparently was 'anyone occult can do it', which necessitated all the checks against it.

I think space could certainly have been saved by just making a cool occult unchained monk archetype that used/manipulated chakras. Instead, we have to create special builds to get to the same result.

I started this thread because it didn't seem like there was a lot on the Advice forum re: optimizing a chakra-user. That's allowed, right?

Markov Spiked Chain wrote:

Why do you need Psychic sensitivity?

There are two basic challenges with Chakras:
- Getting enough Ki.
- Surviving crazy high DC Fort and Will saves (DC 38.)

I'd been toying with something like:
Cleric(Irori, Law Domain) 1/Ninja 2/Cleric X

With Cha as high as possible.

By the time you can open your last Chakra (14), let's say you've got a 24 Cha for 10 channels a day.
Cleric 12 is 6d6,+2d6 for Phylactery of Positive Channeling is 8 Ki points times 10 channels is 80 ki, plus ~8 to start with plus 5 from the Chakra feats.

For Saves:
+8 from Cleric 12.
+7 Cha
+3 Wis/Con (ish)
+5 Cloak
+2 Luck
+1 Competence

~ +26, still needs some work to hit a 38 reliably. I don't know where other good sources of saves are? One level of Paladin, Warpriest, and Druid would get another +6, but lose a die of channel/10 Ki. So +32.

From my reading of the saves, if you miss the Fort save, your Chakras are still open. So all you're really worried about is making the Will save to open the last Chakra. So Touch of Law the round before you open it will guarantee a 38. After that, you use Chakra Adept to skip the Will save. If you fail the Fort (~one in sixteen rounds with double-rolls) you take some damage but keep on chakra-ing.


How do you turn your channel energy into replenishing all your ki?

Chakras. Aren't they great?

1. Spend your swift action every round.
2. Spend a ki point every round.
3. Succeed at both a Fort and a Will save every round or become screwed.
4. Do all that, and you get some pretty wacky powers: DR, flight, true seeing, fiery breath, mass manipulation of d20s, etc.

So. A challenge?

Say hello to Iroran Paladin

1. You get good Fort and Will saves, plus divine grace
2. You get a ki pool
3. You get a stack of powers that key off of Cha, and the chakra saves are boosted by your Cha (not sure if that stacks with divine grace).
4. At high levels you get aura of perfection, which if you manage to use it and have your crown chakra open, gives you 3 d20s to make good with.

Here's a feat list

1 Psychic Sensitivity
3 ???
5 Chakra Initiate
7 ???
9 Chakra Adept
11 ???

Psychic Sensitivity is kind of a feat tax, so you might want to roll human. On the other hand, you're going to need sky-high saving throws, so halfling or half-orc might make a better choice.

So there's 3 feats free (possibly 4). Great Fortitude, Iron Will, Extra Ki? Or something else? Maybe roll half-elf and grab an eldritch heritage?

EDIT: You can't actually take Chakra Initiate until you get a ki pool, which doesn't happen until 4th level. woops!

Gorbacz wrote:
Byakko wrote:

Btw, another question that is becoming a common theme in this thread:

How precise does an attack need to be in order to qualify for Sneak Attack damage?

While a fireball may seem to be a rather imprecise attack, I submit that a giant's hammer is similarly imprecise against a tiny sized creature - the hammer's striking area is much larger than the target in this case. Yet I have yet to see anyone rule that this situation disqualifies Sneak Attack.

That's Rogues for you - they can hit precisely a pixie's left kidney with a Huge hammer without making it messy. That's how awesome they are. You don't come close. You don't compare. Talk to the hand, talk to the hand. example of this isn't a hammer, it's a snag net.

You can probably deal sneak attack damage with a snag net. You can deal sneak attack damage to a swarm (usually using magic). We don't have a definition of a 'precisable' weapon, which means the line is perhaps arbitrarily drawn at weapons->yes, spells->no.

anyway, I've no idea what Crimeo and alexd are talking about...

Castilonium wrote:
The only gods with Trickery that are within a step of lawful good are Erecura, Khepri, and Chaldira. And Erecura's the wife of an archdevil. None of these deities have explicit paladin codes.

I think a paladin of Erecura could make for great roleplaying, but I admit it gets complicated.

I think of those 3, Chaldira would appreciate best a paladin/mesmerist. So, there's a race settled. Hmm...

yeah, so, uh...

a) I don't know if divine grace and towering ego stack. I suspect they don't.
b) lay on hands: here is some divine healing from my deity. praise be! touch treatment: same thing?

So, a couple of questions

1. Say you have 12 levels to work with. What's your favorite cutoff, or would you go 6 and 6?
2. Any deities sponsor paladins where a) the deity has access to the Trickery domain, and b) the paladin code allows for lies and tricks.
3. Any good effects for paladins that trigger off Will saves that mesmerists can influence?

bbangerter wrote:
Crimeo wrote:

I think it should be fairly clear that it means "reach it with the damage/attack" not your fingers, in the case of ranged sneak attack. Otherwise, like... all ranged sneak attacks would be impossible, even with bows, and the text would be pointless.

Though even if you did want it to be actual literal reach, you could simply aim the fireball (or whatever spell that might actually work instead) 25 feet in front of you so that the 20 foot radius comes back and just barely covers your opponent but not you, while you're standing adjacent to it.

Fun fact by the way: aura of the unremarkable specifically only targets non-allies, so even this hypothetical hurdle is jumped without the slightest inconvenience by that one! Best. Spell. Ever. hehehe :P

While alexd1976 does so in jest, it is this particular type of intentionally reading the rules in a twisted and convoluted fashion that got us to "fireballs can do SA" in the first place.

As for aura of the unremarkable, SA does the same type of damage as the source. SA shocking grasp does electricity damage, SA piercing weapon does piercing damage. What kind of damage does aura of the unremarkable do? Even with the convoluted reading of applying SA to AoE, this spell does nothing for SA. Even with the valid ruling of SA on Surprise Spells, this spell does nothing for SA.

I'm with you. Why is aura of the unremarkable being brought up exactly? phantasmal killer is a much better spell for this purpose.

Vanykrye wrote:

I've started skipping some posts, because I saw something that should end the argument.

Everyone agrees that if you can't crit then you also can't sneak attack, correct? We're past the point where I would have to go find the multiple texts for that?

Now read this:

Spells and Critical Hits: A spell that requires an attack roll can score a critical hit. A spell attack that requires no attack roll cannot score a critical hit. If a spell causes ability damage or drain (see Special Abilities), the damage or drain is doubled on a critical hit.

So...if it can't crit, it cannot apply sneak attack damage. In order for a spell to crit, it has to have an attack roll. Only exception is the arcane trickster.

Case closed?

I do not agree. A monster ability (or type or subtype) that protects against critical hits is not the same as one that protects against precision damage.

d20pfsrd has a nice workup on what that means, here, in the sidebar.

You can sneak attack swarms (with a swarmbane clasp and some tricks, like Surprise Follow-Through or the skirmisher ability) and aeons, but neither of those kinds of creatures is subject to critical hits.

Hey, Advice Forum! How do I make an alias for myself that isn't a PFS character? I have to go around calling myself 'Facetiously Twisted Ohako' now.

Hi folks.

Thanks to all of you for reading and responding to my question. My aim is not to be inflammatory or obstreperous, but to explore boundary conditions within the game using logic and/or rules citations. If I have offended anyone with my question or my initial responses, then let me apologize.

Many people have said that there is no way a fireball spell may be used to deal sneak attack damage. Okay, how's this for a scenario?

CRB wrote:

fireball: A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.

You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.

The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.

A wizard can attempt to send the bead of a fireball through a narrow passage, such as an arrow slit (I'm assuming the arrow slit is not adjacent to the caster, lobbing deadly things out of an arrow slit you're next to is kind of their thing). So, here is a different narrow passage: a storm giant's nostril.

1. Could a wizard attempt to send the bead of a fireball up a giant's nose by rolling to hit the narrow passage of that giant's nostril?
2. Assuming the wizard hit that gap (with an attack roll, perhaps against the giant's touch AC), and assuming that the wizard had some levels of rogue, would a giant's nasal cavity count as enough of a 'vital spot' of the giant to allow the caster their sneak attack damage?

...and now we have a new fantasy tavern name...

So let's be done with fireballs for a minute. Consensus seems to indicate that because a fireball hits a whole area, and because sneak attack (and painful stare) rely on precision damage, it's usually pretty hard to be precise with a fireball. Never mind that (under the right conditions) a rogue could deal sneak attack damage with a snag net.

I'd like to ask again about ear-piercing scream.

a) it's an attack
b) it deals damage
c) it targets a specific creature, rather than a general area
d) it doesn't require an attack roll
e) it does not have the 'cannot target a specific part of a creature' clause that magic missile has

3. Assuming normal conditions are met (the target is denied Dex to AC or is flanked), can ear-piercing scream (and other spells like it) serve to deal sneak attack damage?

Well, let's try to address some of these questions in order.

ShieldLawrence wrote:
Sneak Attack requires an attack roll

Please tell me where it says this.

ShieldLawrence wrote:
To score a "hit" against an opponent, you must roll an attack roll and beat their AC.

Eh, I'm not exactly sure that a hit is as narrowly defined as that. I'll concede the point for now.

CampinCarl9127 wrote:
If the fireball is already striking all spots, including all possible vital spots, how would you add extra precision damage to it? The damage for striking all possible vitals so how would you make it strike more vitally?

This is the difference between a wizard and a rogue. A wizard learns how to shoot fire from his eyes, while a rogue learns how to make their attacks count in combat. How would a wizard learn to strike vital spots with a fireball? Train as a rogue!

Gisher wrote:
Fireball is an area of effect spell. It doesn't have a target.

Fair point. A fireball doesn't target a specific creature. It just targets a square. Although, there is a clause in fireball that lets a caster target a hole or arrow slit with the magical bead. You could make a case that a ranged touch attack roll (against, say, the eye holes in a great helm) would then allow sneak attack. Still, fireball doesn't seem like the best example spell, because it behaves so much like those naughty splash weapons.

So, let me change my target as well.

Ultimate Magic wrote:
ear-piercing scream: You unleash a powerful scream, inaudible to all but a single target. The target is dazed for 1 round and takes 1d6 points of sonic damage per two caster levels (maximum 5d6). A successful save negates the daze effect and halves the damage.

Let's see

a) ear-piercing scream targets a specific creature.
b) it's certainly an attack, and a range is called out (so it's a ranged attack, I guess)
c) a vital spot happens to be called out in the spell's name: the ear.

So, our prospective rogue needs to target a creature who

a) is denied their Dex to AC (or who is flanked by the rogue)
b) is within 30 feet of the rogue
c) is not concealed
d) has visible, unobstructed ears

Under those conditions, ear-piercing scream seems like a valid way to attach sneak attack damage to a spell without taking 10 levels of arcane trickster. How's that?

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

I know the answer to this question appears to be conventional wisdom: no. Please hear me out.

Here is a link to a question in the rules forum about combining the mesmerist's painful stare ability with a magic missile. I posted a similar question, but in the wrong forum because I'm a dope.

Here is a link where I asked the Advice forum for better ways than UMD to cast magic missile as a mesmerist. Secret Wizard argued there that if painful stare + magic missile works, then sneak attack + fireball should work as well.

I'm not sure xe's wrong.

Pathfinder Unchained wrote:

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

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every 2 rogue levels thereafter. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet. This additional damage is precision damage and is not multiplied on a critical hit.

With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (such as a sap, unarmed strike, or whip), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack—not even with the usual –4 penalty.

The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with total concealment.

A rogue cannot crit with a fireball, nor does fireball meet the definition of a nonlethal weapon. So let's discard those clauses. Let's also toss the opening fluff paragraph.

Pathfinder Unchained-ish wrote:

Sneak Attack: The rogue’s attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every 2 rogue levels thereafter. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with total concealment.

So, is a fireball an attack?

CRB wrote:
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.

So, yes.

a) if a target is denied their Dex bonus to AC, or is flanked by the (hopefully flameproof) rogue
b) and is within 30 feet of the rogue (fireball is ranged)
c) and if the target isn't concealed
d) and if the rogue can see and reach a 'vital spot' on the target.

So let's talk 'vital spots' for a minute. Here's the relevant text of magic missile

CRB wrote:
magic missile: The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat, so long as it has less than total cover or total concealment. Specific parts of a creature can't be singled out. Objects are not damaged by the spell.

So, if 'specific part' and 'vital spot' are synonymous, then a magic missile cannot be used in a sneak attack. This might work in a painful stare, however. Fireball, well, hits all the spots, vital or not. The rogue, by definition, can reach it.

And yeah, I know about the arcane trickster's Surprise Spells class feature.

CRB wrote:
Surprise Spells: At 10th level, an arcane trickster can add her sneak attack damage to any spell that deals damage, if the targets are flat-footed. This additional damage only applies to spells that deal hit point damage, and the additional damage is of the same type as the spell. If the spell allows a saving throw to negate or halve the damage, it also negates or halves the sneak attack damage.

Surprise Spells doesn't spell out the 'normal' benefit, like some feats do.

I allege the following

1. A rogue can use an AoE spell to deal sneak attack damage.
2. A mesmerist can use any damaging spell to deal painful stare damage.
3. An 10th level arcane trickster can sneak attack a flat-footed target with magic missile, while a normal rogue cannot.

Is this correct?

Val'bryn2 wrote:
Except that Sneak Attack calls out that you have to be able to target the enemy. Therefore, you have to make an attack roll. To consider if something is a basic attack, all you have to ask is: would this break invisibility? As the answer for Magic Missile is yes, it is an attack. Since it is an attack and it deals damage, Painful Stare would affect it.


CRB wrote:

Invisibility:The creature or object touched becomes invisible. If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes, too. If you cast the spell on someone else, neither you nor your allies can see the subject, unless you can normally see invisible things or you employ magic to do so.

Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature. Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible.

Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving. The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.

Invisibility can be made permanent (on objects only) with a permanency spell.

The invisibility spell has this clause where it calls out attacks, but only for the purposes of itself, not for any other purpose. I'm beginning to think that Secret Wizard is right, that rogues can sneak attack with fireballs. Time for a new post on that.

Secret Wizard wrote:

Doesn't work. Magic Missile is not an attack. For something to be considered an attack, it requires an attack roll.

Though I'd say the wording is ambiguous enough to allow it on some tables...

Would you care to argue that in the post I've referenced? Kazaan quotes the CRB pretty convincingly over there.

It's not the best way to murder a bad guy, but sometimes it's the only way: magic missile.

According to this, you can probably boost the damage of a magic missile with the mesmerist's painful stare class feature.

Conning a wand into believing you're a wizard (via Use Magic Device) will net you one missile. Are there any ways of getting that spell onto your spell list? Or, any other way to cast at higher than 1st level?

question is pretty simple.

Occult Adventures wrote:

Painful Stare: When an attack that deals damage hits the target of a mesmerist's hypnotic stare, the mesmerist can cause the target to take an amount of additional damage equal to 1/2 the mesmerist's class level (minimum 1).

The mesmerist can use this ability as a free action, and can use it even if it isn't his turn. If the mesmerist uses this ability to increase his own damage, the additional damage increases by 1d6 points for every 3 class levels the mesmerist possesses. This damage is precision damage and is not multiplied on a critical hit. A mesmerist can trigger this ability only once per round, but a single creature can take damage from multiple mesmerists' painful stares in a round.

Say a 3rd level mesmerist is staring really hard at someone, and then sweet-talks a wand into shooting a single magic missile at the guy. Does this count as an attack, and thus the damage of the missile becomes 1d4+1d6+2?

well what the hey. I'll hit the FAQ button on this my own self.

I don't believe that the sources that I've cited actually constitute RAW (that is, 'rules as written'). Unless I miss my guess, there's actually nothing written in the CRB that addresses whether or not a given spell (or all spells) have observable effects. It'd certainly be nice if there was a descriptor for that sort of thing.

I think the fact that using Secret Caster to cast a psychic spell causes a gelatinous cube to fall prone is just a bonus.


...I use Secret Caster to cast secret secret!

QuidEst wrote:

A Shaman* devoted to Sarenrae and to healing the schisms in her church takes five levels of Shaman and two levels of Dawnflower Dissident, walks in and makes a Sleight of Hand and Bluff check, each with a -10 penalty. The shopkeeper flubs the opposed checks. Have a popsicle!

*Shaman is the only divine class to get Charm Person on its list directly; the general principle works with any divine class with access to Daylight as a spell.

Hey QuidEst, this is perfect! Thanks for posting this one. That power raises some pretty hairy questions, so I posted them in a new thread, here.

Joesi, you may find answers to your question (what is it that's noticeable and why) in the posts I've quoted in the thread I just linked to (...if that makes any sense...O.o)

4 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

thanks to QuidEst for helping me with my popsicle shop question from earlier. Xe pointed me here

Paths of Prestige wrote:

Secret Caster (Ex): At 2nd level, a Dawnflower dissident can disguise his spellcasting with a Bluff check (for spells with verbal components), opposed by the observer’s Sense Motive check, and/or a Sleight of Hand check (for spells with somatic components), opposed by the observer’s Perception check. Depending on the situation, the Dawnflower dissident’s Bluff and/ or Sleight of Hand check is modified according to the following table.

Penalty Condition
-0 Spell has a range of personal
-5 During combat
-5 Spell has a range of touch
-10 Spell has a range longer than touch
-Spell level ×2 Spell has a visible, audible, or otherwise observable effect
Automatic failure Spell has an observable effect that clearly emanates from the caster

Casting a spell in this fashion increases its casting time to a full-round action (if normally a standard action or less), or doubles the casting time of spells with a casting time longer than a full-round action. A spell cast in this way does not provoke attacks of opportunity from observers that fail to recognize it for what it is. For spells with both verbal and somatic components, the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity from observers unless they fail both their Sense Motive and Perception checks.

Sorry about the table in there. Anyway...

Here is a quote from Mark Seifter about how spells always have a noticeable element. He quotes Jason Buhlman, and I think the post he's referencing can be found here.

Please excuse me if these questions have been asked before. I couldn't find a reference here in the Rules forum.

Question 1: Do all spells have observable effects (thus always netting the spell level x2 penalty when using Secret Caster)? If they do, do they always emanate from the caster (thus hosing Secret Caster entirely)?

Question 2: Let's assume that the answer to question 1 does not entirely invalidate the use of Secret Caster. A Dawnflower Dissident casts a Silent and Still or psychic charm person. What do they roll to conceal their spell? If there is a penalty to the roll, what is the penalty to?

I thought that a dazing grease spell using a vial of acid as a power component was a thing. Like, a thing you could do.

(take 1 point of acid damage, get dazed, then slip and fall before you get out of the acidic grease? hehehe...)

It's not a thing?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

so, to recap

1. some people are waving around the 'you can't covertly cast with metamagic' stick at me. I know this, even if it doesn't seem to make a ton of sense. This is the same as arguing that acid splash should work with the Underhanded rogue talent.

2. Other posters are trying to make my theoretical popsicle shop into some of impenetrable fortress made of 'noyoucantium'. What's the fun of designing a vault no one can break into?

3. Imbicatus says the playtest vigilante (warlock style) can cast covertly.

K. Anyone else want to try answering my original questions? (are my examples wrong, and are there any I'm missing?)

Hey Mark, whenever you get the chance.

I understand that there's been a lot of water under the bridge re: covert spellcasting, the idea that a caster could cast a spell and not have others notice, even if the spell had otherwise no obvious effect (charm person and detect thoughts being two contenders here).

a) what's your take?
b) I can't ask the next obvious question (about Ultimate Intrigue), so let me try this one: does the availability of covert spellcasting affect the 'general understanding' of law-and-order in a typical Golarion city?

That is, I'm pretty sure there isn't a law against casting spells in public in, say, Absalom, but presumably casting any spell in front of a shopkeeper would be grounds for calling the guard (in case the spell was charm person). Is my understanding wrong?

Imbicatus wrote:

Other than the fact that there is no way anyone would give away a sun orchid even under the effects of charm person, you got most of the ways to conceal casting. Vigilante warlock play test could do it.

Also note that even having a silent,still spell via meta magic or psychic components can still be easily detected by an observer.

I was not alleging differently. Apparently you have to dull the senses of the observer, rather than obfuscate the behaviors of the actor.

It strikes me as odd that the signature ability of the mesmerist (that hairy eyeball) is genuinely undetectable, but to get useful covert non-combat benefit out of it, you need the services of a talented accordionist instead.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I know this has been done to death, but I'm just trying to make sure about the limits of this whole 'concealed magic' thing. Again.

Let's say someone's opened up a shop that sells sun orchid popsicles, and they go for a million gp each. And let's assume that adventurers are going to try to crack that nut with all sorts of whammy powers, and further let's assume that the shopkeeper isn't some sort of vampire plant robot that can shrug off mind-affecting effects, but is trained in Spellcraft. The shop is well-lit.

(Note to self: stat up a ghoran vampire who's got a chip on his shoulder against vegetarians)

An enchanter wizard walks in, and casts a Still, Silent charm person. The shopkeeper notices that magic is being used and instantly triggers the laser chainsaws. Right?

A mesmerist walks in, and begins a whammy with hypnotic eye. The shopkeeper doesn't notice, because, no save, the mesmerist can keep the shopkeeper from noticing her use of that power. She then casts charm person, which because of the psychic magic rules doesn't have any verbal or somatic components to begin with. The shopkeeper finally notices that, and pushes the laser chainsaw button. Right?

A patched-up mesmerist walks in, activates her hypnotic eye, and proceeds to try the implant suggestion part of the new occult skill unlock for Diplomacy. She pulls off the ungodly DC in part because of her Skill Focus (Diplomacy), Persuasive, and Voice of the Sibyl feats. Here you go, have a popsicle! Right?

A demon-blooded tiefling abyssal sorcerer walks by, having taken the following feats: Fiend Sight, Fiend Sight, and Silent Spell. She proceeds to cast deeper darkness and silence on herself outside the shop, then she walks in and casts a Silent charm person. Here's a popsicle for you, wherever you are. Right?

A rakshasa-blooded tiefling rakshasa sorcerer walks in and casts charm person straight off, but quickly passes it off to the shopkeeper as detect fraudulent sun orchids or something. You can't be too careful these days, with all these mountebank adventurers running around. How about a popsicle, then. Right?

A bard with the Spellsong feat shows up. During conversation about the weather and the sun orchid crop, he whips out his bongo drums, and proceeds to attract the attention of Shelyn with a divine Perform (percussion) check. The shopkeeper does not notice that a charm person was also being cast. And here's my last popsicle for you. Right?

a) are there any other ways people can think of to cast a spell covertly in any way?
b) do all of these examples function (or not function) as I have described?

geekgumbo wrote:
As those abilities seem to be purely physical, would a shapeshifter (kitsune with appropriate feat), owner of hat o disguise, etc, get those bonuses essentially free if they take a form with those traits?

I doubt it. If the spell doesn't grant it, you don't get it. Which is weird, because a kitsune rocking Realistic Likeness can get a +10 to Disguise himself as a person with the Overwhelming Beauty trait, but they don't get Overwhelming Beauty themselves.

Torbyne wrote:
As a side note, good luck surviving the "gentle" affections of a 20 ton death-bot.

Eh, beats the lasers and chainsaws side of things. Nothing an impossible sorcerer can't handle.

So, if a creature fails its save against unnatural lust, then it should also be affected by your trait or obedience or what have you. Right?

1 to 50 of 835 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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