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

pauljathome's page

FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 870 posts. 16 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 23 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 870 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade ****

Its probably an unnecessary complication.

Back when factions actually mattered every session I had a few characters who considered themselves allied with some factions and opposed to others. At the table/roleplaying level I was careful which characters I'd help in their missions.

But now that factions have been deemphasized most of my characters really neither know nor care what faction they are in. Maybe that will change in Season 6 but, so far, I see little indication of that.

Silver Crusade ****

I think part of the issue is that a GM has far more opportunitiy to do something that may be inadvertently perceived as cheating. Between legitimately making a mistake, ruling on unclear matters, running as written when the scenario cheats and running correctly when the bad guy has a strange power there are just lots of chances.

Combine that with the fact that most regular posters are GMs (stars show that) and I think its understandable that you have a community loathe to cry "cheat" on GMs.

In this specific thread, it is a very rare experienced GM that hasn't played scenarios they've already run. So we all know the issues from both sides of the GM screen

Silver Crusade ****

Raise the animals intelligence to 3 and give it a rank in linguistics. It can now understand a language of your choice.

Silver Crusade ****

The one thing that I add is how I handle things where I know there is table variation. So my spiel includes perception, searching rooms, pre specified actions, NPCs taking 10, and the fact that initiative rolls and battle mats does NOT automatically equate to combat.

Silver Crusade

Fromper wrote:

I'm definitely in the "accept almost any answer" camp. The point is to prevent "I use my masterwork tool" without any explanation. This is a game of creativity and imagination, so I'm going to force them to get creative.

And if they have a hard time coming up with something, I have no problem with the rest of the table (including myself) throwing out suggestions.

This I absolutely agree with. Just had some bad experiences with less accepting GMs.

Silver Crusade

Fromper wrote:


I can't think of any skill that can't have a masterwork tool, but I'd insist on the person who bought a generic one explaining to me what the tool is.

I've always strongly disliked that approach, unless you're willing to accept almost any answer.

The problem is that what one player thinks is cool and flavourful, another player is likely to think absurd or hackneyed. It has the very strong risk of becoming an exercise in "think like the GM or fail".

It doesn't help that I tend to NOT think like the GM in many, many cases (older, not in tune with current pop culture, etc).

Silver Crusade ****

Tony Lindman wrote:
Muser wrote:
And by golly does that irk some people. I wish I actually was a metagaming cheatbag so the backlash wouldn't bother so much. I don't understand what's so damn bothersome about spoiling my own fun. It's just my session that's being ruined, ok?

Except that it's not. By reading ahead when you didn't "need" to, you give yourself knowledge that you have to then somehow avoid using. Often that results in you not participating in decision making (because you know which door has the trap, or which clues are red herrings), or avoiding speaking to an NPC (because you know the right thing to say to get their help or to trigger a specific clue). If you hadn't pre-read, you would be able to participate more fully in the adventure, which is to everyone's benefit.

This can be especially bad when there are puzzles to solve. The puzzles are written with the expectation of 4+ players bouncing ideas off each other and having fewer players can really slow down things or stall them completely.

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buba Casanunda wrote:

and in full plate my move is 40'... unless I cast fly or dim door... and the Agile Feet ability means I don't slow down in difficult terrain...

;)

Yeah, Dwarf in full plate armor... Travel Domain and longstrider!

Slowpoke. My dwarven cleric ALSO has a level of barbarian :-).

The look on the GMs face when you casually move 50 feet through difficult terrain and then attack is priceless :-).

Dwarven clerics of Cayden for the win :-) :-) :-)

Silver Crusade

While sorcerer Kitsune are very, very fun and very capable if you're looking for a more martial version of the Kitsune you might wish to consider a bard. They wonderfully combine martial ability and a trickster nature. There are several Eastern flavored archetypes or just reflavour a non eastern bard.

Or even multi class a martial type and go towards eldritch knight.

Silver Crusade ****

I presume you have another source than just Mikes post. I'd be interested in seeing your logic. Perhaps you'd PM me?

Silver Crusade ****

Ascalaphus wrote:
It's because he says someone is correct, and then immediately changes the statement he just said was correct.

Not to mention substantially changes a feat without actually giving us new text for the feat. And, as redward points out, makes a ruling that is completely unclear in terms of what it affects (I'd claim Mikes statement arguably applies to boars as much as lions)

It is quite clear that RAW is unclear.

Silver Crusade ****

redward wrote:
So it looks like by PFS RAW,

I just want to reiterate that I (and others) disagree that is RAW

And yes, I plan on repeating that as often as you repeat your claim that it is RAW.

Quote:


This may need to be looked at by campaign management.

That I agree with

Silver Crusade

Traskus wrote:

(i.e. taking a 10 or 20) which is what characters could do. How many times when you are typing do you make a typo if you are attempting to push yourself?

If you are rushing a task (rolling a check rather than taking a 10 or 20), what is your failure rate? How often for instance do quarterbacks even at the professional level...

While obviously I haven't seen your game, in my experience games that have autofail and fumble rules do NOT allow one to take 10 when the rules specify. They have some house rule "not when failure could hurt" or the like and do not allow the various mechanical means that exist to allow for ALWAYS taking 10.

But to answer your question, if a skill is so incredibly trivial that a 1 would succeed then in both reality and, more importantly, most of the fiction that we're trying to emulate then it really never fails. Or, at the very least, fails a LOT less than 5% of the time.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Traskus wrote:
Home rule a fumble rule. Roll a natural 1 and something goes wrong with the attempt. Because no matter your skill at something there should always be a chance for failure.

Many, many, many people loathe auto fail rules. And hate fumble rules even more.

Realistically, people do NOT fail 5% of the time (let alone catastrophically fail) no matter how trivial the task is for them. Do you fail your drive check every 20 trips? Do you fail your profession check once a month?

And cinematically it is worse. Heros don't fail at their specialties unless some circumstance causes them to fail. And the really, really, really good character fails less often than the really good character.

My policy is a combination of
1) let the characters auto succeed a lot when they get good enough
2) let the players know that SOMETIMES circumstances will make things not automatic even at skills where they are very good. Almost always such situations will be obvious ahead of time
3) in a home game, change the rules when they get in the way of the above.
4) try and keep skill difficulties in world more or less consistent as characters level up.

Silver Crusade

I like a cleric of Brigh myself. Definitely a Tinker Gnome

Silver Crusade ****

redward wrote:

2) That is correct. You do not need an extra feat to place a mundane saddle on a mount that uses the saddle in the normal course of business, such as a horse. An animal such as a tiger would have to take the feat to place a saddle upon it.

That quote contradicts itself. He says something is correct and then explains how it is not correct.

So I think it is intended to read "... a tiger would have to take the feat to place a magic saddle upon it"

Obviously I can't be sure that is what he meant. But that makes by far the most sense to me, especially when I can buy a combat riding trained tiger AND exotic saddles. And I AM sure that his statement contradicts itself so nobody except Mike can be sure what he meant.

Silver Crusade

The skill system in pathfinder is pretty fundamentally broken at high levels. Different skills scale very differently so a "20" is very high for some skills and barely adequate for others.

RAW all of the social skills can pretty much break the game.

Most groups end up implementing some house rules, either explicitly or implicitly by arbitrarily changing difficulties (like your GM seems to be doing).

The best solution is to discuss it as a group and decide what game you want to play. Some groups want to absolutely trounce mundane obstacles, some groups want a consistent level of challenge (is, you always have to come up with a decent description and roll at least reasonably) some groups are somewhere in between.

Silver Crusade ****

redward wrote:


It seems like you're ignoring the next sentence:

Quote:
You would, however, need to add Belt slot to equip a magical saddle, or to equip a mundane saddle on an exotic mount.

That is NOT in the link posted a few entries up (I quoted ALL of Mikes post and the one he was replying to). Could you please provide a link to that quote (I looked for the link in this thread but if it is there I missed it).

Silver Crusade ****

I'm looking at that remark by Mike and am interpreting it differently.

RainyDayNinja: I'm assuming that I don't need to take the feat to gain access to the belt slot before I put a mundane saddle on my mount. Is that right? But I would need to take the feat before I could use a magic saddle, correct?

Mike:That is correct. You do not need an extra feat to place a mundane saddle on a mount that uses the saddle in the normal course of business, such as a horse. An animal such as a tiger would have to take the feat to place a saddle upon it.

Mike agreed with RDN. Mike is just reiterating that a tiger needs a feat for a MAGIC saddle. It is the only way that his statement can be taken as agreeing with RDN. And pretty clearly the "that is correct" indicates agreement :-).

Until told otherwise, I'm definitely assuming that my riding trained lion can still wear a saddle. Heck, its even listed as an allowable purchase in additional resources

Silver Crusade

You're REALLY underestimating the value of using your own stats. Take any save or suck spell and it is generally almost useless coming from a wand while still viable from a staff. For example, a 3rd level spell from a wand has a save of 13, from a staff it could very easily be 20+.

The increased caster level is also often valuable but generally less so

Silver Crusade ****

Jiggy wrote:


First, there's nothing I've ever found that indicates there's ever an exception to the rule that retrieving a stored item is a move action (okay, aside from concealed weapons, which is obviously not what we're talking about here).

Second, there are only so many items that you need ready access to in combat. Who cares if you have to dig a little to find your scroll of overcoming such-and-such an evironmental hazard?

I agree that mechanically it is unclear where the limit is or even if there is a limit. Its a limit that I definitely impose on myself and one that I've seen a couple of other GMs impose. The limits vary wildly, of course.

A couple of my characters have over 50 items they want fairly quick access to. That strains my credulity too far in terms of having access to and remembering exactly which item is where.

Silver Crusade ****

Jiggy wrote:


Handy haversacks themselves are heavy, though. My low-STR characters prefer the pathfinder pouch. Holds as much as a backpack, weighs only a fifth as much as the HH, and you can get it much earlier (1,000gp). If you need more capacity, just get a second one and you're still only at 2lbs. :D

The pouch is useful, but the Haversack has that absolutely wonderful "the item you seek is always on top" quality. My characters tend to be QUITE well equipped and you pretty much NEED this to be able to justify grabbing the right scroll/bottle/whatever. Even if the GM doesn't enforce some limit I'll enforce it on myself.

The pouch is good for sneaking things in, the Haversack is MUCH better in general

Silver Crusade

Its not a feat but agile amulet of mighty fists is the usual way.

Its NOT RAW but lots of GMs will allow some kind of improved finesse feat.

Silver Crusade ****

GM Lamplighter wrote:
Pathfinders need Cha-based skills, particularly diplomacy, in *every* scenario, whether it's to get info at the beginning using gather information, or by talking to NPCs later, or to achieve the whole mission. There is no other ability score that you are guaranteed to use every game, since there are now (a few) scenarios that don't require combat at all, but there are none that don't require talking to NPCs and gathering information.

That is a significant overstatement. There are lots of scenarios where diplomacy has no significant effect and I've never played one where nobody took any damage (is, con is always useful).

Also, you pretty much only need 1 character in the group with good diplomacy.

That said, LOTS of my characters have good charisma and social skills. But that is because I LIKE interaction, not because I NEED to

Silver Crusade

Aasimar make a very nice race, regardless of class choice. Some protection against negative energy can help, and heavenly radiance can round out your attacks nicely.

But yeah, cleric seems the best overall choice to me. Good saves help it a lot.

Silver Crusade ****

If you have played the character at level 2 or higher you can NOT change the characters race

Silver Crusade ****

Expect GM variation. Reflavoring is, in general, frowned upon and is strictly disallowed if there are ANY mechanical benefits. So, your elf will speak elf, be visibly an elf, be subject to elf bane, etc

What IS clearly legal is to play an insane elf who thinks that he is a lizardman from a strange culture. If you're happy with that as a backup plan when you hit a table that doesn't allow reflavoring then you're golden.

Silver Crusade ****

Shasfowd wrote:


But then why would knowledge like whether or not you know what the Blakros museum is be accepted?

This is an area where you just have to expect GM variation. Some GMs allow characters to remember what they've experienced, some don't, some require some sort of roll (int roll, knowledge skill with a bonus, etc). The rules pretty much support all of these approaches and all can be justified both in world and in game.

Knowledges in general are one of the areas with the largest amount of GM variation.

Silver Crusade ****

ontariopathfinders.com is used for all of OOntario and includes Ottawa.

Silver Crusade

There is one PFS scenario that used the troop rules (Assault on the Wound). They got pretty thoroughly trashed in the reviews.

I have no clue if it was run correctly, but when I played a single "affects all creatures in the area" spell took it out ( I think it was Burst of Radiance). Others were complaint about the number of deaths that multiple missile attacks on a single target achieve.

Personally, if new rules yield a quicker resolution but approximately the same result as compared to running the same combat with the base rules then I'm fine with them but if they yield a substantially different result then I hate them. And my impression is that the Troop rules yield a very different result

Silver Crusade ****

thistledown wrote:
Rushley son of Halum wrote:


After the absurdity that was the Sealed Gate I have no intention of ever playing a Kyle Baird scenario again. And I wouldn't blame anyone else who took the same approach.
My store is also considering baring all Kyle Baird scenarios except Confirmation.

I hate the Sealed Gate as much as anybody (my review stated that I think it is the worst PFS scenario I've ever played) but I think that this is a massive overreaction.

The Confirmation is superb.

6-03 is quite good. Its challenging but all the challenges are fair.

Haven't played Rats

Silver Crusade

Aelryinth wrote:

Eh, low skill point classes that should have skills, like the fighter, consider it a railroad to be forced to play human, have a high int, and to spend their FCB on skill points just so they have enough to be barely functional.

Strangely, you will notice that spellcasting classes don't complain about low skill points. that's because they have spells, and/or rely on high Int anyways.

The classes without magical powers should not be forced to rely on non-class buffs just to be fair with skills. Indeed, the fighter is the most non-magical class out there, which means he should be swimming in skill points since he doesn't waste any time on magical tricks like every other class does.

==Aelryinth

This is an absurd exaggeration. The bog standard fighter really doesn't need more skill points than he has (climb, swim, intimidate).

Ranger, various archetypes, etc are there pretty much precisely so that you can play a fighting sort with more skill points. Choosing to play a fighter is pretty much explicitly deciding that you don't really care about skills.

I'd have no problem if fighters got more skill points but they're hardly crippled in the current system.

The class that actually bothers me the most is cleric. There are lots of skills that they SHOULD have at reasonable levels that they just can't really afford. And they DEFINITELY should have some kind of 1/2 level bonus to their knowledge religion. Its just silly that wizards, bards, etc all know more about religion than they do. The cloistered cleric is a step in the right direction but they made taking it FAR too expensive for what one gets.

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
RainyDayNinja wrote:
Secane wrote:
Edit: So the Technologist feat is not required for certain skill checks? They just have a bonus to such checks? Or is this in reverse, where those that lack the Technologist feat takes a penalty but can still complete the check?
It sounds like the Technologist feat is required to make the checks, but the scenarios are supposed to be written so those without it can get to the same result through puzzle solving/deduction.

This is exactly what it sounds like. It makes it so people that are specialized in dealing with Numerian tech are just that--specialized. And everyone else will have a harder time of figuring it out.

This shouldn't be a problem though, because of good scenario design there are still going to be alternative solutions that don't involve having the feat. So parties without it can use to progress through the game.

Uh, John Compton did post that this was a lesson they learned AFTER the first 3 scenarios. Don't expect too great a design in those first three

Silver Crusade ****

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Undone wrote:
It's more that season 6 is indescribably lethal for little reason other than lethality.
Weird. None of the Season 6 tables I've seen have had ANY lethal results.

In fairness, I imagine there has been a HUGE amount of table variance with the first 3 scenarios. All the issues addressed in the Blog would be treated very, very differently at different tables. How hardness is treated could have a major impact on lethality.

I've played in all 3 scenarios so far and we got lots of information WITHOUT the technologist feat, for example.

Silver Crusade ****

Dylos wrote:
I believe 5-24 Assault on the Wound, and 5-25 Vengeance at Sundered Crag have the answers you seek.

They most certainly do NOT. They state what happens as far as the society and Jorundan are concerned but that doesn't address the larger issue of the World wound at all.

Silver Crusade ****

I asked this over in the general setting thread and was told the answer is campaign dependent.

So I'll ask it here to get a PFS campaign specific answer.

The Paths We Choose strongly implies that the Worldwound has gone quiet, that the Fifth Crusade is over.

I know that what happened isn't spelled out in the Season 5 ending scenarios nor the Season 6 scenarios.

I'm guessing that the Adventure Path resolved things.

Can somebody possibly give me a spoiler free quick synopsis of what the current state in PFS land is supposed to be?

Silver Crusade ****

I'll add another voice to the "expect table variation" votes. I think that only the 2 listed rings would be PFS legal.

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hmm wrote:

When I reach second level, I think that I am definitely giving Pumpkin a skill in linguistics. The way I see it, knowing a language will work well with some of Pumpkin's tricks, including fetch (fetch what?) and deliver (deliver what?) so that Pumpkin has a better idea of what is going on. It won't remove the need for tricks, but it will sure make the tricks work better.

Hmm

Replying to both posts above in one.

It sounds like your GM was one of those who really hate ACs and goes out of their way to put obstacles in their way that are NOT in the rules. Making you roll an untrained Handle Animal roll for attacking a construct is very clearly wrong.

The linguistics skill is very useful with some GMs as it will cause them to more liberally interpret what an animal can do. With others (like the GM above) it will likely be all but useless.

I always take it, though. It helps to justify what the animal can and should do IN MY MIND. Makes things more realistic to ME. And that is more than worth the skill ppint

Silver Crusade ****

I wouldn't overstress about it. The first 3 scenarios are reasonably heavy on tech stuff but the ptb have stated that only 3 or so more in the season will be.

The rules with regard to tech and hardness are also very unclear and very obscure. Expect extreme table variation, at least until they dedicate a blog to it.

With all that said, having SOME means of getting by hardness is a good thing. Knowledge engineering will probably be more useful this season. The technologist feat is likely overkill unless it really fits your character concept

Silver Crusade ****

Kyle Baird wrote:

Regarding a recent review (and several other similar reviews):

"We had little time remaining so the GM, perforce hand waved a lot of it."

The scenario specifically states that if the scenario is being run in a constrained time slot (i.e. you're only given X hours), that the final encounter begins with 90 minutes remaining (assuming the PCs haven't figured a way to bypass it from happening at all).

Fair enough.

As I said in the review, I'm actually GLAD that the GM spent time where he did. With our group that was the right decision to maximize enjoyment.

Changed review to reflect new information

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hangman Henry IX wrote:


A lot of people seem to think that honesty and honor is just about only saying literally true things, but I'm pretty sure that is not the intent of the paladins code. Being misleading is just as dishonorable as pointing over a guys shoulder and saying "hey look at that thing" and then stabbing him in the back. You led them to believe you were someone you aren't, how is that not lying?

I think that this may actually be the crux of the problem.

If a paladins code is interpreted too harshly then a paladin IS unplayable, even in a home game. With this interpretion it is totally trivial to make a paladin fall by putting them into a position where they tell a white lie or hurt someone.

PFS absolutely requires players and GMs to interpret ALL moral codes flexibly. Only in the most egregious circumstances does the GM tell the player what their character can't do. Only in the most egregious circumstances does a character refuse to cooperate with the group. Only in the most egregious of circumstances does a character try to impose their moral outlook on a group.

Adults play nice together.

I've played several characters with a strong set of morals in PFS (including a paladin to level 11). I've failed faction missions that I've refused to do. Once I nearly had to refuse a mission (ie, I was going to change characters after the briefing) but the GM was able to work with me to convince me that I COULD participate in good conscience. I've caused missions to proceed in unscripted ways because of my morals.

As long as adults play nice together there really are only minor issues.

Silver Crusade

The Paths We Choose strongly implies that the Worldwound has gone quiet, that the Fifth Crusade is over.

I know that what happened isn't spelled out in the Season 5 ending scenarios nor the Season 6 scenarios.

I'm guessing that the Adventure Path resolved things.

Can somebody possibly give me a spoiler free quick synopsis of what the current state in PFS land is supposed to be?

Silver Crusade ****

You might also want to mention it on PSOC. Or I can if you're OK with that

Silver Crusade ****

Silas Ruin wrote:


Current Roster:
1. Zelanys (Oracle 1) - Melee
2. Flynn (Druid 1) - Support

3. Hunter 2

Silver Crusade ****

"Benjaamin Falk wrote:
We had plenty of time

That might be the major difference right there. If you have 1/2 an hour or so to explain the rules, do a couple of examples, etc I'm sure things would go much better

Silver Crusade ****

Simon Kort wrote:


- The Nabasu managed to gaze at one point, taking down the horse of a player. Ghoul Horse! Much fun was had.

. The horse die but only humanoids come back as ghouls

Quote:


-
- The scenario is unclear about how long the journey actually is, just that 6 rations are handed out.

I had them roll survival checks and pretended the result mattered :-). When they rolled high they caught up a little, low they lost ground.

As others have said, there is a LOT happening in this. I wish this had been a 2 parter, there easily is enough material and it would have allowed more time to play in the world wound with a high level party (the LOWEST entry in the random encounter table in the World wound book for this area is CR 11).

Fudge the heck out of the second encounter. I just ballparked average damage when the barbs and critturs were fighting

Silver Crusade ****

Benjamin Falk wrote:

I´ve read a lot of the complaints about assault on the wound and scars of the thrid crusade and i really can´t understand them.

Assault on the Wound closes part of the main storyline of season 5, the story is building up over several scenarios before and it was pretty clear that this type of event was coming. Just look at the boons....

Spoiler:
. Moving all armies into one square and then wiping single players out is a bad GM move, not the scenarios fault. You can also ask your players not to do that. I had one destroyed player army due to the player not retrating in time and bad dice luck, but that was in the second battle. The first battle is a joke really. Also please don´t blame it on the scenario when you did not understand the mass combat rules properly or they were explained poorly. And bad player tactics or decisions is another such thing. Even in the final fight there is a save chance for the players, what is really nice. When i played it first, the sight of a creature with wings and an open mouth with a cliff going down 100 feet made my character secure herself with a rope at the ladder as a first action.

Story wise, I agree with you that Assault was a good wrap up, but mechanically

Spoiler:
expecting GMs and players to competently play a brand new war game the first time IS a design flaw. The first battle is basically a practice run. But even so the game is more complex than can be mastered in a single 4 hour or so session.

And adding in a second new mechanic (troops) in the same scenario was an egregious mistake IMO

Silver Crusade

blackbloodtroll wrote:

At Lvl 12, AC is mostly irrelevant.

Enemies will have +20 or more to hit, and that neat AC boost, won't mean a whole hell of a lot.

Just saying.

This is not true, ESPECIALLY for a character who also has a high touch AC.

My level 11 character can get his AC past 40. That is quite significant against +25 or even +30 (being hit 1/2 the time is a lot better than being hit 95% of the time). And it is quite possible to do better than that.

For many builds it is practical to keep your AC relevant at all levels, although it does take significant resource investment.

Only if your game is going to extremes in terms of high level rocket tag (and a great many do NOT) does a high AC become significantly less useful and, even then, it never gets to the point of "mostly irrelevant"

Silver Crusade

I am considering building a Kata Master monk who also has levels of swashbuckler.

Would such a character be able to use an unarmed strike with the precise strike deed from the swashbuckler?

"A kata master can use an unarmed strike or monk
special weapon in place of a light or one-handed piercing
melee weapon for granted swashbuckler class features and
deeds."

A monk unarmed strike counts as a manufactured weapon so that isn't an issue.

The problem is that granted word. That could be taken to mean it only applies to deeds granted by the Kata Master. Alternatively, it could just be meant to make sure that it is clear that the Kata Master does not gain access to all swashbuckler features and deeds (a touch redundant but it clarifies things).

Silver Crusade ****

LazarX wrote:


Maybe he's confusing the Major with the previous head who sent his Pathfinders on missions frequently to cover up HIS indiscretions.

Um, other than rank, it IS the same guy isn't it? Or is this a joke that I'm missing?

1 to 50 of 870 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.