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

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Changes for Guide 4.2


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

51 to 100 of 171 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Cheliax *****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Add language or clarification to how a double weapon is valued in terms of cost for determining access via Fame. Do you value each half individually or the entire weapon?

Would a +2/+2 Two Bladed Sword be valued at 16,700gp for the entire weapon and require 36 Fame to purchase, or 8,350gp for each half and require 27 Fame to purchase?

Sczarni **

Umm it's the total item cost...that would be wasted time.

Lantern Lodge ***

Dragnmoon wrote:

Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Combat

I don't understand why the following is not allowed

    ....
  • Inquisitions for Inquisitor

The reason I believe that the Ultimate Combat inquisitions are not allowed are because they're not scaled to level like domains and the Ultimate Magic inquisitions are. Also, one of them has to do with granting inquisitors Gunslinger abilities, which they wanted to avoid doing. Yet I agree with you on the fact that archetypes granting Gunslinger abilities are appropriate, so it depends on which factor convinced them not to allow those inquisitions.

Andoran *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

Per Mike's Request

Dragnmoon wrote:
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
Actually, I thought that with the changes to module play, in your situation you would be required to ignore any XP beyond what levels your character to 12 anyway.

I have clarified this with Mike, you are not required to ignore the extra XP. But to play the Retirement Arc you do have to lose the last EXP, or you won't be able to. There are rules for it in the Guide.

PFS Guide pg 21 wrote:
If a character reaches level 12 by playing a sanctioned module, any XP beyond 33 points are lost prior to starting the Tier 12 scenarios/events.
I am unclear about if you lose Gold and fame as well.

Mike's Reply

Michael Brock wrote:
Gold and fame remain as earned with no reduction. Can someone add that to my sticky post of changes needed for Guide 4.2 please?

Qadira *****

deusvult wrote:

Let's not forget page 403 of the CRB. I quote:

"Rolling Dice: Some GMs prefer to roll all their dice in front of the players, letting the results fall where they may. Others prefer to mask all rolls behind a screen, hiding the results from the PCs so that, if they need to, they can fudge the dice results to make the game do what they want. Neither way is the "correct" way; choose whichever you wish, or even mix and match as feels right for you."

And, since that text is NOT omitted from the PFSOP rules, you have it quite literally in black and white that a GM may fudge dice. You're definately not supposed to over-use the tool, but it's a legitimate tool. Even in PFS.

Please add clarification on if a GM or player can fudge dice rolls legally in PFS play.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vinyc Kettlebek wrote:
Please add clarification on if a GM or player can fudge dice rolls legally in PFS play.

Since the RAW guidelines for PFS are intended to provide all players an equivalent (although not same) experience, artificially changing the dice results would be allowing the GM to dictate success conditions and changing stat blocks.

For example, if you attempted a skill check and failed, but the GM allowed you to succeed, that is the same as changing the DC in the first place. Or if you attack and you would normally hit (or miss) and the GM changes the result that is the same as changing the stat block AC#.

In any of the cases above, it's easy to see it would not be legal.

Qadira *****

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Since the RAW guidelines for PFS are intended to provide all players an equivalent (although not same) experience, artificially changing the dice results would be allowing the GM to dictate success conditions and changing stat blocks.

For example, if you attempted a skill check and failed, but the GM allowed you to succeed, that is the same as changing the DC in the first place. Or if you attack and you would normally hit (or miss) and the GM changes the result that is the same as changing the stat block AC#.

In any of the cases above, it's easy to see it would not be legal.

I agree that it's easy to see that fudging dice rolls should not be done during PFS events.

The post below and the threads it has links to show there is a minority of participants who feel there is ambiguity in what is allowed.

Post

Taldor ***

Bob Jonquet wrote:


In any of the cases above, it's easy to see it would not be legal.

Non sequitur, Bob.

Neither of those examples are of a GM fudging dice. They're both of a PLAYER fudging dice. And not even I was saying that's PFS-Kosher.

A more accurate gist of what I was saying is perfectly legal and Vinyc wants to see explicitly made illegal is this:

I may not increase a BBEG's bonus to hit or to save by +X or -Y.

I may, however, fudge my dice rolls for the BBEG so that I get that same +X or -Y, with the caveat of a modified 'natural' range of 1-20, obviously.

Disclaimer: 'I may' does not mean that in practice 'I should routinely', 'I must always', or 'I think it's funny to'.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:
Neither of those examples are of a GM fudging dice.

I disagree. IMO, the GM is the only one at the table with the power to fudge dice. The players roll, but have no control over the success/failure of that roll. It is the GM's decision whether that number succeeds/fails at whatever they attempted. It's not like the player can say, "normally my <roll> would fail, but I've decided to fudge and let it succeed this time."

Whether we are talking about dice the GM has actually rolled or one a player rolled, if the result is different than what should have happened, it is the GM that has fudged. You don't fudge dice, you fudge the results.

Cheliax ***** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it is a popular misconception that players want their GMs to fudge dice rolls. In fact, I think some players would be downright offended to know that they got 'kid gloves', especially at higher levels. Bob, how would you feel if Kyle had fudged Sarkorian for us?

I think GMs fudge dice because they don't want to be construed as the bad guy, but sometimes, character deaths are awesome.

For example, at my recent Eyes of the Ten game, I made the statement that the players should expect to die, but not to worry for their deaths would be epic. And you know what? The one person I did kill, didn't appear to mind so much (perhaps a hangover helped that, I'm not sure) and it was because his dice rolled badly. No one's fault and I highly doubt he feels I was picking on him. I would go as far to say that, apart from my disastrous hungover performance for part 4, every one of the players had a great time and felt they all contributed.

Now this is a high level table, with high level players. I may make exceptions for low level tables or brand new players, because sometimes death at that level CAN dissuade a player from coming back.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Todd Morgan wrote:
Bob, how would you feel if Kyle had fudged Sarkorian for us?

I'm not advocating fudging, I'm just saying there is no difference who rolls the dice, only the GM can fudge the results.

Osirion

Guys ... I'm not trying to be a party pooper, but we were asked upthread by Mike to not use this as the forum for debate of subject. It will just flood the thread and make it more difficult for them to read the suggestions by having to sort through it all.
Let's keep it to merely offering the suggestions for changes and debate the legitimacy of such for other threads.

Shadow Lodge *****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some have suggested adding NPC castings of spells to those that end at scenario completion. I vehemently disagree.

Raise dead is impossible under this, as is removing any affliction. Further, permanent NPC afflictions no longer matter. Unless we start carving a ridiculous tapestry of exceptions. You end up with a great deal of dead or diseased characters for which there is no remedy taking this as written.

Of course it won't be taken as written. The rules as they stand are either ignored (players are allowed cast raise, the results carry through, though this is technically illegal), or they end up completely inconsistent (I can't raise you, but John Q NPC certainly can). A lot went into 4.1 in unifying module play with scenario play and to stop carving exceptions. This was an excellent move in making org play more cohesive.

The casting expiration is one of the last bastions of rule inconsistency, and the only way to fix it is either a labyrinth of conditional exceptions, ignoring the rule when it's especially inconvenient (the current practice), or a complete removal of the rule along with a banned spell list (a list you already have). Go with simplicity here, please.

Implementing this is easy. Just allow spells to continue. Track permanent spells as you would items. The time between scenarios is indefinite, anything other than permanent or instantaneous wears off.

Add any spells you think are serious problem spells to the banned list like permanency or animate dead (as those are the ones oft cited to me, and such a list already exists with permanency, awaken, etc).

I see no merit to the fear that removing the spell expiration rule would somehow unbalance things. No rational argument has ever been posed to me that wouldn't be fixed by adding a spell to the same list as permanency currently occupies in org play. This is simple, consistent, and is a rule that can be followed without making death permanent.

Grand Lodge ****

I thought that was already clarified: spells that remove a condition (raise dead removing death, mending removing broken, cure light wounds removing injury) do not suddenly reverse themselves at the end of a scenario.

On a related topic: Should Masterwork Transformation be added to the banned spells list to end the debate over its duration?

Shadow Lodge *****

Kelly Youngblood wrote:
I thought that was already clarified: spells that remove a condition (raise dead removing death, mending removing broken, cure light wounds removing injury) do not suddenly reverse themselves at the end of a scenario.

And the requirement of that clarification illustrates my point. Simpler is better. Further, not being in the guide, it's technically optional on the part of a particularly cruel GM.

Kelly Youngblood wrote:
On a related topic: Should Masterwork Transformation be added to the banned spells list to end the debate over its duration?

Personally, I don't think so. There's little room to abuse the spell, given its cost. It just makes Heirloom Weapon viable. You don't want the spell cast? Ban Heirloom Weapon.

*

Kelly Youngblood wrote:

I thought that was already clarified: spells that remove a condition (raise dead removing death, mending removing broken, cure light wounds removing injury) do not suddenly reverse themselves at the end of a scenario.

On a related topic: Should Masterwork Transformation be added to the banned spells list to end the debate over its duration?

Quoted from the Guide 4.1:

"This includes spells with an instantaneous or permanent duration, such as continual flame, create undead, or fabricate."

I think that there does need to be a better explanation of what spells do not carry on after the scenario. The way the rule is written, all spell effects end, no matter what. Diseases, curses, poisons, death, etc all come back. This is because as written all instantaneous spell effects go away. The rule does not make sense as written (the instantaneous spell side), no one follows it as written, and should be revised.

Maybe re-write it as something like this.
"This includes all spells with a permanent duration and spells with an instantaneous duration listed in the FAQ."

This way you can specifically list the spells that won't carry over and not waste space in the guide.

Osirion

C'mon guys ... really ...

Michael Brock wrote:

This thread is not to debate changes, just to list them. Thanks for your help.

... Please start a new thread if you wish to ask why something is or why something should change. I just need highlights here so when we get ready to review the new Guide, I don't have to scroll through 400 posts. Please just list what you think should be changed or tweaked and debate it in its own thread. You can even link the discussion like I did above if you like.
I'm going to remove all posts that do not fit that criteria. If you have questions, want to raise issues, etc... please don't do it here. It just makes it harder to use this thread for its intended purpose in 6 months. Thanks for the help.

Respect the man's request, and help him use this thread as it's intended.

Silver Crusade ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Hi there!

One thing I would like to see: Is there anyway we could do what we did for The Beginner's Box, where we had a simplified character building guide just for players? And in doing so, separate the rule book between the character building section that doesn't change very much, versus the GM sections that seem to always change?

Don't panic, hear me out first:

If you really stop and think about it, the player build section hasn't changed since the start of Season 3 and unless we do something major like raise the point buy build or add factions, it's not going to change much more. And the smaller details from other books are already implemented in the "Additional Resources" for us GM's.

The GM's section seems to always change as we are a growing group that is changing all the time. It would be nice to save some paper and not have new players wading through a whole bunch of stuff they are not interested in or using. It would also be a good time to add Additional Resources to it, or utilize erratas between major changes.

I may start a separate thread about this idea, but I did want to at least put it here for consideration in the future.

Thanks for reading!

PS: If you want to put more into this topic, I started a new thread here: Rule Book Changes to Consider

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

My suggestion was just to adjust the formatting so the character build section and the faction sections started and ended at page breaks so they could be easily removed and handed to a new player to look through. That would serve your purpose as well, I suppose, and keep us from having to maintain two separate files.

Silver Crusade ****

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

That would also work! And then we can if need be make things longer knowing that I would only need to print a section or two at a time instead of having to print the whole darn thing.

I would like us possibly to consider erratas too for small updates and changes.

Andoran **** Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau aka Arnim Thayer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was under the impression from something said way back that this was the direction they had planned to go with Guide v4, but somehow this failed to happen. I think it would be a great idea. The current Guide is daunting to a new player that you are trying to introduce to Pathfinder in general and PFS in particular. Breaking the Guide into a Players Guide and GMs Guide would go a long way toward making Organized Play more accessible.

Silver Crusade ****

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

*nods*

I have moved this topic to another thread just to keep the space down on this thread: Changes For Future Rulebooks

Thanks!

Andoran ****

4 people marked this as a favorite.

1. Clarify which items slots, if any, animal companions and familiars can utilize.

2. Clarify the Intelligence of Improved Familiars. Do they get dumber after you summon them or retain their native intelligence?

3. Clarify whether clerics MUST choose a published god or can they follow philosophies.

Grand Lodge ***

Bestiary 1 identified as a part of the Core Assumption for GMs.

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Digitalsabre wrote:
Bestiary 1 identified as a part of the Core Assumption for GMs.

Core Assumption Rulebooks for GMs are listed on the top of the Additional Resources page. And there Bestiary 1 is mentioned.

Andoran *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

Not really a Change to the guide, but can you please add the Special Module rule to the download for Pathfinder Module: Master of the Fallen Fortress.

Qadira **

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Also, what rules apply now for the sanctioned Quest, Ambush in Absalom would be useful to have in the guide.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Improved familiar

I see that familiars from bestiaries 1 & 2 are allowed.....but not 3......was this an accidental over site?? I'm looking to have a Faerie Dragon. Any creators please chime in for me.


This line from page 25 of ver. 3.03 of the Guide is missing from ver. 4.0 and 4.1:

Quote:
Any spellcasting purchased using CPA is cast at minimum caster level.

Was this intentional or accidental and does it need to be added back in? And if this is no longer true, then it needs to be clarified and explained in the Guide, or people will be using PP to get a 1st level spell cast at 20th caster level.

Taldor *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing I liked in the previous editions was the typical alignment of each faction. Especially now that there are more factioms. It was a very small change, but I miss it.

It also made it easier for new players to chose alignments and factions.

Grand Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Kristen Gipson wrote:

One thing I liked in the previous editions was the typical alignment of each faction. Especially now that there are more factioms. It was a very small change, but I miss it.

It also made it easier for new players to chose alignments and factions.

That information is in the Pathfinder Society Field Guide, which is part of the core assumption.

**

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paz wrote:
Kristen Gipson wrote:

One thing I liked in the previous editions was the typical alignment of each faction. Especially now that there are more factioms. It was a very small change, but I miss it.

It also made it easier for new players to chose alignments and factions.

That information is in the Pathfinder Society Field Guide, which is part of the core assumption.

Actually, the field guide only says lawful, chaotic or neutral. I could see a new player being confused when they make an LG cheliax character :P

Silver Crusade ****

They removed the alignments last time I looked.

***** Venture-Lieutenant, Georgia—Atlanta aka CRobledo

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a new player to PFS AND Pathfinder in general, my biggest questions when reading the guide were:

1. Differences between modules, scenarios, adventure paths, etc... I would love to see more clarification on which are PFS sanctioned, and just more information on the differences between each.

2. Replaying scenarios/modules for credit. At first, it was hard to notice that the only scenarios you can replay for credit are tier 1 scenarios. But it was unclear that it only includes the First Steps series (currently anyway) and not the SUBtier 1-2 scenarios. Originally, I thought Tier 1-5 scenarios (for example) were re-playable for credit if played at the 1-2 subtier (since it included "1"). This could also be tied to my #1 point above.

Silver Crusade ***

Only found this thread now, but simplify the character level requirements with the following change: regardless of the scenario Tier, allow PCs within 1 level of the Subtier (e.g. lvl 2-5 for Subtier 3-4) to participate, as long as the party APL falls within the subtier.

There was a thread recently about the scenario level limits, but I can't seem to find it now. This was a fairly popular suggestion for a solution.

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

Jussi Leinonen wrote:

Only found this thread now, but simplify the character level requirements with the following change: regardless of the scenario Tier, allow PCs within 1 level of the Subtier (e.g. lvl 2-5 for Subtier 3-4) to participate, as long as the party APL falls within the subtier.

There was a thread recently about the scenario level limits, but I can't seem to find it now. This was a fairly popular suggestion for a solution.

This isn't going to happen.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.

1) increase the PP gain from modules from 4 to 6. These are the most difficult scenarios I've played (including handing me my first death); they should be more rewarding as well.
2) Let Heirloom weapons be turned masterworked for 300 GP or so. Usually it's for a small CMB trip bonus or Martial Weapon Proficiency; this doesn't seem overpowering.
3) Give an option for "factionless", who essentially get 2 PP if the module is "successful" and 0 Otherwise. You can offset it by disallowing purchases besides resurrection; essentially it is for people who think factions are a time-waster and just use PP for magic item avail.

Just some thoughts; on #3 i'll be interested in what you have in store season 4... Factions seem awkward right now, and while I love the flavor I'd generally opt out of the "fetch/skill roll" missions they amount to right now.

Grand Lodge *****

Thalin, see this post regarding your first point. There are reasons you only get 4 PP for the longer modules.

3) Basically Grand Lodge is "factionless" you just have two objectives needed to complete your "mission". I believe if you want to use your all-or-nothing mechanic, you may certainly discard the 1 PP if you fail to earn both.

Cheliax *****

3 people marked this as a favorite.

1. Consolidate the rules for Pregens into its own section.

2. Consider changing references to scenario/module Tier in the guide to Level Range, and renaming sub-Tier to Tier. This would bring the language in line with the paizo store.

Using Scenario #3-02: Sewer Dragons of Absalom as an example.
Refer to the scenario as level range 3-7 (tier 3-4 and 6-7)
Instead of scenario tier 3-7 (subtiers 3-4 and 6-7)

Qadira **** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Amsterdam aka Seraphimpunk

Quintin DeLur wrote:

Add language or clarification to how a double weapon is valued in terms of cost for determining access via Fame. Do you value each half individually or the entire weapon?

Would a +2/+2 Two Bladed Sword be valued at 16,700gp for the entire weapon and require 36 Fame to purchase, or 8,350gp for each half and require 27 Fame to purchase?

Seems like a good thing to address. A two weapon fighter with two individual weapons could get their gear by 27 fame, while a two weapon fighter with a single double weapon who has to enhance both sides has to wait until 36 fame.

if you start out with a mwk/mwk two-bladed sword, and upgrade by adding +1 to one end, and later separately upgrade to +1 flaming on the other end, do you have to wait till you have enough fame , or can you treat each end as a separate weapon for fame.

***** Venture-Captain, Indiana—Indianapolis aka Red-Assassin

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quintin DeLur wrote:

1. Consolidate the rules for Pregens into its own section.

2. Consider changing references to scenario/module Tier in the guide to Level Range, and renaming sub-Tier to Tier. This would bring the language in line with the paizo store.

Using Scenario #3-02: Sewer Dragons of Absalom as an example.
Refer to the scenario as level range 3-7 (tier 3-4 and 6-7)
Instead of scenario tier 3-7 (subtiers 3-4 and 6-7)

I am 100% behind this.

*** RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Not sure how possible it would be, but hyperlinks in the PDF would be nice, For example this passage:
"For modules below level 9, if you do not have a character in the correct level range, you may use a Pathfinder Society pregenerated character, available on paizo.com."
having "pregenerated character" hyperlink to the pregens on the website.

Andoran ****

Subdomains for Tian Xia gods would be nice.

Clarification on the White Haired Witch. Does she add her Strength modifier to her hair attack or her Intelligence modifier?

*

Clarification on what happens if a player ‘looses’ an equipment item. I’m not talking expendables; I mean how does PFS deal with a situation where an NPC relieves the session’s Fighter of his +2 Keen Greatsword and he in unable to retrieve it by the end of the session. Then what? Considering that sword may very well be half of that character’s current wealth.


ThorGN wrote:
Clarification on what happens if a player ‘looses’ an equipment item. I’m not talking expendables; I mean how does PFS deal with a situation where an NPC relieves the session’s Fighter of his +2 Keen Greatsword and he in unable to retrieve it by the end of the session. Then what? Considering that sword may very well be half of that character’s current wealth.

Perhaps some consideration for PCs if they fall WAY below expected wealth guidelines for any reason.

-James

Shadow Lodge *** Venture-Lieutenant, California—Silicon Valley aka JohnF

4 people marked this as a favorite.
james maissen wrote:
ThorGN wrote:
Clarification on what happens if a player ‘looses’ an equipment item. I’m not talking expendables; I mean how does PFS deal with a situation where an NPC relieves the session’s Fighter of his +2 Keen Greatsword and he in unable to retrieve it by the end of the session. Then what? Considering that sword may very well be half of that character’s current wealth.

Perhaps some consideration for PCs if they fall WAY below expected wealth guidelines for any reason.

-James

Oh, let's not open yet another can of worms.

Why should a character who loses his weapon get a better deal on a fancy sword than someone who has been saving up to buy one? And why special-case equipment - after all, a resurrection can cost you quite a bit more than that sword, but the only break there is you can (perhaps) pay for that using prestige points.


ThorGN wrote:
Clarification on what happens if a player ‘looses’ an equipment item. I’m not talking expendables; I mean how does PFS deal with a situation where an NPC relieves the session’s Fighter of his +2 Keen Greatsword and he in unable to retrieve it by the end of the session. Then what? Considering that sword may very well be half of that character’s current wealth.

Assuming your character is able to go back to the location of the lost item, I would say it should be handwaved that he returned after the end of the scenario and got lucky and found whatever it was that was lost. That is, as long as an enemy did not take the item as part of the scenario and then escape with it. Now, if by lost you mean sundered or otherwise destroyed by the NPC, there are spells to fix that.

Grand Lodge *****

For a lost item, perhaps they could pay for a Locate Object spell or the services of a Diviner. And just hand-wave that they can recover the item when it is found. Perhaps the cost could be a percentage of the item's value, 10% perhaps?


JohnF wrote:


JamesMaissen wrote:


Perhaps some consideration for PCs if they fall WAY below expected wealth guidelines for any reason.

-James

Oh, let's not open yet another can of worms.

Why should a character who loses his weapon get a better deal on a fancy sword than someone who has been saving up to buy one? And why special-case equipment - after all, a resurrection can cost you quite a bit more than that sword, but the only break there is you can (perhaps) pay for that using prestige points.

It wasn't special case for equipment.

But if a PC has, say, under a 1/4 of the expected wealth for his/her level.. how much are they going to be able to contribute?

For tier of play all it counts is their level, and they don't have an option to play a lower one that might account for their dearth of gear.

In a home campaign they could find more wealth than normal to balance this out, but in an organized campaign with set gp awards they will always be behind for it. In the case you bring up, significantly behind for the entirety of the PC's career. Likely this causes them to perish again and go even further behind.

But c'est la vie, just a suggestion that they consider something along these lines as such losses seem more overwhelming in an organized play setting,

James

51 to 100 of 171 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / Changes for Guide 4.2 All Messageboards

©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.