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

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Gary Gygax & Role Playing Mastery


Gamer Talk

601 to 632 of 632 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

MendedWall12 wrote:
You guys take me too seriously. I didn't mean anything for murder-hobo more than adventurer. After all, you have to admit, there is more than a fair amount to this game that relies essentially on "kill it and take its stuff." :D

Yes, but that meme has to be stomped on. I did play a couple of games with "murder hobos" the kind of guys who routinely kill old men on the road, peasants, shopkeepers, etc. wasnt pleasant, and I left.

Despite the fact they were in their late teens, they acted like kids, sniggering and laughing like Beavis and Buthead.

If anything in this game is "badwrongfun" that would be it- especially as myself, one girl, one other older player and the DM werent having fun, just those two. (the other two players left too)

So, we should never use that term except for as a example of how NOT to play.


I would disagree, only from the perspective, that if, I, a player who knows that the kind of gameplay you're talking about isn't the kind of fun that I want to have, then I take back all the power of that word, if I use it to just mean adventurer. It's, just a little, like when rappers take that word that means African-American, that was used derogatorily for so many years, and use it themselves as a term of endearment. They've taken the power out of the word to hurt, and use it as a means to address each other with affection.


Tactical Mastery Tip #1 - Know the goal. The mission should have a set goal.

Gygax states that when the goal is successfully achieved, the mission is complete and the adventure should conclude at that point. That's pretty direct.

He acknowledges they can overlap, but to differentiate mission from goal, he says that the mission is a description of what must be done to achieve success. The goal is an enumeration of the conditions that will prevail when the mission is complete.

For an example, he talks about the mission being to catch a criminal. The goal of the mission is accomplished when the criminal is behind bars.

I know I've played in groups where our goal for a session or the task in front of us was never defined. We basically moved ahead and looked for monsters and treasure. That's certainly not tactics. Not much of a strategy either, for that matter.

Knowing the mission and defining the goal leads into his next tactic, which relates to objectives.


I know I've played in such groups as well - though it was generally more a matter of having a larger multi-session goal, but no clearly broken down mission for the day. Or of having multiple competing sub-goals.


MendedWall12 wrote:
I would disagree, only from the perspective, that if, I, a player who knows that the kind of gameplay you're talking about isn't the kind of fun that I want to have, then I take back all the power of that word, if I use it to just mean adventurer. It's, just a little, like when rappers take that word that means African-American, that was used derogatorily for so many years, and use it themselves as a term of endearment. They've taken the power out of the word to hurt, and use it as a means to address each other with affection.

I see your point, and agree with it, but will beg to differ over your chosen comparison. I've seen 12 Years a Slave and I can tell you there is no way to redeem that word from it's historic setting.

one other example - sorry for the Godwin:
There are a few words like that. Another would be the use of "kapo" as a name for someone of Jewish ancestry who is in charge. There's just no way to make that term acceptable.


Quark Blast wrote:
MendedWall12 wrote:
I would disagree, only from the perspective, that if, I, a player who knows that the kind of gameplay you're talking about isn't the kind of fun that I want to have, then I take back all the power of that word, if I use it to just mean adventurer. It's, just a little, like when rappers take that word that means African-American, that was used derogatorily for so many years, and use it themselves as a term of endearment. They've taken the power out of the word to hurt, and use it as a means to address each other with affection.

I see your point, and agree with it, but will beg to differ over your chosen comparison. I've seen 12 Years a Slave and I can tell you there is no way to redeem that word from it's historic setting.

** spoiler omitted **

Point taken. I personally would never try to redeem either of those words, but I'm neither African-American, nor Jewish. I am, however, an avid RP gamer, so, from that perspective, I can redeem murder-hobo for my own purposes. Right?


MendedWall12 wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
MendedWall12 wrote:
I would disagree, only from the perspective, that if, I, a player who knows that the kind of gameplay you're talking about isn't the kind of fun that I want to have, then I take back all the power of that word, if I use it to just mean adventurer. It's, just a little, like when rappers take that word that means African-American, that was used derogatorily for so many years, and use it themselves as a term of endearment. They've taken the power out of the word to hurt, and use it as a means to address each other with affection.

I see your point, and agree with it, but will beg to differ over your chosen comparison. I've seen 12 Years a Slave and I can tell you there is no way to redeem that word from it's historic setting.

** spoiler omitted **

Point taken. I personally would never try to redeem either of those words, but I'm neither African-American, nor Jewish. I am, however, an avid RP gamer, so, from that perspective, I can redeem murder-hobo for my own purposes. Right?

That's kind of my approach. Also, not being African-American or Jewish, I'm not going to tell them they shouldn't try.

As for murder-hobo, I'm fine with others using it, as long as they don't push it on me. If you want to play in a murder-hobo style, go right ahead. Just don't tell me that I'm really playing a murder-hobo, but I'm just denying it.
To stretch the analogy, that's not like the rappers using that term for themselves, but to another black man who is bothered by it and with no interest in redeeming it. All on a completely different scale, of course.

I'm not sure "murder-hobo" really falls into the same category of redeemable. It's far more a descriptive term which can only be used positively as a joke, rather than an essentially neutral word that's taken on horrific connotations through use.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Class Deck, Maps, Modules, Pawns, PFS RPG, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

I'm not sure "murder-hobo" really falls into the same category of redeemable. It's far more a descriptive term which can only be used positively as a joke, rather than an essentially neutral word that's taken on horrific connotations through use.

I've seen people use it in vastly different ways. It's a bit like "optimiser" in my mind - that could be argued as purely descriptive too but the majority of the time it's used more broadly than that with a whole bunch of unspoken and non-universal assumptions along with it.

I generally use murderhobo positively, without humour but what I mean is a campaign of wandering from place to place solving the locals' problems (generally by going to the monster's lair and killing it). Until I heard some people here get quite riled up about it I'd always assumed it was just a lighthearted description a game where moral issues were in the background (and no more complicated than "goodies vs baddies"). Too me it was no more negative than a "gritty" or "shades of grey" campaign.


@Steve Geddes, that is much the same way I intended, and mirrors my own experience as well. I guess I've never seen a reason to get upset at that specific nomenclature when, as you say, it can be very positively used to describe a game where morality isn't a major player, and the various missions or quests amount to "kill it and take its stuff." I don't think there's anything wrong with a game like that, and I certainly wouldn't presume to tell anyone playing a game like that, that "they're doing it wrong." :)


Steve Geddes wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I'm not sure "murder-hobo" really falls into the same category of redeemable. It's far more a descriptive term which can only be used positively as a joke, rather than an essentially neutral word that's taken on horrific connotations through use.

I've seen people use it in vastly different ways. It's a bit like "optimiser" in my mind - that could be argued as purely descriptive too but the majority of the time it's used more broadly than that with a whole bunch of unspoken and non-universal assumptions along with it.

I generally use murderhobo positively, without humour but what I mean is a campaign of wandering from place to place solving the locals' problems (generally by going to the monster's lair and killing it). Until I heard some people here get quite riled up about it I'd always assumed it was just a lighthearted description a game where moral issues were in the background (and no more complicated than "goodies vs baddies"). Too me it was no more negative than a "gritty" or "shades of grey" campaign.

Well, "lighthearted" isn't really that far from "joke".

"Murder" taken literally is a pretty harsh term.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Class Deck, Maps, Modules, Pawns, PFS RPG, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I'm not sure "murder-hobo" really falls into the same category of redeemable. It's far more a descriptive term which can only be used positively as a joke, rather than an essentially neutral word that's taken on horrific connotations through use.

I've seen people use it in vastly different ways. It's a bit like "optimiser" in my mind - that could be argued as purely descriptive too but the majority of the time it's used more broadly than that with a whole bunch of unspoken and non-universal assumptions along with it.

I generally use murderhobo positively, without humour but what I mean is a campaign of wandering from place to place solving the locals' problems (generally by going to the monster's lair and killing it). Until I heard some people here get quite riled up about it I'd always assumed it was just a lighthearted description a game where moral issues were in the background (and no more complicated than "goodies vs baddies"). Too me it was no more negative than a "gritty" or "shades of grey" campaign.

Well, "lighthearted" isn't really that far from "joke".

"Murder" taken literally is a pretty harsh term.

I don't think the murder in murderhobo is intended to be taken literally.


HolmesandWatson wrote:


It's all but impossible to deny that Tolkien heavily influenced Gygax, despite his minimizing of the impact (which I do believe is primarily related to the legal issues). And people who know better than I say agree that the magic system is Vanceian.

That's because many people in this hobby are surprisingly not that widely read on their Fantasy. If you read more of the selection of books that Gygax lists, you might come to the conclusion that Fritz Leiber, Robert Howard, Michael Moorcock, and Orson Scott Card, as a package, are far heavier influences on the development of D+D than Tolkien, and in my opinion, you'd be highly justified in saying so.

My personnel thought is that Gygax was aware of how well Tolkien was selling and borrowed a few names and characterizations to insert into a game that was already pretty far jelled. I don't however see much of Gandalf in the Magic-User class, not nearly as much as I see Aragorn and others in the Ranger. I do see a lot more Fritz Leiber in classes such as the Rogue (where his chance to use magic items, now known as UMD) was clearly drawn from along with parts of the original Barbarian class.

From Tolkien, I'd say that Gygax most heavily borrowed the original 3 races of Haflings, (now condensed into one), a bit of the flavoring for Elven subraces, and the nameplate for the Ranger class) The Thief however is almost pure Lieber, and the Barbarian pretty much Howard. Lieber, along with Moorcock contributes heavily into the flavor of the Greyhawk setting.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The Thief however is almost pure Lieber

You'd have to ask DrDeth, not Gygax for the inspiration of the thief class. :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
HolmesandWatson wrote:


It's all but impossible to deny that Tolkien heavily influenced Gygax, despite his minimizing of the impact (which I do believe is primarily related to the legal issues). And people who know better than I say agree that the magic system is Vanceian.

That's because many people in this hobby are surprisingly not that widely read on their Fantasy. If you read more of the selection of books that Gygax lists, you might come to the conclusion that Fritz Leiber, Robert Howard, Michael Moorcock, and Orson Scott Card, as a package, are far heavier influences on the development of D+D than Tolkien, and in my opinion, you'd be highly justified in saying so.

My personnel thought is that Gygax was aware of how well Tolkien was selling and borrowed a few names and characterizations to insert into a game that was already pretty far jelled. I don't however see much of Gandalf in the Magic-User class, not nearly as much as I see Aragorn and others in the Ranger. I do see a lot more Fritz Leiber in classes such as the Rogue (where his chance to use magic items, now known as UMD) was clearly drawn from along with parts of the original Barbarian class.

From Tolkien, I'd say that Gygax most heavily borrowed the original 3 races of Haflings, (now condensed into one), a bit of the flavoring for Elven subraces, and the nameplate for the Ranger class) The Thief however is almost pure Lieber, and the Barbarian pretty much Howard. Lieber, along with Moorcock contributes heavily into the flavor of the Greyhawk setting.

I'm pretty sure Orson Scott Card wasn't a big influence. :)

I'm not sure who you might have been thinking of.

He may well have been downplaying Tolkien's influence - there were legal issues, as H&W said. There are definitely things taken directly from Tolkien, but the general feel, especially of early D&D is very off. I see little reason not to basically accept his words in Appendix N:

Quote:
The most immediate influences upon AD&D were probably de Camp & Pratt, R. E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, H. P. Lovecraft, and A. Merritt


thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
HolmesandWatson wrote:


It's all but impossible to deny that Tolkien heavily influenced Gygax, despite his minimizing of the impact (which I do believe is primarily related to the legal issues). And people who know better than I say agree that the magic system is Vanceian.

That's because many people in this hobby are surprisingly not that widely read on their Fantasy. If you read more of the selection of books that Gygax lists, you might come to the conclusion that Fritz Leiber, Robert Howard, Michael Moorcock, and Orson Scott Card, as a package, are far heavier influences on the development of D+D than Tolkien, and in my opinion, you'd be highly justified in saying so.

My personnel thought is that Gygax was aware of how well Tolkien was selling and borrowed a few names and characterizations to insert into a game that was already pretty far jelled. I don't however see much of Gandalf in the Magic-User class, not nearly as much as I see Aragorn and others in the Ranger. I do see a lot more Fritz Leiber in classes such as the Rogue (where his chance to use magic items, now known as UMD) was clearly drawn from along with parts of the original Barbarian class.

From Tolkien, I'd say that Gygax most heavily borrowed the original 3 races of Haflings, (now condensed into one), a bit of the flavoring for Elven subraces, and the nameplate for the Ranger class) The Thief however is almost pure Lieber, and the Barbarian pretty much Howard. Lieber, along with Moorcock contributes heavily into the flavor of the Greyhawk setting.

I'm pretty sure Orson Scott Card wasn't a big influence. :)

I'm not sure who you might have been thinking of.

He may well have been downplaying Tolkien's influence - there were legal issues, as H&W said. There are definitely things taken directly from Tolkien, but the general feel, especially of early D&D is very off. I see little reason not to basically accept his words in Appendix N:

Quote:
The most immediate
...

Sadly enough, I have not yet read any Meritt. As far as Card is concerned, I'm thinking of that wonderful book, "The Misenchanted Sword", and I might have the wrong author.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
HolmesandWatson wrote:


It's all but impossible to deny that Tolkien heavily influenced Gygax, despite his minimizing of the impact (which I do believe is primarily related to the legal issues). And people who know better than I say agree that the magic system is Vanceian.

That's because many people in this hobby are surprisingly not that widely read on their Fantasy. If you read more of the selection of books that Gygax lists, you might come to the conclusion that Fritz Leiber, Robert Howard, Michael Moorcock, and Orson Scott Card, as a package, are far heavier influences on the development of D+D than Tolkien, and in my opinion, you'd be highly justified in saying so.

My personnel thought is that Gygax was aware of how well Tolkien was selling and borrowed a few names and characterizations to insert into a game that was already pretty far jelled. I don't however see much of Gandalf in the Magic-User class, not nearly as much as I see Aragorn and others in the Ranger. I do see a lot more Fritz Leiber in classes such as the Rogue (where his chance to use magic items, now known as UMD) was clearly drawn from along with parts of the original Barbarian class.

From Tolkien, I'd say that Gygax most heavily borrowed the original 3 races of Haflings, (now condensed into one), a bit of the flavoring for Elven subraces, and the nameplate for the Ranger class) The Thief however is almost pure Lieber, and the Barbarian pretty much Howard. Lieber, along with Moorcock contributes heavily into the flavor of the Greyhawk setting.

I'm pretty sure Orson Scott Card wasn't a big influence. :)

I'm not sure who you might have been thinking of.

He may well have been downplaying Tolkien's influence - there were legal issues, as H&W said. There are definitely things taken directly from Tolkien, but the general feel, especially of early D&D is very off. I see little reason not to basically accept his words in Appendix

...
[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/317497.The_Misenchanted_Sword]Lawrence Watt-Evans

?

I don't know it. If that's it, it was published in 1985, so like Card, obviously not an influence.
As far as I can tell, Card started writing in the mid-70s, so that's why I ruled him out.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
HolmesandWatson wrote:


It's all but impossible to deny that Tolkien heavily influenced Gygax, despite his minimizing of the impact (which I do believe is primarily related to the legal issues). And people who know better than I say agree that the magic system is Vanceian.

That's because many people in this hobby are surprisingly not that widely read on their Fantasy. If you read more of the selection of books that Gygax lists, you might come to the conclusion that Fritz Leiber, Robert Howard, Michael Moorcock, and Orson Scott Card, as a package, are far heavier influences on the development of D+D than Tolkien, and in my opinion, you'd be highly justified in saying so.

My personnel thought is that Gygax was aware of how well Tolkien was selling and borrowed a few names and characterizations to insert into a game that was already pretty far jelled. I don't however see much of Gandalf in the Magic-User class, not nearly as much as I see Aragorn and others in the Ranger. I do see a lot more Fritz Leiber in classes such as the Rogue (where his chance to use magic items, now known as UMD) was clearly drawn from along with parts of the original Barbarian class.

From Tolkien, I'd say that Gygax most heavily borrowed the original 3 races of Haflings, (now condensed into one), a bit of the flavoring for Elven subraces, and the nameplate for the Ranger class) The Thief however is almost pure Lieber, and the Barbarian pretty much Howard. Lieber, along with Moorcock contributes heavily into the flavor of the Greyhawk setting.

Other clear Tolkien influences on D&D include; Dwarves, Orcs, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Half-Orcs, Half-Elves, Treants (Ents), Wraiths (Nazgul), Balor (Balrog) demons, Ranger class proficiency with crystal balls (Palantir), Cloak of Elvenkind (Lothlorien), intelligent giant spiders, and mithral (mithril).

I don't think anywhere near as much material can be traced to any of the other commonly cited influences. Moorcock gets 'credit' for the seed of the alignment system, Vance for the spellcasting, Lieber for the Rogue class, et cetera... but there were just far more things derived from Tolkien than any other source.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The Thief however is almost pure Lieber
You'd have to ask DrDeth, not Gygax for the inspiration of the thief class. :-)

Early, early on, we gave each player a henchman. One guy was a wizard with a low str. His hench, a dwarf figter also had a poor str, but a high dex (stats didnt mean as much in OD&D games). They could NOT make the open locked door roll with brute strength.

So, he asked me if his dwarf could pick the lock with his dagger, I gave him a roll.

Inspiration struck, and yes the Gray Mouser did figure heavily in how I designed the class. But there was lots of Bilbo in there too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
But there was lots of Bilbo in there too.

So I was right... Tolkien. :D This is going to make me sound like a crazy fanboy or a giddy school girl with a crush, but it absolutely gives me an over the top amount of joy to participate in a conversation with the man that designed the original thief class. It's a little crazy to even think about. Cheers to you DrDeth!!!


Well, thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MendedWall12 wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
But there was lots of Bilbo in there too.
So I was right... Tolkien. :D This is going to make me sound like a crazy fanboy or a giddy school girl with a crush, but it absolutely gives me an over the top amount of joy to participate in a conversation with the man that designed the original thief class. It's a little crazy to even think about. Cheers to you DrDeth!!!

Cheers indeed to all who worked out the idea of TTRPG's in the mid to late 70's. What would life be like without them?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tactical Mastery Tip #2 - Define the Objectives. The mission and goal, once defined and analyzed, will contain distinct places where progress can be measured.

As step one was 'Know the Goal,' defining the objectives seems like a reasonable second step. What are the steps to achieve the goal.

A party is going to play Forge of Fury (just about my favorite 3rd Edition module). The mission is to find forged by Durgeddin in the monster-infested dwarven hall of Khundrakar.

The goal is to recover the weapons and escape the hall alive.

The first objective is to gain entrance to the hall.

There are a couple different ways - none easy. We'll say the party managed to get in through the front door (yeah, sure). The next objective is probably to get across the chasm that no longer has a rope bridge across it, the Orcs having destroyed it in retreat.

If the party manages to get across, a new objective is set.

Each such objective should take you one step closer to attainment.

It's not exactly paint by numbers, but the objective should generally be stepping stones to the goal - maybe with the order jumbled a bit.

Next up is 'Make, and Follow, a Plan.'


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Last month over at BlackGate.com, I put up the first of a two-part essay that includes 25 tips on Dungeon delving.

Creighton Broadhurst of Raging Swan Press came up with the list and I added some thoughts about the first dozen. Part two is coming soon. Comments on the items welcome.


When I was thinking of the Forge of Fury example, I was having a bit of a tough time distinguishing mission from goal. Still am.

Grand Lodge

HolmesandWatson wrote:
I was having a bit of a tough time distinguishing mission from goal. Still am.

Something I read may help:

When you are young and first starting out, you set a goal of getting a good job, to marry and then settle down with family. All of these goals overlap and fall within the larger mission in your life, which is to be successful.


I was thinking the Mission might be more specific. This one seems too general to me.

Mission - Find a treasure horde to make lots of money

Goal - Recover Durgeddin's swords from the halls of Khundrakar

Objectives
- Enter the halls
- Locate the swords
- Defeat any guardian
- Escape the halls

Though Mission and Goal aren't very different in that example.

Grand Lodge

HolmesandWatson wrote:
I was thinking the Mission might be more specific.

Well, the example I gave was cobbled together from a few different web sites on the subject of the difference between Mission and goal, which all essentially said that the mission is the overarching plot, and the goals are the specific plot-points of the mission.


You know as I looked at the post about define the objectives, I realized it leaves out something, that, in my experience at least, is a much more powerful driving force for players. That is to say, the statement define the objectives, takes it for granted that all the players will have in mind the same objective: in a module, the completion of the quest, or in a homebrew campaign, the completion of the quest... :D But! And this is a rather big but... There are a fair number of players whose first and primary goal is actually tied to the growth and power increase of their character, and, or, affecting some story arc of their own imagination.

Real world example. I had a friend playing a half-drow (homebrewed that one) male sorcerer. Exiled from his darklands home, the player's ultimate objective was to find capable war captains, and amass enough wealth to raise an army and avenge himself upon those that exiled him. That was that character's top driving force. Therefore, any campaign objective that did not meet up with that ultimate goal held no interest for that player. Meaning, if the objective of a module or homebrew story arc (I mingled the two frequently) wasn't somehow getting that character closer to wealth, or meeting up with willing and capable warriors, he'd have no interest.

Of course, this is not always the case, but I have found, much more recently actually, that a lot of players are coming to a campaign with a preconceived notion that their character's personal goals, are the real goals, and any campaign/module is the means to that ultimate end.

Just wanted to offer that up, as it does put a different bit of a spin on the "Define the Objectives" bit.

Grand Lodge

I have said on many occasions, that modules and even homebrewed adventures, absolutely need, no, require, the buy-in of those at the table; because, at least with published adventures, the adventures as written have zero to do with the characters going through them.

Grand Lodge

Of course, a good GM will know his players and not run something he knows they won't "buy into".


Digitalelf wrote:
Of course, a good GM will know his players and not run something he knows they won't "buy into".

Yes! Problems arise, however, when the long term character goals are as different as each character at the table. I've had to arbitrate more than one in-fight at the table between players that had very different agendas. Thankfully compromise and common purpose were always found. Sometimes that is not the case. Just one more of the pitfalls of our hobby, it must be played with people, and people are fickle creatures with pride aplenty. ;)


Character goals and missions and party ones can be the same, different, complementary or contrasting. I didn't think about the distinctions while looking at Tactics.

Of course, Gygax emphasizes party and team throughout the book. I don't have Role Playing Mastery with me at work today (forgot my backpack), but I think he was talking about party tactics.

Worth further delving into.

601 to 632 of 632 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Community / Gamer Life / Gamer Talk / Gary Gygax & Role Playing Mastery All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.