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

PaizoCon 2014!

Rogue talent=feats every time?


Rules Questions


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I'm running a rough and I was looking at different talents I could take and I saw the talent "ninja trick" which reads as follows:

Ninja Trick (Ex): A rogue with this talent can choose a trick from the ninja trick list. The rogue can choose but cannot use talents that require ki points, unless she has a ki pool. A rogue can pick this talent more than once.

and a ninja has the talent combat trick which reads as follows:

Combat Trick: A ninja who selects this trick gains a bonus combat feat.

now neither a ninja nor a rough can choose a talent more than once unless otherwise noted but it says nothing about the other class for a rough or ninja so if I'm a level 2 rough and take ninja trick and choose combat trick I get a free feat than at level 4 I take ninja trick again since the talent states I can take it again and I choose to take combat trick again and repeat for as long as I want with going off of pure raw and how I read this this combo will work


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Do you really think this is intended?


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

if a ninja or rogue talent have the same name the class your in takes priority and you can't take the others even with that Rogue talent of Ninja trick that allow you to take it

Ultimate combat NInja tricks wrote:
Rogue Talent: The ninja can select a rogue talent in place of a ninja trick. The ninja cannot select a rogue talent that has the same name as a ninja trick. The ninja can select this talent multiple times.

so this sets up a "No, you can't do it" it'll be in the next Errata,

because they forgot to put in the sentence "A Rogue cannot select a Ninja Trick that has the same name as a rogue talent." in the rogue talent Ninja trick.

And further more, unless it specifies that a trick/talent can be taken more that once even with a trick/talent to get it, you can't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
Do you really think this is intended?

Do you really think if Rogue Talents (aside from the ones that just let you get a feat) didn't suck total ass anyone would actually want to do this?

Someone dipping Rogue can still grab Combat Trick, Fineese, Weapon Training, and/or some others with their rogue levels, and spending a feat on Extra Rogue Talent just to learn a feat is self-defeating. The only people who could possibly be considering doing this are ones with a whole bunch of levels invested in the rogue class. At least 4, if none of the specifically granted feats appeal, more likely 6 or 8 levels.

But that fact is, loophole or not, getting Combat Trick again for another feat IS a great deal, cause a feat is so much better than the unique talents rogue can get. So, which do you think is the actual problem here? The (alleged) loophole, or the fact that the loophole is appealing in the first place?


Why is it problematic that a rogue talent is not as good as a feat? Is the design intent that rogue talents are supposed to be superior to feats? I thought it was pretty clearly the opposite.


AvalonXQ wrote:
Why is it problematic that a rogue talent is not as good as a feat? Is the design intent that rogue talents are supposed to be superior to feats? I thought it was pretty clearly the opposite.

Agreed. If talents could always be combat feats, that would be saying a rogue is a superior class than the fighter, as they'd get the same amount of feats on top of SA and such. Of course, what does that say the problem is?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Davick wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
Why is it problematic that a rogue talent is not as good as a feat? Is the design intent that rogue talents are supposed to be superior to feats? I thought it was pretty clearly the opposite.
Agreed. If talents could always be combat feats, that would be saying a rogue is a superior class than the fighter, as they'd get the same amount of feats on top of SA and such. Of course, what does that say the problem is?

thats true a rough would get as many feats as a fighter at the cost of his rough talents and he doesn't have a full BAB either and I realized what the ninja trick said before I made this post I was just wondering based off of raw if this would work because I think that the ninja tricks are better than the rough talents(and I'm sure that some people agree with me on that) and since the ninja trick "Rogue Talent" and the rough talent "Ninja Trick" are pretty much the same thing if they meant to have them worded the same way that is what would have happened but I think its very possible they worded the rough talent "Ninja Trick" as they have so that can take combat trick a second time if not more than twice


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Will Pratt wrote:
Davick wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
Why is it problematic that a rogue talent is not as good as a feat? Is the design intent that rogue talents are supposed to be superior to feats? I thought it was pretty clearly the opposite.
Agreed. If talents could always be combat feats, that would be saying a rogue is a superior class than the fighter, as they'd get the same amount of feats on top of SA and such. Of course, what does that say the problem is?
thats true a rough would get as many feats as a fighter at the cost of his rough talents and he doesn't have a full BAB either and I realized what the ninja trick said before I made this post I was just wondering based off of raw if this would work because I think that the ninja tricks are better than the rough talents(and I'm sure that some people agree with me on that) and since the ninja trick "Rogue Talent" and the rough talent "Ninja Trick" are pretty much the same thing if they meant to have them worded the same way that is what would have happened but I think its very possible they worded the rough talent "Ninja Trick" as they have so that can take combat trick a second time if not more than twice

if a ninja trick or rogue talent have the same name for a talent/trick, your current real class takes priority and you can't take the others even with that Rogue talent of Ninja trick that allow you to take it.

Ultimate combat: Ninja tricks wrote:
Rogue Talent: The ninja can select a rogue talent in place of a ninja trick. The ninja cannot select a rogue talent that has the same name as a ninja trick. The ninja can select this talent multiple times.

so this sets up a "No, you can't do it" it'll be in the next Errata,

because they forgot to put in the sentence "A Rogue cannot select a Ninja Trick that has the same name as a rogue talent." in the rogue talent Ninja trick.

And further more, unless it specifies that a trick/talent can be taken more that once even with a trick/talent to get it, you can't.

Andoran

Davick wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
Why is it problematic that a rogue talent is not as good as a feat? Is the design intent that rogue talents are supposed to be superior to feats? I thought it was pretty clearly the opposite.
Agreed. If talents could always be combat feats, that would be saying a rogue is a superior class than the fighter, as they'd get the same amount of feats on top of SA and such. Of course, what does that say the problem is?

Along with a lower BAB, no armor training, no weapon training, no unlocking of the fighter-specific feats, etc.

At the end of the day, even allowing a rogue to take a combat feat in place of any rogue talent will not leave them anywhere near a fighter, as on the feat side alone they'll be down by 1 to-hit and 4 damage. Weapon training gives the fighter +4 to attack and damage as well. So between those basic feats and BAB, the Rogue is at a to-hit of 16 with X+10d6 damage (if they're lucky enough to get that damage), and the fighter is at a to-hit of +26 and X+8 damage, auto-confirms criticals and gets an extra multiplier on their chosen weapon. While the damage quantity between feats and features is lower on the fighter side, it multiplies on criticals (which sneak attack does not) and the to-hit, number of attacks and reliability more than make up for any other slack. Not to mention that the fighter can survive that experience more readily due to their Armor Training ability allowing them to wear better armor with no dexterity-to-AC loss (with mithril a fighter can push that max-dex to +7 and negate the armor check.. with *full plate*), and (of course) their HD is larger.

I would never, even allowing the infinite combat tricks, consider a rogue before a fighter as a fighting specialist class.

That said, this trick is obviously that - a trick to try to take advantage of a vagueness/weakness in the rules - and I would disallow it. At least, I would disallow it on the basis of what the rules say/intend. I might later consider allowing it just to make rogues feel special.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorry, this bothers me:

Grammar:

rough = abrasive, opposite of smooth (pronounced "ruf")
rogue = a class with sneak attack (pronounced like "roguh" or "row-guh")
rouge = a type of makeup (pronounced like "rooj")

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bobson wrote:

Sorry, this bothers me:

** spoiler omitted **

Sorry, this bothers me:

Pronunciation:
"Rogue" is pronounced like "row" with a "g" at the end, not "row-guh".


Bobson wrote:

Sorry, this bothers me:

** spoiler omitted **

THANK YOU!!!! It was making me a little crazy too.


Jiggy wrote:
Bobson wrote:

Sorry, this bothers me:

** spoiler omitted **

Sorry, this bothers me:

** spoiler omitted **

Continuing the off topic:

I think we're saying the same thing. I just tried to transcribe the sound as I hear it. It's not "rowgee" or "rowj", which is how I'd read "rowg". It's the softer "guh" sound of the g in "grasp".

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Bobson wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Bobson wrote:

Sorry, this bothers me:

** spoiler omitted **

Sorry, this bothers me:

** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **

Verifying:
So you agree that "rogue" is one syllable?

Jiggy wrote:
Bobson wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Bobson wrote:

Sorry, this bothers me:

** spoiler omitted **

Sorry, this bothers me:

** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **

Confirming:

Yes. It should have been "rowguh" instead of "row-guh"


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

back on topic please


StabbittyDoom wrote:
Davick wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
Why is it problematic that a rogue talent is not as good as a feat? Is the design intent that rogue talents are supposed to be superior to feats? I thought it was pretty clearly the opposite.
Agreed. If talents could always be combat feats, that would be saying a rogue is a superior class than the fighter, as they'd get the same amount of feats on top of SA and such. Of course, what does that say the problem is?
Along with a lower BAB, no armor training, no weapon training, no unlocking of the fighter-specific feats, etc.

yes the poor rogue only gets all the other things a rogue gets instead of those things as well.

Andoran

Davick wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:
Davick wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
Why is it problematic that a rogue talent is not as good as a feat? Is the design intent that rogue talents are supposed to be superior to feats? I thought it was pretty clearly the opposite.
Agreed. If talents could always be combat feats, that would be saying a rogue is a superior class than the fighter, as they'd get the same amount of feats on top of SA and such. Of course, what does that say the problem is?
Along with a lower BAB, no armor training, no weapon training, no unlocking of the fighter-specific feats, etc.
yes the poor rogue only gets all the other things a rogue gets instead of those things as well.

I didn't claim they didn't get stuff, but you claimed they would be superior to a fighter.

The stuff a rogue gets is all over the place, meaning you have to invest heavily in one area to even come out as on-par with a class that does that thing as a remotely primary thing, even if that character did nothing (or near nothing, like 1 feat) to invest in it further.

They are a classic "jack of all trades, master of none" character, except in this game it's better to be a master of one or two as the other characters can pick up the slack.

In short: As a rogue you'll be overshadowed on the things your party members specialize in, and be underwhelming in the remaining category.

Fun Fact: A bard can be a better combatant AND a better skill monkey than a rogue, and do both at the same time. They can also be just as, if not more versatile as they have an array of spells to call on, along with their performances (though most are rarely used). They even get an insta-kill move to match up with the rogue's insta-kill move, though it functions a little differently. Heck, they can even disable many magical traps since they can take Dispel Magic as a spell. And just for fun, have a high will save.

TL;DR - When someone complains about rogue, you really shouldn't mark it down with a simple condescending "poor rogue" comment. While rogues do get some stuff that's somewhat interesting, they are still (at the end of the day) overshadowed by the other class options.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I wonder what a bard/rogue multiclass would be like...


Will Pratt wrote:
Davick wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
Why is it problematic that a rogue talent is not as good as a feat? Is the design intent that rogue talents are supposed to be superior to feats? I thought it was pretty clearly the opposite.
Agreed. If talents could always be combat feats, that would be saying a rogue is a superior class than the fighter, as they'd get the same amount of feats on top of SA and such. Of course, what does that say the problem is?
thats true a rough would get as many feats as a fighter at the cost of his rough talents and he doesn't have a full BAB either and I realized what the ninja trick said before I made this post I was just wondering based off of raw if this would work because I think that the ninja tricks are better than the rough talents(and I'm sure that some people agree with me on that) and since the ninja trick "Rogue Talent" and the rough talent "Ninja Trick" are pretty much the same thing if they meant to have them worded the same way that is what would have happened but I think its very possible they worded the rough talent "Ninja Trick" as they have so that can take combat trick a second time if not more than twice

or you could just take the swashbuckler archetype and get take the combat trick talent twice.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
StabbittyDoom wrote:
Davick wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:
Davick wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
Why is it problematic that a rogue talent is not as good as a feat? Is the design intent that rogue talents are supposed to be superior to feats? I thought it was pretty clearly the opposite.
Agreed. If talents could always be combat feats, that would be saying a rogue is a superior class than the fighter, as they'd get the same amount of feats on top of SA and such. Of course, what does that say the problem is?
Along with a lower BAB, no armor training, no weapon training, no unlocking of the fighter-specific feats, etc.
yes the poor rogue only gets all the other things a rogue gets instead of those things as well.

I didn't claim they didn't get stuff, but you claimed they would be superior to a fighter.

The stuff a rogue gets is all over the place, meaning you have to invest heavily in one area to even come out as on-par with a class that does that thing as a remotely primary thing, even if that character did nothing (or near nothing, like 1 feat) to invest in it further.

They are a classic "jack of all trades, master of none" character, except in this game it's better to be a master of one or two as the other characters can pick up the slack.

In short: As a rogue you'll be overshadowed on the things your party members specialize in, and be underwhelming in the remaining category.

Fun Fact: A bard can be a better combatant AND a better skill monkey than a rogue, and do both at the same time. They can also be just as, if not more versatile as they have an array of spells to call on, along with their performances (though most are rarely used). They even get an insta-kill move to match up with the rogue's insta-kill move, though it functions a little differently. Heck, they can even disable many magical traps since they can take Dispel Magic as a spell. And just for fun, have a high will save.

TL;DR - When someone complains about rogue, you really shouldn't mark it down with...

You're playing it wrong.

Andoran

blahpers wrote:
You're playing it wrong.

Nice argument. Your argument is that the way I play rogues, which I never talked about in my posts, is obviously wrong. Good one. REAL convincing. There's obviously no way I've met/played-with several people who've played rogues, or that I've done thorough analyses of the rules behind them, or played varied campaigns involving them or as them. Nope. Obviously not.

Would you, oh great master of rogues, care to expound on your statement so that this lowly peon can avail themselves of your obviously superior knowledge of play?


Will Pratt wrote:

I'm running a rough and I was looking at different talents I could take and I saw the talent "ninja trick" which reads as follows:

Ninja Trick (Ex): A rogue with this talent can choose a trick from the ninja trick list. The rogue can choose but cannot use talents that require ki points, unless she has a ki pool. A rogue can pick this talent more than once.

and a ninja has the talent combat trick which reads as follows:

Combat Trick: A ninja who selects this trick gains a bonus combat feat.

now neither a ninja nor a rough can choose a talent more than once unless otherwise noted but it says nothing about the other class for a rough or ninja so if I'm a level 2 rough and take ninja trick and choose combat trick I get a free feat than at level 4 I take ninja trick again since the talent states I can take it again and I choose to take combat trick again and repeat for as long as I want with going off of pure raw and how I read this this combo will work

What? You can only take it once. You're still a rogue (and the same rogue) even if you were to multiclass and use a feat from your other class to get the "rogue talent" bonus feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Technically yes you can, RAI no definitely not. On the other hand I'd certainly just let you have it if I was a GM. I've read through the talents and honestly most of them suck pretty badly so whatever.


StabbittyDoom wrote:
blahpers wrote:
You're playing it wrong.

Nice argument. Your argument is that the way I play rogues, which I never talked about in my posts, is obviously wrong. Good one. REAL convincing. There's obviously no way I've met/played-with several people who've played rogues, or that I've done thorough analyses of the rules behind them, or played varied campaigns involving them or as them. Nope. Obviously not.

Would you, oh great master of rogues, care to expound on your statement so that this lowly peon can avail themselves of your obviously superior knowledge of play?

Please don't feed the trolls.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Davick wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:
blahpers wrote:
You're playing it wrong.

Nice argument. Your argument is that the way I play rogues, which I never talked about in my posts, is obviously wrong. Good one. REAL convincing. There's obviously no way I've met/played-with several people who've played rogues, or that I've done thorough analyses of the rules behind them, or played varied campaigns involving them or as them. Nope. Obviously not.

Would you, oh great master of rogues, care to expound on your statement so that this lowly peon can avail themselves of your obviously superior knowledge of play?

Please don't feed the trolls.

Oh, don't be that way. I'm not the one who got upset because someone called him/her out on overanalyzing a rogue's stats instead of just enjoying playing one.

As long as I get to perform devious acts of daring-do and legerdemain, I don't really care if my damage output is as high as the fighter's (though it usually is, at least on a per-strike basis, if I set up Sneak Attack correctly).

Stop worrying about it so much and have fun. If stats are that important to you, roll up a fighter instead. They're fun too.


blahpers wrote:

Oh, don't be that way. I'm not the one who got upset because someone called him/her out on overanalyzing a rogue's stats instead of just enjoying playing one.

As long as I get to perform devious acts of daring-do and legerdemain, I don't really care if my damage output is as high as the fighter's (though it usually is, at least on a per-strike basis, if I set up Sneak Attack correctly).

Stop worrying about it so much and have fun. If stats are that important to you, roll up a fighter instead. They're fun too.

Interesting so you "play it right" by sucking in general and acting rogueish? Pray tell but couldn't you do that as a fighter or pretty much anybody with a decent int score?

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The fact is that even if a rogue could always take a feat in place of a rogue talent, it would still be a sub-par class when compared with the alchemist, barbarian, bard, cavalier, cleric, druid, fighter, gunslinger, inquisitor, magus, oracle, paladin, ranger, sorcerer, witch, or wizard.

I didn't miss any, did I?


Mergy wrote:

The fact is that even if a rogue could always take a feat in place of a rogue talent, it would still be a sub-par class when compared with the alchemist, barbarian, bard, cavalier, cleric, druid, fighter, gunslinger, inquisitor, magus, oracle, paladin, ranger, sorcerer, witch, or wizard.

I didn't miss any, did I?

Maybe the npc classes? =P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rogue edges out the commoner, expert, and aristocrat and might give the warrior a run for his money.

Cheliax

I dunno, the expert is a better skill monkey, and the warrior is better in combat.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
gnomersy wrote:
blahpers wrote:

Oh, don't be that way. I'm not the one who got upset because someone called him/her out on overanalyzing a rogue's stats instead of just enjoying playing one.

As long as I get to perform devious acts of daring-do and legerdemain, I don't really care if my damage output is as high as the fighter's (though it usually is, at least on a per-strike basis, if I set up Sneak Attack correctly).

Stop worrying about it so much and have fun. If stats are that important to you, roll up a fighter instead. They're fun too.

Interesting so you "play it right" by sucking in general and acting rogueish? Pray tell but couldn't you do that as a fighter or pretty much anybody with a decent int score?

Not as well as I could as a rogue with the same int score, but yes. The flavor would be different.

As for "playing it right", I have fun playing it, so by definition I'm playing it right. If you aren't having fun with it, play the fighter/expert/whatever instead.


Mergy wrote:
I dunno, the expert is a better skill monkey, and the warrior is better in combat.

Well, being a better skill monkey just means more or better class skills, which is trivial to compensate for with dipping or traits in PF (or you just deal with it; it's only a loss of 3 potential points...). So, thanks to the skill monkey role being completely destroyed, I think Rogue is better than Expert since the skills edge is just as irrelevant between Expert vs. Rogue as it is Rogue vs. (any int-based caster or class w/ 4+ int or higher skill points).

Warrior can actually get nice feats on time due to full BAB, so it's probably better, though.

Cheliax

blahpers wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
blahpers wrote:

Oh, don't be that way. I'm not the one who got upset because someone called him/her out on overanalyzing a rogue's stats instead of just enjoying playing one.

As long as I get to perform devious acts of daring-do and legerdemain, I don't really care if my damage output is as high as the fighter's (though it usually is, at least on a per-strike basis, if I set up Sneak Attack correctly).

Stop worrying about it so much and have fun. If stats are that important to you, roll up a fighter instead. They're fun too.

Interesting so you "play it right" by sucking in general and acting rogueish? Pray tell but couldn't you do that as a fighter or pretty much anybody with a decent int score?

Not as well as I could as a rogue with the same int score, but yes. The flavor would be different.

As for "playing it right", I have fun playing it, so by definition I'm playing it right. If you aren't having fun with it, play the fighter/expert/whatever instead.

I've seen people have tons of fun with the rogue. That doesn't make it a good class.

Please don't bring in "I have fun with it" to a discussion of "does the rogue need help to be on par with other classes", because it's not helpful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Mergy wrote:
blahpers wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
blahpers wrote:

Oh, don't be that way. I'm not the one who got upset because someone called him/her out on overanalyzing a rogue's stats instead of just enjoying playing one.

As long as I get to perform devious acts of daring-do and legerdemain, I don't really care if my damage output is as high as the fighter's (though it usually is, at least on a per-strike basis, if I set up Sneak Attack correctly).

Stop worrying about it so much and have fun. If stats are that important to you, roll up a fighter instead. They're fun too.

Interesting so you "play it right" by sucking in general and acting rogueish? Pray tell but couldn't you do that as a fighter or pretty much anybody with a decent int score?

Not as well as I could as a rogue with the same int score, but yes. The flavor would be different.

As for "playing it right", I have fun playing it, so by definition I'm playing it right. If you aren't having fun with it, play the fighter/expert/whatever instead.

I've seen people have tons of fun with the rogue. That doesn't make it a good class.

Please don't bring in "I have fun with it" to a discussion of "does the rogue need help to be on par with other classes", because it's not helpful.

Have it your way.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's clear by RAW that the rogue talent "Ninja Trick" allows you to select a trick from the Ninja Tricks list. The Ninja tricks list restricts the tricks you can choose in the same way your rogues talents are restricted saying you can only select a trick once unless stated otherwise in the trick. You are bound by the lists restrictions.

So at best you could grab the "Combat Trick" rogues talent and the "Combat Trick" Ninja trick only once each. Since it's the same on two different list you can get two combat feats, not a combat feat every other level. You can just choose "Ninja Trick" more than once to select other Ninja Tricks you haven't already selected.

As for the rogue, they are weak and in need of something. I'm playing with house rule that every other Sneak starting at 3rd level gives you +1 to hit on sneak attacks. This seems to work good as it's a little weaker than counting their BAB as full for Sneak attacks but gives them boost they need to keep the sneak attack relevent at higher levels.

As for fun to play but that doesn't mean they don't need boost.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blahpers wrote:


Not as well as I could as a rogue with the same int score, but yes. The flavor would be different.

As for "playing it right", I have fun playing it, so by definition I'm playing it right. If you aren't having fun with it, play the fighter/expert/whatever instead.

Would you have less fun playing a rogue if rogues were mechanically stronger?


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
The Red Mage wrote:
blahpers wrote:


Not as well as I could as a rogue with the same int score, but yes. The flavor would be different.

As for "playing it right", I have fun playing it, so by definition I'm playing it right. If you aren't having fun with it, play the fighter/expert/whatever instead.

Would you have less fun playing a rogue if rogues were mechanically stronger?

No, but it isn't a prerequisite. If they were a whole lot stronger, it'd actually be less fun to play. I feel like the talents, skills, and other abilities give me enough options to portray the kind of character that I want to portray without being dead weight.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Rogue talent=feats every time? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©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.