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

RPG Superstar 2015

Illusion of Calm Question


Rules Questions


A character in my game is playing a rogue. He cast Illusion of Calm on himself and then proceeded to pick pocket (sleight of hand) every person he passed. Does anyone know if others can spot him pick pocketing their purses while he has Illusion of Calm cast on himself?

Sczarni

Text says what it says, however there is nothing stoping you from rolling Perception checks against his Sleight of Hand. You can provide him some bonuses if you wish.

You might also get a bit information of what kind of punishment do thieves receive for stealing. In Korvosa for example, they might cut of their hand.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

He wouldn't been seen but I would rule he could still be felt. Give him a bonus to his Sleight of Hand, but if he fails the target would still know something is up. If you feel a bump and some one passes you it shouldn't be hard to put two and two together.

The only thing that seems weird about this is that the condition that triggers a save is when an enemy attacks the caster and not the other way around. Depending on how grabby the player is I might give the NPC a save because if the player is whacking him over the head he would get a chance to disbelieve.


So, if the guy being pick pocketed feels the attempt, he can turn aside and prevent the attempt. However, he looks and doesn't see anyone near his purse. He can call out to the guards that there is a pickpocket, which would give a circumstance bonus to nearby citizens. Yet, the rogue will never get caught because no one can actually see him taking anything.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

He can still be caught. He has to sell his loot somewhere. A fence might finger him for his crimes if the screws were turned hard enough.

Also the spell seems to imply that the image stands still no matter what the caster does. Even if the PC walks around his legs aren't moving and his image is just hovering around. I'd say that was suspicious and maybe plausible enough for a search of his person.


Interesting... I imagined when a person does illusion of calm the illusion cant move... as in the spell is cast in the area that the person cast it but does not move with the person...

did I get that wrong?


blue_the_wolf wrote:
did I get that wrong?

No, you didn't. Also, picking pockets is an "attack" of sorts, even though no Attack Roll is made. So the victim gets a Will save to notice there's something going on.


I have to admit, I'm not really understanding why one would think Illusion of Calm would do anything for a pick pocket. It stops AoOs. That's all it does.


its because the idea of the spell is that you cast illusion of calm and you look like a person standing there doing nothing while in reality your casting spells, disabling a trap, picking pockets, shooting a bow, etc etc. in other words they dont get an attack of opportunity because they dont see that your occupied with the action that would normally provoke the attack.

It does not some how shield the caster from the attack.

however the question is how far does that extend... for example...

If I am standing in a crowd with people all around me, cast illusion of calm and then pick the pockets of people next to me, they may feel something snag at their belt... but does that mean they would know its me or would I essentially have an auto bluff to appear totally uninvolved.

If I cast illusion of calm... then cast Ghoul touch and hold the charge untill my target walks by, I am not hiding, he sees me... but due to the illusion of calm I appear to be just standing there not paying attention to anything in particular. when I reach out to touch him to I get to treat him as flat footed?

attacking does not seem to break the spell... If I shoot a bow can I treat it as a stealth snipe attack meaning they get some kind of perception to see where the arrow came from but if I just stand there within the illusion they may not notice that it was me.

How much control do I have on the illusion? is it JUST me or can I alter the image. does it move at all within the square or is it as static as a manikin? if I walk 10 feet does it also walk 10 feet or stay where casted and if it moves do people seeing the movement get a chance to disbelieve due to the unnatural nature of the movement or does it appear to walk normally?

and I could go on.

I wonder if a new post should be made asking for a faq and expressing all of the questions with the spell.


blue_the_wolf wrote:
If I am standing in a crowd with people all around me, cast illusion of calm and then pick the pockets of people next to me, they may feel something snag at their belt... but does that mean they would know its me or would I essentially have an auto bluff to appear totally uninvolved.

Are you casting a spell, making a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, or moving out of your first square? Then it doesn't do anything. It only stops AoOs--that's it.

blue_the_wolf wrote:
If I cast illusion of calm... then cast Ghoul touch and hold the charge untill my target walks by, I am not hiding, he sees me... but due to the illusion of calm I appear to be just standing there not paying attention to anything in particular. when I reach out to touch him to I get to treat him as flat footed?

You could do that without Illusion of Calm, and you would probably make Bluff against his Sense Motive to determine if he were ambushed. Illusion of Calm adds nothing to the situation.

blue_the_wolf wrote:
attacking does not seem to break the spell... If I shoot a bow can I treat it as a stealth snipe attack meaning they get some kind of perception to see where the arrow came from but if I just stand there within the illusion they may not notice that it was me.

Absolutely not--you're not hiding. The spell does three extremely specific things. If you cast a spell, make a ranged attack with a throwing weapon, or take your first square of movement, you do not provoke an AoO. That is it, and I don't know why people want to read into it. It's a pretty lousy spell.

blue_the_wolf wrote:
How much control do I have on the illusion?

None--the illusion part is incidental. All it does is prevent AoOs.

blue_the_wolf wrote:
is it JUST me or can I alter the image. does it move at all within the square or is it as static as a manikin? if I walk 10 feet does it also walk 10 feet or stay where casted and if it moves do people seeing the movement get a chance to disbelieve due to the unnatural nature of the movement or does it appear to walk normally?

Yes, it moves with you, as it takes the same space as you. It stops the first square of movement's AoO, but no more, so it is not unnatural movement.

blue_the_wolf wrote:
and I could go on.

And unless your question is something like "does it prevent AoOs if I cast a spell, make a ranged attack with a throwing weapon, or move my first square during a move action?" the answer will be "no."


Quote:
And unless your question is something like "does it prevent AoOs if I cast a spell, make a ranged attack with a throwing weapon, or move my first square during a move action?" the answer will be "no."

... or not.

would it prevent an AoO from drinking a potion? If yes your statement if false, if no why are potions so different from casting a spell or shooting a bow?

once again the rules are unclear the flavor implies function that is not represented. that does not mean that snarky answers clear it up.

What you seem to be saying is that the spell does nothing but magically prevent AoO from very specific actions and the illusion is incidental.

If I am under the effects of illusion of Calm and the enemy next to me is blind and has blindsight, when I attempt to cast a spell would he ignore the illusion that you say is simply incidental or would he be able to attack me because he is not effected by the visual illusion?

If the blind fighter CAN AoO then that implies the illusion is not incidental it is the basis for every other effect of the spell, If the fighter CANNOT AoO then that implies an unspecified magical force, mind influencing or other effect that far exceed the limits of a first level figment.

illusion of calm wrote:
When casting this spell, you create an illusory double that takes the same space of you. That double makes it look like you are standing still, even when you are not. While under the effects of this spell, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you cast a spell,

just based on that portion alone it implies that what your doing and what people see are different... does the spell stop ready actions to do something when I start casting? its not specifically stated in the rules but the description implies that the person who readied the action would have no way of knowing i started casting unless they heard me reciting verbal components.


blue_the_wolf wrote:
would it prevent an AoO from drinking a potion?

No. It prevents AoOs from three specific things.

blue_the_wolf wrote:
If yes your statement if false, if no why are potions so different from casting a spell or shooting a bow?

Because the spell specifically lays out the three specific things it does and avoiding the AoO from drinking a potion is not one of them.

blue_the_wolf wrote:
once again the rules are unclear

The rules are extremely clear and specific, but you're trying to read extra function into the spell that isn't there. It does three things--it's a lousy spell. There are lots of those. Stop trying to find more uses for a weak spell and take an actually good spell instead.

blue_the_wolf wrote:
What you seem to be saying is that the spell does nothing but magically prevent AoO from very specific actions and the illusion is incidental.

Exactly, yes.

blue_the_wolf wrote:
If I am under the effects of illusion of Calm and the enemy next to me is blind and has blindsight, when I attempt to cast a spell would he ignore the illusion that you say is simply incidental or would he be able to attack me because he is not effected by the visual illusion?

You would not provoke an AoO.

And, by the way, it does not say that it is a visual-only illusion, anyway.

blue_the_wolf wrote:
If the fighter CANNOT AoO then that implies an unspecified magical force, mind influencing or other effect that far exceed the limits of a first level figment.

Or, it implies that the spell does exactly what it says it does, which doesn't seem far fetched to me at all.

blue_the_wolf wrote:
does the spell stop ready actions to do something when I start casting? its not specifically stated in the rules but the description implies that the person who readied the action would have no way of knowing i started casting unless they heard me reciting verbal components.

You are still casting a spell, so they still can make an action readied for when you start casting a spell. They are only prevented from taking AoOs and nothing else.


well I guess I dont agree.

the spell clerly states...

Quote:
When casting this spell, you create an illusory double that takes the same space of you. That double makes it look like you are standing still, even when you are not.

which you seem to ignore in favor of...

Quote:
While under the effects of this spell, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you cast a spell, make a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, or move out of your first square during a move action.

It is my intention to reconcile these points. If all that matters to you is the RAW of one line of the spell thats fine. however me and the people I play with feel that the entire description of the spell is relevant and the rules and flavor of the spell should make sense.

You see the problem is it goes far beyond AoO. many people use the spell to do do things like stand in the open and taking actions others wont notice as the first line of the spell suggests. A person may cast illusion of calm and then start picking a lock or some other action that they dont want people to notice. this has nothing at all to do with AoO, the first line of the spell implies it works, your ruling implies this is does not.

Your welcome to play it your way but I would personally like clarification from Piazo because sometimes they make mistakes and are willing to correct those mistakes OR explain why they are not mistakes when the issue is brought up.

enjoy your game


blue_the_wolf wrote:

the spell clerly states...

Quote:
When casting this spell, you create an illusory double that takes the same space of you. That double makes it look like you are standing still, even when you are not.

which you seem to ignore in favor of...

Quote:
While under the effects of this spell, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you cast a spell, make a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, or move out of your first square during a move action.
It is my intention to reconcile these points

I do not ignore those opening sentences. I look ahead to the second part you quoted where the spell specifically explains what effect those first few lines have.

You create an illusionary double that makes it look like you're standing still. What does that do?

Oh, right, it prevents three specific actions from provoking AoOs.

It's no different from Mage Armor:

"An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC."

What does the invisible but tangible field of force do? Oh, it gives a +4 Armor bonus to AC.

Or Ray of Enfeeblement:

"A coruscating ray springs from your hand."

Wow, what does that coruscating ray do? Oh, right, it penalizes their Strength.

The exact effects of an illusionary double making it look like you're staying still are spelled out clearly in the spell, just as the effects of a tangible field of force and a coruscating ray are.

blue_the_wolf wrote:
however me and the people I play with feel that the entire description of the spell is relevant and the rules and flavor of the spell should make sense.

The entire description is relevant, but it's function is still clearly defined.

blue_the_wolf wrote:
Your welcome to play it your way but I would personally like clarification from Piazo because sometimes they make mistakes and are willing to correct those mistakes OR explain why they are not mistakes when the issue is brought up.

I also think when the spell very clearly defines what it does, you shouldn't waste Paizo's time on FAQ requests. In all likelihood, you're going to get a "no answer needed" because the spell is very explicit about what it does.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Dedicated Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nearly all spells, feats and other abilities and effects have a bit of flavor text before the actual mechanics, which is what mplindustries seems to be referring to. I see where you're coming from, though it's not always evident what is intended purely as flavor and what is implied rules text. Besides, illusions are a bit special category of spells. How NPCs react to them should always be up to GM discretion, I think.

Take silent image for an example (also an illusion (figment)). The spell's description only says that: "This spell creates the visual illusion of an object, creature, or force, as visualized by you. The illusion does not create sound, smell, texture, or temperature. You can move the image within the limits of the size of the effect."

So it's an illusion that does ... nothing? According to "RAW", there are no mechanical benefits whatsoever. There's no explicit rules text telling you in what specific ways you can use the illusion and what kind of rolls you have to make. The description doesn't even imply that you can use it to scare or distract people who don't know it's just an illusion. But this doesn't mean that NPCs are supposed to ignore the illusion.

Sometimes people read too much into spell descriptions, but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that a spell that "makes it look like you are standing still" has uses in non-combat encounters even if the spell doesn't explicitly say so. It's really up to GM discretion. The more restrictive interpretation is useful for some groups (e.g. PF Society), but if you follow that logic with spells like silent image, you get spells that only have flavor text and no real effects.


Your absolutely correct serpent.

which to be honest may be my problem. I am looking for a stronger statement of what it does beyond 'disallow a few specific AoO' and much of the spell falls under 'its an illusion, it does illusion things' which is deliberately vague.

Having said that I still think it can be rewritten, because a part of the player/GM contract in Pathfinder requires a certain rule of law in which the GM is NOT the ultimate power in the game, instead a GM/player agreement on rules is the ultimate power.

One of the points between MP and I for example is that the rule says prevents AoO from 3 specific actions... but why not the 4th? If I can cast spells, shoot a bow and move without provoking AoO... why cant I drink a potion?

The reason silent image has such vague wording is because its a MOSTLY roleplay, or at least out of combat spell. An illusion of a wall blocking a passage, a pool of water, a watchman at a door etc. Its not meant to be used to use an illusion of a dragon to win a battle.

Illusion of Calm on the other hand has combat specific rules, its a spell that by its nature has many more interactive elements.

Do they need to provide a DC for pick pocketing from within the illusion? probably not

but they could change this line, "While under the effects of this spell, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you cast a spell, make a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, or move out of your first square during a move action."

to something like "While under the effects of this spell actions that would normally provoke attacks of opportunity do not do so, unless the opponent has a non-visual means of perceiving your actions such as blindsight"

that alone would fix a lot of confusion. a few more general phrases like that would flesh out the spell enough for GMs to properly adjudicate most things that may come up in your average game.


blue_the_wolf wrote:

Your absolutely correct serpent.

which to be honest may be my problem. I am looking for a stronger statement of what it does beyond 'disallow a few specific AoO'

The real problem is that you think it does anything beyond that. It disallows those AoOs and that is all it does. You're looking for it do more, and it doesn't.

blue_the_wolf wrote:
One of the points between MP and I for example is that the rule says prevents AoO from 3 specific actions... but why not the 4th? If I can cast spells, shoot a bow and move without provoking AoO... why cant I drink a potion?

Mage Armor creates a tangible field of force. How come I can still be affected by touch spells? You can't read into these spells--they do what they say they do.

blue_the_wolf wrote:
The reason silent image has such vague wording is because its a MOSTLY roleplay, or at least out of combat spell. An illusion of a wall blocking a passage, a pool of water, a watchman at a door etc. Its not meant to be used to use an illusion of a dragon to win a battle.

Silent Image is actually very explicit about what it does. It just has a useful and open ended function. Illusion of Calm does not.

blue_the_wolf wrote:

but they could change this line, "While under the effects of this spell, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you cast a spell, make a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, or move out of your first square during a move action."

to something like "While under the effects of this spell actions that would normally provoke attacks of opportunity do not do so, unless the opponent has a non-visual means of perceiving your actions such as blindsight"

And that would completely change the entire function of the spell. It stops three specific AoOs--that's not because they forgot to list all of them, it's because they chose three specific things it helped with.

You're looking for it to make some kind of internal logical sense, but it's magic, so it doesn't. I mean, why does it stop me from provoking for throwing an axe, but not for shooting a bow or using a sling? It's specifically called out as only working on thrown weapons, so why not accept that it was done for a reason, instead of assuming they forgot dozens upon dozens of AoO triggers when they wrote the spell?


Your welcome to think its perfect as is.

I happen to disagree.


blue_the_wolf wrote:

Your welcome to think its perfect as is.

I happen to disagree.

I don't think the spell is perfect--I think it's lousy. I'm just ok with some spells being lousy. Hell, I have to be--seems like more than half of the spells out there are lousy.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Dedicated Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014

I do think the list of actions that don't provoke AoOs is exhaustive; other actions provoke AoOs normally. However, I do not think the specific list of things you can do without provoking AoOs makes the general statement "That double makes it look like you are standing still, even when you are not" irrelevant in situations where no AoOs are involved.

For comparison's sake, consider another illusion (figment) that creates illusionary doubles, mirror image. Strictly speaking, its only mechanical function is to negate hits 1d4+(CL/3) times, provided that the attacker can see you. It's possible to dismiss the text about illusionary doubles as mere flavor text because for the purposes of hitting a target protected by the spell it's rather irrelevant whether they're illusionary doubles or some other visual effect that negates hits.

However, besides providing protection against attacks, the spell also has a very distinct, perceptible visual effect that will affect how people react to you (unless you play PF like a video game). Trying to bluff your way in to an enemy stronghold while illusionary doubles move around and through you? It will affect the encounter, one way or another.

Why would illusion of calm, another illusion (figment) with a perceptible visual effect be any different? How exactly people will react to a person that seems to be moving in an unnatural, erratic manner, I'll leave that for the GMs to decide.


You can use silent image during combat as well I think.
For example if you are in a large room with stone pillars supporting the ceiling you could create the illusion of another stone pillar and hide in that image.
From there you should get a bonus to pick pocket attempts or, during combat, a concealment usable to hise and to sneak attack from.
Just because the illusion doesn't state you can do that doesn't mean you can't.

The only question should be: Is the same true for illusion of calm or does it just what it specifies and nothing else?


mplindustries wrote:
blue_the_wolf wrote:
does the spell stop ready actions to do something when I start casting? its not specifically stated in the rules but the description implies that the person who readied the action would have no way of knowing i started casting unless they heard me reciting verbal components.
You are still casting a spell, so they still can make an action...

This doesn't make sense. I can stand right next to fighter and cast a spell with out him noticing, no attack of opportunity, but the archer sitting a hundred feet away, will notice me casting just because he has a readied action to shoot when I cast a spell?

If the image created can conceal the action of casting from the person right next to the caster, how does the archer's readied action automatically alert him that a spell is being cast?

As written the only way you get a will save to disbelieve the illusion is to attack the person using it.


Dreams of Steel wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
blue_the_wolf wrote:
does the spell stop ready actions to do something when I start casting? its not specifically stated in the rules but the description implies that the person who readied the action would have no way of knowing i started casting unless they heard me reciting verbal components.
You are still casting a spell, so they still can make an action...

This doesn't make sense. I can stand right next to fighter and cast a spell with out him noticing, no attack of opportunity, but the archer sitting a hundred feet away, will notice me casting just because he has a readied action to shoot when I cast a spell?

If the image created can conceal the action of casting from the person right next to the caster, how does the archer's readied action automatically alert him that a spell is being cast?

As written the only way you get a will save to disbelieve the illusion is to attack the person using it.

The fighter standing right next to you that is denied an AoO would also be able to hit you if he readied an action. Nothing about Illusion of Calm stops anyone from knowing you are attacking or casting or whatever. It only stops them from getting an AoO if you cast a spell, throw a weapon, or move. It does not stop Readied Actions.


Umbranus wrote:

You can use silent image during combat as well I think.

For example if you are in a large room with stone pillars supporting the ceiling you could create the illusion of another stone pillar and hide in that image.
From there you should get a bonus to pick pocket attempts or, during combat, a concealment usable to hise and to sneak attack from.
Just because the illusion doesn't state you can do that doesn't mean you can't.

The only question should be: Is the same true for illusion of calm or does it just what it specifies and nothing else?

This is not a parallel example. When you silent image a pillar, you've done exactly what the spell says--you made an illusion of a pillar in the middle of the room.

Any bonus you get to pick pocketing or stealth or anything else is not due to the Silent Image, however, it is due to the fact that you hid behind something the enemy couldn't see through.


mplindustries wrote:
Umbranus wrote:

You can use silent image during combat as well I think.

For example if you are in a large room with stone pillars supporting the ceiling you could create the illusion of another stone pillar and hide in that image.
From there you should get a bonus to pick pocket attempts or, during combat, a concealment usable to hise and to sneak attack from.
Just because the illusion doesn't state you can do that doesn't mean you can't.

The only question should be: Is the same true for illusion of calm or does it just what it specifies and nothing else?

This is not a parallel example. When you silent image a pillar, you've done exactly what the spell says--you made an illusion of a pillar in the middle of the room.

Any bonus you get to pick pocketing or stealth or anything else is not due to the Silent Image, however, it is due to the fact that you hid behind something the enemy couldn't see through.

The idea is the same though. With Umbranus's example silent image is used to create an illusion surrounding the caster to obscure his actions. Illusion of Calm is creating an illusion of the caster standing there doing nothing to obscure some actions. The Silent Image would actually be better as it could be large enough to conceal you firing projectile weapons, which illusion of calm forbids.

Since the description of the spell seems to be solely visual, it does not seem to hide sounds, does this mean the triggers for AoOs and readied actions are different? For this spell to stop AoOs the trigger for them would need to be the visible act of casting. So with a ready action to attack the caster when they cast what's the actual trigger for that action? If its the visible act of casting, then they should not see anything happening until the spell is cast, for example the pellet for a fireball traveling in their direction. If its triggered by the sound of a spell being cast, then that sounds like it should require a perception check on a noisy battlefield to hear the sound and realize the source is your target who is not visibly doing anything. If its meta, the player or host declaring that the character is casting a spell, then the system is broken.

I guess I just don't see the three examples provided in the description as an exhaustive list.


so according to James Jacobs, MP is absolutely correct.

it does NOTHING but block 3 specific kinds of AoO

however... he also agrees that

james jacobs wrote:
Part of the problem is that the spell's description doesn't really match what the spell's effects do.

according to him the spell is intended to be more like a poor mans invisibility, not even half as good as invisibility.

with that in mind I think i will either ban it from my games as it is, or make it a level 2 spell and flesh out its abilities better.


blue_the_wolf wrote:
with that in mind I think i will either ban it from my games as it is, or make it a level 2 spell and flesh out its abilities better.

Why would you ban it as is? Do you ban all crappy spells? Can your players only choose from the 10% or so of spells that are actually good?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

its not because its crap. its because players expect something from a spell based on description. they want to imagine whats going on and visualize their effect on the world.

this spell expresses a description that is not in line with its mechanics.

at my table, knowing my players, it would cause lots of confusion and debate which would derail the game.

since I know my players better than you I can make an informed decision on the matter.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Dedicated Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014

blue_the_wolf wrote:

its not because its crap. its because players expect something from a spell based on description. they want to imagine whats going on and visualize their effect on the world.

this spell expresses a description that is not in line with its mechanics.

at my table, knowing my players, it would cause lots of confusion and debate which would derail the game.

since I know my players better than you I can make an informed decision on the matter.

Yep, that's the problem I guess. It promises something but doesn't deliver. Looking at the responses in this thread, the majority of people seems to believe the visual illusion can actually do what it promises. So who's wrong? (That's a rhetorical question..)

Anyway, I guess I've already voiced my opinions on the matter, so there's no point in arguing further. But blue, can you give us a link to the thread where JJ discussed the spell? :)


first part of the question was near the top of this page

first part

and then I clarified it which he answered on this page

second part

You kind of have to scroll through the page to find the question and where he answered it. I dont know how to link directly to each specific post.


To link directly to a post, you need to click on the time stamp left of the "flag" button. For example, this is the first time James Jacobs answered you.

James Jacobs wrote:
The spell's pretty specific in what it does. Don't let the flavor of the spell's name or its in-game description trick you into thinking it does anything more than what it does—prevent attacks of opportunity when you cast a spell, make a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, or move out of your first square during a move action.

Man, those are almost my exact words from earlier :P


wow... your not very argumentative at all are you?


blue_the_wolf wrote:

wow... your not very argumentative at all are you?

Oh, come on, I was just being silly at the end. My main purpose was to explain how to get a link to a specific post.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Illusion of Calm Question 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.