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

Please no more nerfs


Roleplaying Guild General Discussion

251 to 300 of 507 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

supervillan wrote:


PFS GMs do have freedom to adapt when PC actions invalidate written tactics.

p12 season 8 roleplaying guild guide wrote:
However, if the actions of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the provided tactics or starting locations, the GM should consider whether changing these would provide a more enjoyable play experience.

That's how you read that one? I feel this allows the GM to further nerf their NPCs if it inflates the ego of the Players, but doesn't allow the GM to attempt have their NPCs actually win a combat...which may result in a less enjoyable game for the PCs.

And the presence of player characters, almost as a rule, disrupts any written tactics...PCs just do unexpected and crazy things, almost always.

Grand Lodge *

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait, your NPCs shouldn't be winning the vast majority of the time. It's not you vs the PCs Murdock. The default assumption is that they're challenged but win.

Scarab Sages

Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Wait, your NPCs shouldn't be winning the vast majority of the time. It's not you vs the PCs Murdock. The default assumption is that they're challenged but win.

No, the CR exists to prevent them from winning most of the time, but the NPCs should be trying to win, or rather, trying to survive the combat.

It's not ME vs the PCs, but it is often the PCs against the NPCs (especially since PFS doesn't do PVP). If I'm roleplaying NPCs with even a shred of a sense of survivability, they should be trying, at least, to survive a combat, and maybe to win one or two.

**

I don't think it's overpowered. At this level we're well into massive damage pouncing martial, archers, dazing evokers, persistent SoDs and serious other more powerful than any manuever things.

Someone with tons of resources spent trip/disarm just doesn't really compare, sure once in a blue moon it'll be a wow that was a cool call thing, but most of the time it'll be worse than just killing the thing

Shadow Lodge *** Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West aka JohnF

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Regarding balacing the more specialize character builds with the NPC opponents, like a trip build PC, the solution there is to give the PFS GMs the option to use their own tactics, rather than having to play every NPC in a preset way. Yes, there just isn't enough room to write varied tactics, so don't, and just let the GMs be actual GMs, instead of the PFS referees that they are.

That is not what Organized Play is intended to be. Paizo have stated, many times, that one of the core tenets of their Organized Play is to provide a uniform experience for players worldwide. Decisions that in a home game would be made by GMs are instead made by the PFS leadership, and the GM at the table is expected to respect that. When I'm running a game I try to act in the same way I would if the PFS Coordinator were looking over my shoulder.

Sometimes this results in a less enjoyable experience for everyone at the table than would be possible in a home game setting where the GM knows all the players (and all the characters), and can tailor the challenge level appropriately. But the alternative - giving GMs carte blanch to ignore the "Run as Written" mandate (other than as explicitly allowed when PC actions invalidate the called-for tactics) can have consequences that are far worse than the occasional PC being able to breeze through a scenario.

PFS isn't meant to be hard - almost everybody who has been playing for more than a few months knows enough to be able to build a character that can sail through most scenarios without any real effort. But the solution isn't to raise the difficulty of the scenario; it's to remind the player that the intent of PFS is to provide a shared experience, and perhaps he might consider that by soloing an encounter he's preventing the other players from getting a chance for their characters to contribute. It's nice to have a character who can rescue the party when things go pear-shaped, but there's no need to play the character at 100% all the time.

Scarab Sages

John Francis wrote:
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Regarding balacing the more specialize character builds with the NPC opponents, like a trip build PC, the solution there is to give the PFS GMs the option to use their own tactics, rather than having to play every NPC in a preset way. Yes, there just isn't enough room to write varied tactics, so don't, and just let the GMs be actual GMs, instead of the PFS referees that they are.

That is not what Organized Play is intended to be. Paizo have stated, many times, that one of the core tenets of their Organized Play is to provide a uniform experience for players worldwide. Decisions that in a home game would be made by GMs are instead made by the PFS leadership, and the GM at the table is expected to respect that. When I'm running a game I try to act in the same way I would if the PFS Coordinator were looking over my shoulder.

And I get that. Anyway, my point is just that the Player Character Builds only need to be Nerfed for PFS use, since they are playing against "Easy mode" NPCs. The issue is created when players put the time into complex, strong builds, that these simplistic NPCs with preprogrammed actions just can't handle. And PFS really isn't at fault here, really, it's the players destroying the balance, but you also can't exactly expect players to purposely nerf their own characters without some sort of guidance on what a nerfed player character should look like.

I think it's sad that Paizo would Nerf the Pathfinder game, rather than just having PFS nerf it after it was released, within their own PFS specific campaign clarifications.

I also find it sad when I'm critisized in PFS sessions, for bringing "sub optimal" characters, which are really just characters designed for the power level that PFS NPCs are designed to face.

Liberty's Edge

No.

Just *NO*.

PFS is not EZ MOAD.

I don't care what local GMs may do for your tables, but very blessed *few* of the scenarios I've played in PFS have been anything close to a 'cakewalk', and only due to player ingenuity and creativity.

Making base assumptions about the difficulty of the campaign, then complaining about those erroneous 'edge-case' assumptions is WRONG.

Just stop.

This adds nothing to the conversation, and destroys sense of community.

Thank you.

Sczarni *****

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I've typed and deleted a handful of responses thus far, so I'm obviously struggling to put my thoughts to paper.

I'm also one of those people who didn't see the Lore Warden as overpowered (did I already state that once? I can't recall). I can easily counter the anecdotal evidence that Lore Wardens are everywhere with my anecdotal evidence that I've hardly played with any.

Someone posted about their 13th level Lore Warden with a +36 CMB. IMO, that gives us the most accurate look at the capabilities of the class. +36 has an average success rate of ~25% against CR appropriate encounters (those that can even be affected at all). Clearly, the Lore Warden by itself wasn't nerfed because it outshined all others at combat maneuvers.

"But the dip! The DIP!! The terribleness of the multiclassing dip!!!"

This is a logical fallacy. When someone wants to specialize in something, they're going to min max everything they can to achieve their goals. The only way to get them to stop is to somehow eliminate multiclassing entirely.

You may as well ban Fireball, because someone will acquire items, traits, feats and multiclassing to boost its effectiveness.

You may as well ban Humans, because that extra feat at 1st level enables early min maxing.

You may as well... I hope you get the point.

The Clear Spindle is a slightly different argument, but I'm also of the belief that it wasn't overpowered, either.

Grand Lodge *

3 people marked this as a favorite.

As long as we're nerfing even moderately good options, what about inspired blade swashbuckler? Clearly inspired blade swashbuckler needs nerfing as it can get dex to damage at level 1 and gets improved critical for free before they even meet the normal bab requirement. Surely that's more powerful than Lore Warden?

The common argument seems to be that lore wardens were too good at combat maneuvers compared to everyone else. Well Inspired Blade is better at dex to damage and critical builds than about anyone else.

Shadow Lodge *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I honestly had no problem with the clear spindle beyond the price problem. What I had a problem with is the finicky application of protection from evil spell. They protect from dominate, but not confusion or charm, because those don't 'exert control'. >.<

Shadow Lodge ****

TOZ wrote:
I honestly had no problem with the clear spindle beyond the price problem. What I had a problem with is the finicky application of protection from evil spell. They protect from dominate, but not confusion or charm, because those don't 'exert control'. >.<

Charm is pretty clearly control. Confusion is not.

Silver Crusade ***** Venture-Captain, Germany—Aschaffenburg-Würzburg

TOZ wrote:
I honestly had no problem with the clear spindle beyond the price problem. What I had a problem with is the finicky application of protection from evil spell. They protect from dominate, but not confusion or charm, because those don't 'exert control'. >.<

And the item might have had some effect on the occasional encounter when the bad buy just happens to be CN instead of CE.

I would prefer a properly priced item that gives significant protection from control (I don't think that giving immunity is great game design in this context and I am not thrilled with protection from evil for the same reason) and avoids mentioning protection from evil.

Scarab Sages *****

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

So a trip build is either effective or can't do anything depending on the number of legs/flight ability of your opponent. Seems balanced to me. Disarm only works if they weild weapons. Grapple requires the most feats of them all to do well and gives you some penalties as well.

Please tell me more about how "overpowered" combat maneuvers are.

@Tallow, you never gave me that enchantment name you were talking about. I'd really like to know since I've never seen nor heard of it.

It's in the PahfinderSociety Field Guide, it's called Dueling. There are two abilities called this from different books, so don't look at the other one.

Grand Lodge *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Tallow someone beat you to it, but thanks. And I responded as to why it's not a problem in another post.

Though if you still belive it is, why not nerf the enchantment over the Lore Warden. It gives a far more massive bonus to CMB.

Scarab Sages *****

Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Seems balanced based on the fact that disarm and trip are the most situational of maneuvers. Disarm won't work on a lot of the enemies you fight (have you seen how many bestiary monsters don't use manufactured weapons?) and trip quickly gets impossible based on the number of legs or flight.

And yet, my character that has Dueling has used it effectively up to level 19. Sure, not every combat, or every creature. But it has been incredibly useful throughout his career.

The other character I referenced who was a trip monster, often got to use trip up to level 19.

Grand Lodge *

And there's nothing wrong with something being incredibly useful. As long as it remains situational. Which trip and disarm are.

And once again, this seems to make a case for nerfing dueling over Lore Warden as dueling gives a much larger CMB bonus.

And I never argued you can't use them at higher levels, just that it gets much harder because many of the enemies you face are immune, or have DCs that you can only hit on very high rolls. Of course you'll still face the occasional humanoid who they work against. That's a given.

Shadow Lodge *****

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Charm is pretty clearly control. Confusion is not.

You're only supporting my point.

Shadow Lodge ****

TOZ wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Charm is pretty clearly control. Confusion is not.
You're only supporting my point.

You: charm isn't control

Me: charm is control.

*headscratch*

Unless you mean table variationy when you say finicky?

Grand Lodge *

He means table variation. It was never clearly defined what effects qualify so people debate it to no end.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Even in the FAQ on it.

**

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
PFS isn't meant to be hard - almost everybody who has been playing for more than a few months knows enough to be able to build a character that can sail through most scenarios without any real effort

absolutely not true overall, I've known many players both at it for a handful of months and at it for many years who just don't have even the most basic grasp of intentionally building decent characters.

Some happen into it, but the vast majority of people I've played PFS with in person are just going for doing some thing they think is neat, even if its not really useful

powerbuilds/gaming are just not as prevalent as these forums would make you think

PFS is NOT easy anywhere I've played in person, most every table I run has multiple touch and go moments, as Andrew said online does skew stronger.(but even then he's put the whoop on a char I thought was fairly tough heh)

The Exchange ***** Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

TOZ wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Charm is pretty clearly control. Confusion is not.
You're only supporting my point.

+1

Charm is not control, otherwise the spindle would be "WAY too good"

Grand Lodge *

That quote doesn't really help because JJ has said that he isn't a rules guy and not to use his posts as evidence of rules.

That said, I feel like we're getting sidetracked.

Shadow Lodge ****

Protection From Evil: Does this work against all charm and compulsion effects? Or just against charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as charm person, command, and dominate person (and thus not effects like sleep or confusion, as the caster does not have ongoing influence or puppet-like control of the target)?

The latter interpretation is correct: protection from evil only works on charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as command, charm person, and dominate person; it doesn't work on sleep or confusion. (Sleep is a border case for this issue, but the designers feel that "this spell overrides your brain's sleep centers" is different enough than "this spell overrides your resistance to commands from others.")

Linky

I don't see how charm isn't on the list of things it blocks. It's on the list of things if blocks.

Scarab Sages

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


No.

Just *NO*.

PFS is not EZ MOAD.

I don't care what local GMs may do for your tables, but very blessed *few* of the scenarios I've played in PFS have been anything close to a 'cakewalk', and only due to player ingenuity and creativity.

Making base assumptions about the difficulty of the campaign, then complaining about those erroneous 'edge-case' assumptions is WRONG.

Just stop.

This adds nothing to the conversation, and destroys sense of community.

Thank you.

Constructive criticism: If you seriously want someone to stop talking about something, don't tell them they are wrong before doing so, as it provokes a response.

Continuing: Talking about NPCs following a predetermined combat script, not the overall campaign. PFS is not on an easy setting, but the combat abilities of the NPCs are. That's one of many reasons PFS continuously needs to nerf PC options.

Scarab Sages *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


No.

Just *NO*.

PFS is not EZ MOAD.

I don't care what local GMs may do for your tables, but very blessed *few* of the scenarios I've played in PFS have been anything close to a 'cakewalk', and only due to player ingenuity and creativity.

Making base assumptions about the difficulty of the campaign, then complaining about those erroneous 'edge-case' assumptions is WRONG.

Just stop.

This adds nothing to the conversation, and destroys sense of community.

Thank you.

Constructive criticism: If you seriously want someone to stop talking about something, don't tell them they are wrong before doing so, as it provokes a response.

Continuing: Talking about NPCs following a predetermined combat script, not the overall campaign. PFS is not on an easy setting, but the combat abilities of the NPCs are. That's one of many reasons PFS continuously needs to nerf PC options.

Except it isn't PFS nerfing PC options. The game designers are nerfing game options. PFS just adopts those nerfs.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Or doesn't, as the case may be.

The Exchange ***** Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

Tallow wrote:
Except it isn't PFS nerfing PC options. The game designers are nerfing game options. PFS just adopts those nerfs.

Which is so true, but some people would rather that not be true.

A lot of rules are read in a way to boost power of the rules. A lot of FAQ and reprinted material makes an effort to correct these misinterpretations.

Once corrected, some would have preferred the ambiguous interpretation or the "old" way be maintained.

Those wishing things stayed the same may often say "others can Rule 0". My response is "you can Rule 0 back to the old rules too."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I do like the fact that they reprinted things from the players companions to the hardback book. And frankly, I believe they should continue to keep doing so.

It was kind of how the dragon magazines started to work for a bit there, where they rereleased the mechanical stuff from the mags into the dragon compendirum which did have its share of changes.

But I'm not happy with the lore warden either. Its far more awkward now for one, where you get a level that you gain Nothing. Like someone who says "Hey for twice the price I can throw an extra one in for free." when trying to sell you something.

Sovereign Court *

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
As long as we're nerfing even moderately good options, what about inspired blade swashbuckler? Clearly inspired blade swashbuckler needs nerfing as it can get dex to damage at level 1 and gets improved critical for free before they even meet the normal bab requirement. Surely that's more powerful than Lore Warden?

And speaking of dipping, I have the investigator class on line 1.

Even if you were exaggerating to make a point, I unreservedly support this.

Liberty's Edge

James Risner wrote:


Those wishing things stayed the same may often say "others can Rule 0". My response is "you can Rule 0 back to the old rules too."

EXCEPT in PFS.

Silver Crusade ***** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

James Risner wrote:
A lot of rules are read in a way to boost power of the rules. A lot of FAQ and reprinted material makes an effort to correct these misinterpretations."

That happens a little, sure.

But there are a LOT of cases where the rules are quite clear (in the sense that there is near universal agreement on what they mean and virtually no table variation) which are then nerfed.

To even imply that most nerfs are there to disambiguate is, at best, disingenuous.

*****

plaidwandering wrote:
PFS is NOT easy anywhere I've played in person, most every table I run has multiple touch and go moments, as Andrew said online does skew stronger.(but even then he's put the whoop on a char I thought was fairly tough heh)

I did? Which one?

**

The dwarf druid that needed a breath of life

Shadow Lodge ****

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Or doesn't, as the case may be.

Given the directness of the FAQ i would have to call that cheating, not interpreting the rules baring one whopper of a "what is is" argument (or just not knowing about the faq) .

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

I have no idea what you are referring to. I don't think John and Tonya can really cheat when determining campaign rule adoption.

Grand Lodge *

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pretty sure he's still talking about Protection from evil when you were refering to what rules PFS adopts in your post.

Just a case of misunderstanding.

Shadow Lodge *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not surprising. My attention shifts fairly quick.

Sczarni *****

Even more often than your posting alias?

Shadow Lodge *****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Quite.

Scarab Sages ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll second (third? fourth?) the frustration with how protection from evil is ruled at tables. Charm person is explicitly covered according to the FAQ, so that should not be in question anymore, yet here it is being questioned. But the problem is wider than that. I've been in threads on the forum where it's been argued that protection from evil will protect you against command, but it will not protect you against murderous command, because command allows the caster to make a choice about how you act, and murderous command does not, despite the word "choice" not appearing in the spell or the FAQ. So somehow you're more inclined to kill your friend than you are to sit down.

Don't even get me started on harpy song.

Honestly, I'd much rather have seen a more extensive FAQ on protection from evil than a change to the ioun stone. Changing the stone does nothing to address the confusion caused by the spell. I'm just more inclined to have magic circle against evil going than I would have been before.

Liberty's Edge *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I fully disagree with the OP and welcome the nerfs (even the ones that hit my characters).

Overpowered content ends up informing design and, as a result, limits options. This ultimately hurts the experience for everyone, those that take advantage of overpowered options and those that do not. An evolving game is a healthy game.

The campaign rules are already thoroughly generous in regards to 'fixing' characters affected by nerfs. Ending nerfs is unnecessary and will only hurt PFS in the long term.

Grand Lodge *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Feral what about the Lore Warden and the ioun stone resonance that gave +2 CMB/CMD did you find over powered? Genuinely curious.

Grand Lodge *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hello. Lore Warden, and Aldori Swordlord here. I joined the Society to travel the world, sure, and protect the folks who really knew about ancient cultures and mysterious gateways to other worlds, sure.

But really, I joined because I've been wanting to learn how to fight, one-to-one, with a weapon in hand. And the Society is a fantastic place to find crazy Blackfire adepts, Aspis agents, traitorous Shadow Lodge magi, demonic blademasters... all of them different styles, with every sort of weapon you can imagine ... all of them challenges, each of them with something to teach.

So, you bet, when Master Farbellus suggested the Lore Warden path, I happily took to it, because fighting smart is always a good choice, and maneuvers give you more options in combat. And those levels of study gave me the background I needed to join the Aldori Swordlords.

So, sure, if the Lore Wardens are revising the curriculum, I'm all down with that, because balance is always important to a student of deadly arts. But I'm hoping I don't have to set aside my Swordlord levels, because the new Lore Warden curriculum doesn't advance people's talents the same way.

*** Venture-Agent, Online aka bakamono

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Most of the changes and updates are totally fine in my book. Especially the Ioun Stones which simply did too much for the pricetag.

Lore Warden changes I don't get. It clearly is a Nerf, especiall on low levels. None of its abilities and/or feats ever really cause issues. If a Lore Warden becomes game-breaking it's because of abilities of other classes or feats which might need the nerf, not the Lore Warden.

Same with Tribal Scars. Might have been too powerful on low levels but it got nuclear nerfed now and pretty much noone will want to use it anymore.
Not the right way to handle it imo. It could have been 1 extra hp per 2 hit dice instead of 6 for example.

The Exchange ***** Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

Jurassic Pratt wrote:
@Feral what about the Lore Warden and the ioun stone resonance that gave +2 CMB/CMD did you find over powered? Genuinely curious.

I've played a number of Combat Maneuver builds in PFS from 1-12.

I've never had much trouble building PC that succeed on a 2 for any CMB vs 95 to 99% of the medium sized opponents.

Grand Lodge *

Huh. Maybe it creates a problem in PFS because you fight so many humanoids then. Because in the APs I've played and in Home Games you don't fight a lot of medium creatures at higher levels, and the ones you do generally have very high CMDs or are immune to certain maneuvers (natural weapons so you can't disarm, too many legs to trip, etc.)

Also James, would you consider that part of the problem is how good the dueling enchantment is as opposed to the Lore Warden? As it seems to give out a bigger bonus to CMB than about anything else.

Scarab Sages *****

Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Huh. Maybe it creates a problem in PFS because you fight so many humanoids then. Because in the APs I've played and in Home Games you don't fight a lot of medium creatures at higher levels, and the ones you do generally have very high CMDs or are immune to certain maneuvers (natural weapons so you can't disarm, too many legs to trip, etc.)

Witchwar Legacy, Rise of the Runelords book 5 and 6, Shattered Star book 5 and 6, Giant Slayer book 6, Hell's Rebels book 6, and Iron God's book 5 and 6 all have very trip/disarm-able opponents.

Silver Crusade *

James Risner wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
@Feral what about the Lore Warden and the ioun stone resonance that gave +2 CMB/CMD did you find over powered? Genuinely curious.

I've played a number of Combat Maneuver builds in PFS from 1-12.

I've never had much trouble building PC that succeed on a 2 for any CMB vs 95 to 99% of the medium sized opponents.

Such opponents are a fraction of the whole range that you'll face over 11 levels of play.

My last game (a tier 5-9) featured, in no particular order, a gaseous opponent, an 8-legged arachnid, flying elementals, natural-attacking outsiders, and a bunch of incorporeals. Had you been playing a tripper or a disarmer in that scenario you'd have had maybe one opponent you could affect, and the disarm-able foe had natural attacks.

This is a game that has always rewarded specialisation in character building. If you specialise in one or more combat manoeuvres, and the chance to use them comes up, you get to do your thing.

You might instead specialise in trapfinding; in throwing fireballs; in diplomancy. Sometimes your specialism comes up and you get to really shine. Sometimes, like in the scenario I just described, your specialism isn't so useful and you have to fall back on other strategies.

Is nerfing the Lore Warden a necessary limitation on combat manoeuvre specialisation? If so, how many other specialisations are going to be judged too much? What's going to be neutered next?

Grand Lodge *

Tallow, I actually just made it to book 3 of iron gods and their have been a lot of weapon using foes for disarming. But honestly killing them is faster.

My point for CMB users is that you're giving up some damage to use that maneuver. And you're also sinking a lot of feats and money into being good at it. When your hyper specializing like that, don't you deserve to be as good as a specialized Barbarian is at killing things?

And unlike the barbarian, they risk their one thing not being possible depending on the enemy. I think it's fine considering that combat maneuvers are situational.

251 to 300 of 507 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society® / Roleplaying Guild / General Discussion / Please no more nerfs 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.