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

Some issues with Starfinder


Starfinder General Discussion

1 to 50 of 298 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.

So aside from my problems with crafting, I just looked at the feats and had to pause.

Barricade. So from what I am reading, I need a feat to flip a table over and duck behind it? I know people are going to say that it says as a move action which could be interpreted as being able to flip a table as a standard or full round, but it doesn't say that. Just going with what is actually written in front of me. If they meant something else, they should have put it there.

No interpretation, no saying the GM can tweak it, just RAW. Granted I am just looking over this fir the first time but I am noticing some issues.

I also have an issue with Deadly Aim, mainly the name. Think about it. a penalty to attack from something called Deadly Aim. So, what, aiming makes things harder to hit? I would have called it burst fire or an overcharge shot for energy weapons or something.

Diversion feat to call attention to yourself. Seriously? The normal action lets you use bluff to let YOU hide, so a "look over there!" thing. So I need a feat to jump and say "Look at me! Look at me!" otherwise they wont look at me. So I guess if I do that without the feat, they have to ignore me then since I don't have the feat?

In Harm's Way as a feat instead of a combat option. Okay, so you are not allowed to jump in front of someone without buying a feat, let alone a feat with a prerequisite. Little odd.

Kip Up. Really, that should just be in acrobatics. Stop taking what skills can do and making them into feats. Feats should be something special. Heck, Yoski have that as a racial ability, I believe, simply because they are quick and nimble.

Medical Expert. I am bashing my head in the desk here. Let Skills Mean Something, Paizo. Not everything needs to be a feat. How about a high medicine skill means you are highly skilled and able to do stuff better than others? Not just in numbers, but things you can do. How about letting feats be a special ability? A great feat. Heck, 5th edition makes feats be special abilities rather than just a buffed version of a skill. What were paizo and the beta testers doing?

Pull the pin really should be based in slight of hand. I mean, come on.

Sky Jockey. Again, no. Stop it. Let this just be a higher DC in the piloting skill. There is no reason for this to be a feat.

Sniper weapon proficiency. Ok this really hurts my head here. Do people at paizo know how rifles work at all? It's a rifle. If you can use an assault rifle, you can use a "sniper" rifle. I know my opinion on this one is gonna bother some people so go ahead.

Suppressive fire as a feat. Again, this hurts my head. Less silly feats, more combat options. So I need a feat to hold the trigger down and just shoot over an area rather than at someone directly? So it is a feat to full auto fire and miss?

Unfriendly Fire. So it is a feat for me, from hiding, to throw a can and have it bang at something across the room so the enemy jumps and shoots there? This feels like it should be in the same area as causing a diversion, and under SKILLS not feats.

There are others I have issues with but I want people to discuss. Personally, I see myself tearing apart the feat and skill system cause this is just silly. Lets hear your opinions and anything in the game you have a problem with, and why this should have been an open beta instead of a closed one, cause now it is too late for them to actually listen to people since it has already been printed.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jaçinto wrote:


I also have an issue with Deadly Aim, mainly the name. Think about it. a penalty to attack from something called Deadly Aim. So, what, aiming makes things harder to hit? I would have called it burst fire or an overcharge shot for energy weapons or something.

You aim at a vulnerable spot on the enemy. Hitting the enemy on that spot is harder (thus the penalty), but nets you more damage if you hit.

I agree that the Medicine skill could be... better.

I think most of these became feats because according to the designers they tried to have less "must have" feats and whole build feat trees. That opens up a lot of feats for "special actions" like the ones you pointed out.

Also, putting Kip Up into Acrobatics would probably just lead to everyone putting skill ranks int Acrobatics... I find it nicer to take a feat once and be able to do it, than to feel pressured into having Acrobatics ranks.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Just to point out,

A) Barricade lets you get cover anywhere, not just if a table is nearby.

B) Harrassing/Covering Fire are actions anyone can do. The Suppresive Fire Feat just makes you a lot better at them.


You don't need feat trees and big builds through feats. The feat to gain some mystic powers. Blind fight. Stuff like that is fine. Some things should just be grounded in their actual skills. Also, when it comes to skill overlap where things get confusing like profession and engineering and whatnot? Do what 3.5 did. Skill Synergy. Got two skills that work together? +2 to the check.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's minimal to no overlap with Profession and Engineering. The former is your job. The latter means your good with machines. Profession has always overlapped with other skills depending on what exactly your Profession is.


Profession directly references using engineering and computers as a profession role instead of making an overlapping profession. But just because you have the skill, doesn't mean you can profit from it, but you should be able to synergize. I am using profession as an example for overlap.


why are the DC for Stunts and crew actions all
15 + 2 x tier
or
10 + 2 x tier
or
20 + 2 x tier
????
would that not just be 17,12,and 22 x tier??
or am i missing some information that alters the DC some how??


Jaçinto wrote:
Rysky, I don't see any "Normal: " on suppressive fire, so the feat asserts that no, you have to have the feat to do it.

Suppesive Fire says pick Covering Fire or Harrying Fire as an action.

Are there rules for covering fire and harrying fire in the Feat?

No.

The rules for those combat options are on p. 246-247. You do not need the Feat to do them, it just makes you better at them.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
korinthmalar wrote:

why are the DC for Stunts and crew actions all

15 + 2 x tier
or
10 + 2 x tier
or
20 + 2 x tier
????
would that not just be 17,12,and 22 x tier??
or am i missing some information that alters the DC some how??

Nope, basic order of operations from high school math says that if there are no parenthesis, you multiply before you add. If we add parenthesis to explain this,

15 + 2 x tier = 15 + (2 x tier)


Good old PEDMASS/BEDMASS


thanks Redelia
that makes much more scene now


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Those additions of 2 x tier and 3 x tier are enough of an issue when multiplying first, as there seems to be no reliable way to get per level skill bonus increases of those magnitudes reliably.


It always bothers me when I see feats for piddly little things that should just be a skill check at a higher DC or "at 7 ranks, you can do X" and keep feats for doing actually special things. Not exclusionary things but bonus stuff. Blind Fighting, mystic powers, etc.. Things that are actually special and a boost rather than something that you should be able to just do as a combat option or with a skill check.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I love when people make new threads about things that are already being discussed on other threads. double post. It's awesome.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uii8?Feats-that-should-not-be-feats

If you don't like something don't use it.


Without the gratuitous sarcasm, here's the actual link to the relevant thread

Feats That Should Not Be Feats


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Oh and by the way...

Jaçinto wrote:
Sky Jockey. Again, no. Stop it. Let this just be a higher DC in the piloting skill. There is no reason for this to be a feat.

I am actually getting this feat! I made a Bounty Hunter Soldier that uses JetPacks. I have seen a lot of people on the boards sh*t on things they don't find useful but this is a big book. If you don't like something someone else might.

I'll admit Barricade would just be a skill check in any game I play but chill on the negativity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not everyone is aware of all the discussions going on, man.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My issues:

1) No mechs: They don't present a humanoid-shaped starship frame. HOWEVER, considering that damage scaling with size has been either changed or removed, they... might be keeping it for a separate booklet in order to compile mech-exclusive weapons. Hey, your lvl20 weapon might be no match for a mech's lvl20 weapon if it's 10 times its normal size.

2) Weapon level: I get the idea, but I can't get over the minimal amount of low-level weapons. I feel like the game should add an "upgrade" crafting system that increases a weapon's level and its attribute, in order to elevate the level gap between weapons.

3) Two-Weapon Fighting being gone: You can make a full attack for 2 attack rolls... with either the same weapon or 2 different weapons... Yeah... kinda pointless... What's annoying is that the kasathas BARELY have options to make 4 attacks during a full attack. Call it OP it was available, but still... I get that iterative attacks are gone, but they should have kept the ability to make one attack per wield weapon.

4) The solarian's attunement takes longer to get as you level up: I would revampt the attunement mecanic that you would gain a point per round you stay attuned and that each revelation costs points to use. Since you also "have to" select revelations from both photon and graviton, you need one more round per opposed revelation to become attuned.


JiCi wrote:
4) The solarian's attunement takes longer to get as you level up: I would revampt the attunement mecanic that you would gain a point per round you stay attuned and that each revelation costs points to use. Since you also "have to" select revelations from both photon and graviton, you need one more round per opposed revelation to become attuned.

No it doesn't.

You're attuned at 1 point and fully attuned at 3. The number for full atonement only increases to 4 if you have 2 more of one type of Revelation than the other.

So having 4 Photon/3 Graviton Revelations and you are fine, but having 5 Photon/3 Graviton Revelations means you need 4 points for full atonement.


Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
JiCi wrote:
4) The solarian's attunement takes longer to get as you level up: I would revampt the attunement mecanic that you would gain a point per round you stay attuned and that each revelation costs points to use. Since you also "have to" select revelations from both photon and graviton, you need one more round per opposed revelation to become attuned.

No it doesn't.

You're attuned at 1 point and fully attuned at 3. The number for full atonement only increases to 4 if you have 2 more of one type of Revelation than the other.

So having 4 Photon/3 Graviton Revelations and you are fine, but having 5 Photon/3 Graviton Revelations means you need 4 points for full atonement.

Yeah... kinda misread that :P

Kinda weird that a solarian has to pick both sides. Ok, fine, there isn't many revelations per side, but still...


JiCi wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
JiCi wrote:
4) The solarian's attunement takes longer to get as you level up: I would revampt the attunement mecanic that you would gain a point per round you stay attuned and that each revelation costs points to use. Since you also "have to" select revelations from both photon and graviton, you need one more round per opposed revelation to become attuned.

No it doesn't.

You're attuned at 1 point and fully attuned at 3. The number for full atonement only increases to 4 if you have 2 more of one type of Revelation than the other.

So having 4 Photon/3 Graviton Revelations and you are fine, but having 5 Photon/3 Graviton Revelations means you need 4 points for full atonement.

Yeah... kinda misread that :P

Kinda weird that a solarian has to pick both sides. Ok, fine, there isn't many revelations per side, but still...

They all about Balance and stuff.

Space stuff.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
JiCi wrote:

My issues:

1) No mechs: They don't present a humanoid-shaped starship frame. HOWEVER, considering that damage scaling with size has been either changed or removed, they... might be keeping it for a separate booklet in order to compile mech-exclusive weapons. Hey, your lvl20 weapon might be no match for a mech's lvl20 weapon if it's 10 times its normal size.

The book is already 524 pages. They have talked about expansions.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

my question with Barricade is :

it's got hit points and hardness, but if it (or an adjacent creature) is just "hit" by an attack, it collapses in 1d4 turns?

so... if you deal 1 point of damage to a barricade with 5 + X HP - or to someone standing next to the barricade... it collapses in 1d4 turns no matter what?


Yep.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
Yep.

so... why go through the problem of writing out that it has hit points?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yakman wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
Yep.
so... why go through the problem of writing out that it has hit points?

So that extra damage can cause it to collapse faster.


Yakman wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
Yep.
so... why go through the problem of writing out that it has hit points?

The difference between going down this round or 1d4 rounds later.

Edit: ninjaed.


JetSetRadio wrote:
JiCi wrote:

My issues:

1) No mechs: They don't present a humanoid-shaped starship frame. HOWEVER, considering that damage scaling with size has been either changed or removed, they... might be keeping it for a separate booklet in order to compile mech-exclusive weapons. Hey, your lvl20 weapon might be no match for a mech's lvl20 weapon if it's 10 times its normal size.

The book is already 524 pages. They have talked about expansions.

I was hoping for at least one starship frame based on a mech, until I noticed that the damage scaling for weapons isn't in Starfinder. I basically retracted that idea.

Yeah, good luck being menacing with a Huge mech with a 1d4 pistol XD


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
JiCi wrote:
JetSetRadio wrote:
JiCi wrote:

My issues:

1) No mechs: They don't present a humanoid-shaped starship frame. HOWEVER, considering that damage scaling with size has been either changed or removed, they... might be keeping it for a separate booklet in order to compile mech-exclusive weapons. Hey, your lvl20 weapon might be no match for a mech's lvl20 weapon if it's 10 times its normal size.

The book is already 524 pages. They have talked about expansions.

I was hoping for at least one starship frame based on a mech, until I noticed that the damage scaling for weapons isn't in Starfinder. I basically retracted that idea.

Yeah, good luck being menacing with a Huge mech with a 1d4 pistol XD

Well how often are you going to be chased by a ship with it shooting at you? Just figure one shot from a spaceship is instadeath. I have listened to most of the interviews with the devs and they talk about the reason they left it out. Again, if you want to put it in you can but it would be explaining something they thought would be broken and not fun.

If you want a mech just make a tiny ship with arms and legs.


JetSetRadio wrote:
JiCi wrote:
JetSetRadio wrote:
JiCi wrote:

My issues:

1) No mechs: They don't present a humanoid-shaped starship frame. HOWEVER, considering that damage scaling with size has been either changed or removed, they... might be keeping it for a separate booklet in order to compile mech-exclusive weapons. Hey, your lvl20 weapon might be no match for a mech's lvl20 weapon if it's 10 times its normal size.

The book is already 524 pages. They have talked about expansions.

I was hoping for at least one starship frame based on a mech, until I noticed that the damage scaling for weapons isn't in Starfinder. I basically retracted that idea.

Yeah, good luck being menacing with a Huge mech with a 1d4 pistol XD

Well how often are you going to be chased by a ship with it shooting at you? Just figure one shot from a spaceship is instadeath. I have listened to most of the interviews with the devs and they talk about the reason they left it out. Again, if you want to put it in you can but it would be explaining something they thought would be broken and not fun.

If you want a mech just make a tiny ship with arms and legs.

The Powered Armors... are the closest thing to mechs right now ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JetSetRadio wrote:
JiCi wrote:
JetSetRadio wrote:
JiCi wrote:

My issues:

1) No mechs: They don't present a humanoid-shaped starship frame. HOWEVER, considering that damage scaling with size has been either changed or removed, they... might be keeping it for a separate booklet in order to compile mech-exclusive weapons. Hey, your lvl20 weapon might be no match for a mech's lvl20 weapon if it's 10 times its normal size.

The book is already 524 pages. They have talked about expansions.

I was hoping for at least one starship frame based on a mech, until I noticed that the damage scaling for weapons isn't in Starfinder. I basically retracted that idea.

Yeah, good luck being menacing with a Huge mech with a 1d4 pistol XD

Well how often are you going to be chased by a ship with it shooting at you? Just figure one shot from a spaceship is instadeath. I have listened to most of the interviews with the devs and they talk about the reason they left it out. Again, if you want to put it in you can but it would be explaining something they thought would be broken and not fun.

If you want a mech just make a tiny ship with arms and legs.

Plus, ship weapons are scaled differently so a ship gun that deals 1d4 damage to another ship actually does 1d4 x 10 damage to a normal creature. You could totally just do the tiny ship idea, though CR-ing the encounter would be difficult and there isn't really a way for non-ship weapons to damage a ship.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

Just to point out,

A) Barricade lets you get cover anywhere, not just if a table is nearby.

B) Harrassing/Covering Fire are actions anyone can do. The Suppresive Fire Feat just makes you a lot better at them.

Totally agree; Barricade isn't just making cover from a table; it's making cover from a couple of wicker baskets and a trashcan.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
JetSetRadio wrote:
JiCi wrote:
JetSetRadio wrote:
JiCi wrote:

My issues:

1) No mechs: They don't present a humanoid-shaped starship frame. HOWEVER, considering that damage scaling with size has been either changed or removed, they... might be keeping it for a separate booklet in order to compile mech-exclusive weapons. Hey, your lvl20 weapon might be no match for a mech's lvl20 weapon if it's 10 times its normal size.

The book is already 524 pages. They have talked about expansions.

I was hoping for at least one starship frame based on a mech, until I noticed that the damage scaling for weapons isn't in Starfinder. I basically retracted that idea.

Yeah, good luck being menacing with a Huge mech with a 1d4 pistol XD

Well how often are you going to be chased by a ship with it shooting at you? Just figure one shot from a spaceship is instadeath. I have listened to most of the interviews with the devs and they talk about the reason they left it out. Again, if you want to put it in you can but it would be explaining something they thought would be broken and not fun.

If you want a mech just make a tiny ship with arms and legs.

I've considered a house rule that targeting a creature with a starship scale weapon is a flat d100 roll, with a "00" indicating a hit -- but then, it would likely be in my first game using it that someone gets that "00" roll, and someone dies early. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ENHenry wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

Just to point out,

A) Barricade lets you get cover anywhere, not just if a table is nearby.

B) Harrassing/Covering Fire are actions anyone can do. The Suppresive Fire Feat just makes you a lot better at them.

Totally agree; Barricade isn't just making cover from a table; it's making cover from a couple of wicker baskets and a trashcan.

"Dude! Why are there always conference tables for you to duck behind!"

"I took barricade, bro!"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
captain yesterday wrote:
ENHenry wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

Just to point out,

A) Barricade lets you get cover anywhere, not just if a table is nearby.

B) Harrassing/Covering Fire are actions anyone can do. The Suppresive Fire Feat just makes you a lot better at them.

Totally agree; Barricade isn't just making cover from a table; it's making cover from a couple of wicker baskets and a trashcan.

"Dude! Why are there always conference tables for you to duck behind!"

"I took barricade, bro!"

"Dude, how'd you deflect that bullet with those two datapads?"

"Barricade, bro!"


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ENHenry wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
ENHenry wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

Just to point out,

A) Barricade lets you get cover anywhere, not just if a table is nearby.

B) Harrassing/Covering Fire are actions anyone can do. The Suppresive Fire Feat just makes you a lot better at them.

Totally agree; Barricade isn't just making cover from a table; it's making cover from a couple of wicker baskets and a trashcan.

"Dude! Why are there always conference tables for you to duck behind!"

"I took barricade, bro!"

"Dude, how'd you deflect that bullet with those two datapads?"

"Barricade, bro!"

"Dude, why are those datapads so big?"

"... You know, I don't know, bro."

If all that was around was two datapads, I'd probably rule ya can't make a barricade.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sedoriku wrote:
If all that was around was two datapads, I'd probably rule ya can't make a barricade.

But, but. It's pads for Big Data!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think we'll get Mech stuff down the line; it seems like such an iconic science fiction idea that would also require quite a bit of rules work that I expect it will be a core element of which ever Starfinder RPG support books are lined up in the future.


MMCJawa wrote:
I think we'll get Mech stuff down the line; it seems like such an iconic science fiction idea that would also require quite a bit of rules work that I expect it will be a core element of which ever Starfinder RPG support books are lined up in the future.

The Flight Frame power armor seems suited to be a ground-based mech. It's Huge-sized, comes with flight and a bunch of weapon mounts. I'd use that for most mechs in atmosphere and a tiny starship for ones in space.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Jaçinto wrote:
Not everyone is aware of all the discussions going on, man.

Not going to lie, this is a poor excuse. There is a search feature. Simply type in the thing you are looking for, an OMG something may pop that is relevant to what you searched for. So you don't have to start duplicate threads.

Also seems like on some of this stuff you didn't actually read and do the research. You saw an issue and started to complaining. Several people have already mentioned this. I think maybe next time do your research and then comeback an post.


Paizo, a word please. I looked at your scatterguns and saw the range. Could you please stop using video games as a source on how shotguns work and instead use some reality?

Also, that other thread is just talking about feats. I did this for any starfinder issues.


Then they would work like every other gun, giving them Blast aka a cone attack makes them unique.

And these are really good since it also avoids concealment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Micheal Smith wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
Not everyone is aware of all the discussions going on, man.
Not going to lie, this is a poor excuse. There is a search feature. Simply type in the thing you are looking for, an OMG something may pop that is relevant to what you searched for. So you don't have to start duplicate threads.

I don't know about you, but search is straight busted for me lately. I tried searching for "exocortex" earlier, then sorting it by recent, and the most recent results it can find are from July 20th.


Rysky, go fire a shotgun with any kind of spread shot in it at a range. See how much it actually spreads and how far the effective range is. I promise it is better than 15 feet. Also remember, even the impact scattergun which does NOT have blast, also goes 15 feet.


That's what I was saying, shotguns have a tight spread and decent range IRL. In game mechanics if they worked like real life they would be just like evey other gun. Point and click basically (moreso in d20 games since everything is based off 5ft squares). By giving them the "video game" cone blast they have something that sets apart form the other guns.

And the impact scattergun does have Blast.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So it's more like a sawed off shotgun.


Basically.


MMCJawa wrote:
I think we'll get Mech stuff down the line; it seems like such an iconic science fiction idea that would also require quite a bit of rules work that I expect it will be a core element of which ever Starfinder RPG support books are lined up in the future.

I am working on a 'Mechfinder' document that places Mechs neatly between personal and starship scale and can interact with both (but not both at once because that gets awkward). Mechs themselves can be huge, gargantuan or colossal (on the creature scale).

Mechs are 3x Personal scale.
Starships are 3x Mech scale.

That's roughly appropriate to match the 'starships are 10x personal scale' rule.


My biggest problem with the system is just the setting. I find the Pact Worlds are too condensed for my tastes, so I'm probably going to go with a custom setting that rationalizes some things (like Lashunta being an evolutionary offshoot of humans to explain their very human-like appearance).

1 to 50 of 298 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Starfinder® / Starfinder General Discussion / Some issues with Starfinder 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.