Seltyiel

Deadbeat Doom's page

Organized Play Member. 405 posts (407 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 8 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

I don't see why that wouldn't fit with the Starfinder setting.

Examples:
Anacites are specifically noted for only selling non-sentient A.I. computers for general starship use; which in turn implies that their own starships are sentient. (Think something like V'ger from Star Trek)

Endbringer Devils are Colossal-sized Sentient Outsiders with Construct-like traits who can change form from transport ship to war machine. (Think Decepticons from Transformers)

Oma are basically massive Sentient Space Whales that the Barathus of Triaxus once used as living starships. (Think Leviathans from Farscape)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MattGM wrote:
Voadkha wrote:

Perhaps I'm still suffering from the psychological scars caused by the destruction of LG but the new Starfinder button showing up filled me with dread.

Has there been official word from Paizo concerning whether or not the release of Starfinder will coincide with the death of Pathfinder (and more specifically PFS).

Has there been any announcement that PFS is intended to be "phased out" in the near future? Do they have at least a tentative commitment to continue PFS through Season 9 and into Season 10?

Starfinder society does exist, and will not phase Pathfinder, nor PFS, in any way. Starfinder has entirely different creative teams, while Jason Buhlman is on the creative team for Starfinder, he is not the creative director. If anything, Paizo is just going to become a Two-Headed Monster of the gaming community. Pathfinder and Starfinder.

Um...

This thread is more than eight months old. This stuff all got cleared up ages ago.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:

No. Like I said, I'd just let them roll it, but that's me houseruling it.

If they were trying to do a trick attack without first seeking cover, concealment of some kind, going invisible, or creating a distraction (which targets everything that can observe you, and gives every potential target an opposed roll), AND I was adjucating a table where house rules didn't apply, such as SFS, then I would regrettably have to say that they cannot make any use of the stealth skill, including making a trick attack using that skill.

Then you would be in error.

No point of the Trick Attack says that you are attempting to hide as part of the Trick Attack.

The issue they are having problems with is that, while the first paragraph on observation gives an example of stealth for hiding, the second paragraph simply states that you cannot attempt a Stealth check while being observed.

It doesn't say you can't attempt a Stealth check to hide; it states you can't make a Stealth check at all.

I don't believe that these rules are supposed to interact with Trick Attack; but the wording is unfortunate nonetheless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dvrobiqu wrote:
Jhaeman wrote:
This has been discussed, with very good points on either side, in another thread. I think we just need to FAQ it and wait for an answer.
I agree, I think a FAQ is the only way to get a clear-cut answer. And I am sorry if I am coming off as argumentative. It's honestly not my intent. I will leave this alone until we hopefully get an answer from the FAQ.

You haven't really come across as argumentative to me; more as someone who sees a potential issue with the system, and who refuses to hand wave the possible interactions away just because that is the likely intent.

You want a concrete answer one way or another; and lacking one you interpret the rules in a literal, if harsh, fashion. I don't think you'll find many people around who would take your interpretation as the correct one; but that doesn't mean that your reasoning is without merit.

Attempting to understand what a rule actually says and means can be just as important as understanding what the people writing it were trying to convey.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On the one hand, I feel that the intent of the wording of the Trick Attack ability is pretty clear about it being a separate and stand alone skill check; but on the other hand, there are possibly several parts of the Rulebook interacting here, and each part is just vague enough that it isn't unreasonable to want a little clarification from the Developers. Even a single line in this thread would probably be enough to set minds at ease; and it would give us somewhere to point to if and/or when confusion about this crops up in the future.

It's worth a FAQ if it prevents worries or arguments about it later.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dvrobiqu wrote:
Deadbeat Doom wrote:

That last part is easy enough.

Make a thread in Rules Questions entitled:
"Trick Attack and Skill Check Question."

And then in the main body of the thread, type something not unlike:
"Are the skill checks made to perform a Trick Attack subject to the same rules as normal skill checks?
I.e., If I use Acrobatics as part of a Trick Attack check, do the rules for using Acrobatics in Difficult Terrain apply?"

As for questioning things like the "attempt a Stealth check" problem; if you look up the rules for the Stealth skill, I think you will find that there is no general "you must be unobserved in order to make a stealth check" rule. You need cover or concealment in order to make a stealth check to hide, but you aren't attempting to hide when making a Trick Attack; you're trying to attack an opponent in such a way as to make them unable to adequately defend themselves.

Take Acrobatics as another example. If I use Acrobatics to make a Trick Attack, am I trying to Balance, Escape, Fly, Hover, or Tumble? The answer is: None of the above; I'm attempting a Trick Attack, so none of the rules for Acrobatics that apply to it's other uses will apply here.

First off, thank you for your instructions!

I will make a thread about it in the Rules Questions. I just didn't want to make a new thread if this one is too similar.

As far as the argument that none of the rules that apply to a Stealth check would apply because you are making a Trick Attack and not a Stealth Check, then does this mean you don't add the Ysoki's Scrounger racial ability (+2 to Stealth checks) to a Trick Attack? The rules for Observing (Page 260) use the same generic wording of "Stealth check" in the second paragraph.

Glad to be of help!

1. Making a Stealth Check to Hide is not equivalent to making a Stealth Check for some other purpose (such as attempting a Trick Attack).

2. The Ysoki's Scrounger racial ability applies to ALL Stealth checks, not just to ones made to Hide.

3. The rules for Observing appear to be infuriatingly vague on this subject; but the first paragraph refers to direct observation occurring when "a creature is visible, when the situation makes it impossible for the creature (to) use stealth to hide, or when you have succeeded at a Perception check to pinpoint the creature using a precise sense such as blindsight." The way in which this and the Stealth skill are written lead me to believe that these rules were created before the Operative's Trick Attack had been implemented, as it is not referenced anywhere else in the Core Rulebook.

I fully believe that I am interpreting the rules correctly in this instance; but I will concede that more explicit wording should have been used to clarify when and how Trick Attack interacts with Skills.


On the other hand, the Bone Trooper is wearing armor, and all armors have Environmental Protections built in; so if the trooper gets kicked out an airlock, they can just turn on the suit and ignore the problem for a number of days equal to the armor's level.

Doesn't answer the question, I know, but at least it's a workaround for now...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dvrobiqu wrote:
Kate Baker wrote:

That's a good catch, dvrobiqu, and it does muddy the waters for looking at rules as written. I suspect that this part of the text is conflating "attempt a Stealth check" with "attempt a Stealth check to hide," but that's just a gut feeling based on how many of us have done that here, including me.

I still think that if there were intended to be restrictions on the use of the skill, it would be listed in the trick attack section, and I'll rule it that way at my table. It's going to be very frustrating for ghost operatives to be told that they can't use their associated skill very often when, say, Daredevils would be allowed to attempt it every turn, and I really don't think that there's supposed to be that kind of disparity between specializations. The observation text probably makes this FAQ-worthy, though.

There are other aspects, aside from using stealth while being observed, that I find troubling with the way the trick attack rule is written. In particular, once I start questioning which aspects of a skill check apply and which ones don't I am left with a lot of gray areas for my players to make arguments.

Such as, do you increase the DC of the trick attack if the players are in the undergrowth of a forest biome (page 397 - Forrest Terrian)? Is it subject to armor check penalties if you are using a dex based skill (Page 134 - Skill Description)? Does it benefit from any items or serums that increase the Stealth skill? Does it benefit from Stealth Warp (Page 106 - Stellar Revelations)?

If they simply wrote, "Just before making your attack, make a Trick Attack check using either Bluff, Intimidate, or Stealth..." I would have no issue what-so-ever.

We are in agreement that this probably needs a FAQ. And I certainly would not argue with you if I was sitting at your table about it. Admittedly I am a newb here and I have no idea how one would request that, or what is the proper procedure for that.

That last part is easy enough.

Make a thread in Rules Questions entitled:
"Trick Attack and Skill Check Question."

And then in the main body of the thread, type something not unlike:
"Are the skill checks made to perform a Trick Attack subject to the same rules as normal skill checks?
I.e., If I use Acrobatics as part of a Trick Attack check, do the rules for using Acrobatics in Difficult Terrain apply?"

As for questioning things like the "attempt a Stealth check" problem; if you look up the rules for the Stealth skill, I think you will find that there is no general "you must be unobserved in order to make a stealth check" rule. You need cover or concealment in order to make a stealth check to hide, but you aren't attempting to hide when making a Trick Attack; you're trying to attack an opponent in such a way as to make them unable to adequately defend themselves.

Take Acrobatics as another example. If I use Acrobatics to make a Trick Attack, am I trying to Balance, Escape, Fly, Hover, or Tumble? The answer is: None of the above; I'm attempting a Trick Attack, so none of the rules for Acrobatics that apply to it's other uses will apply here.


Bigguyinblack wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
baggageboy wrote:
I believe the clause about saving throws of the item means any saving throw the item make such as to avoid a spell's effect are increased, not that the item has a higher DC.
Correct.
Locally we have been interpreting it the other way. Needs to be FAQed.

I don't believe a FAQ is necessary in this case, as the very next sentence after the line about determining hardness, Hit Points, and saving throws directs you to the section on Breaking Objects to learn more about the values being affected.


Questions:

1. Is the Limited Edition still receiving another printing due to the binding issue?

2. If so, will copies be made available for purchase again?

I'm asking because I was too cheap to drop the extra money to switch my preorder over, and I've regretted it ever since...


The replacement Core Rulebook arrived yesterday evening, and the binding on this one appears to be perfect; thanks for getting this to me!


Katina Davis wrote:

Hi Deadbeat Doom,

It looks like they got pushed into a new order, but the order was showing as unsubmitted. I'll go ahead and give the order a shove so that it'll start on the way as soon as possible. Sorry for the confusion!

Please let me know if there's anything else I can help out with in the meantime.

Thanks!
Katina

No worries! I figure as long as it gets sorted out eventually, I don't mind a short wait.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Interestingly it's almost exactly the same wording as the rogue skill mastery advocated talent in Pathfinder, and I've never seen anyone question how that ability works.

But new game, new context.

I almost commented on that; but then I thought that perhaps such an observation might not be welcome, what with it being more or less a separate rule system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marco Massoudi wrote:
I wonder if this box contains enough Skittermander whelps?

There is no such thing as 'enough Skittermander whelps'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mine says that I'm a selfish arrogant ass.

My history of aliases says that I like pictures of Seltyiel.

My current alias also says that there aren't any Starfinder images available yet.


This is a set of Starfinder Pawn bases that was split off from the original order because the release date had been pushed back.

I was hoping to get an update on this order because I had noticed that the product is listed as available in the store, but my package hasn't been shipped yet; and the last time this happened it turned out my items had gotten lost in the system.. twice...


I recently purchased a number of products from AbadarCorp's new "Lawfinder" gaming line; but while the digital masters are all of fine quality, I have found that every time I attempt to obtain a hard copy of the core rules, the binding spells fail and then I have to deal with a bunch of freshly released rules lawyers, not to mention all of the paperwork!

This is why I say you guys should never have sub-contracted out your summoning subscriptions to AsmodeusCorp; those people never deliver exactly what you ask for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My wife and I pay ~$80US a month for our cellphones, and we're limited to 5GB per month. Our home internet costs us close to $100US a month, and it has a 500GB per month limit.

'Murica.


Cyrad wrote:
Maester Jun Ixnar wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
You can't directly attack creatures with starship weapons.
However, the rules do state that you can do it as an area-of-effect attack, and you multiply all damage by 10 to convert it to character-scale. (This is the gist of the sidebar on page 292 of the CRB.)
No. The sidebar says starship weapon fire can be treated as "deadly hazards" by GM discretion. A hazard =/= area attack. A hazard is more like a trap or an obstacle.

Pedantic argument is pedantic.

I point the ships forwards weapons toward the general direction of an enemy and direct the ship to fire. Do I care if I'm aiming at a particular entity or not? No. Everything in that general direction is about to have a bad day, whether I'm specifically aiming at it or not.


This is silly.

Solarian Weapon Crystals are classified and described in the equipment chapter in the section on weapons.

=> Solarian Weapon Crystals are weapons.

Weapon Fusions may be applied to any weapon of an appropriate level, unless the Fusion specifies otherwise.

=> Solarian Weapon Crystal + Weapon Fusion = Solarian Weapon Crystal with a Fusion.

It really is that simple.


It would appear that the shipping gods have allied against me, as the order that took nearly a month longer to get to me than it should have also contains a copy of the standard edition core book that suffers from the same binding defects that others have noticed.

I have already sent an email about this (with pictures), but I wanted to double down with a forum post as well.

Also, if possible, I would like to wait and get my replacement when the next printing cones around, just to be sure.

I will say, despite my order woes, I'm loving all of the different products, especially the core book and the first volume of Dead Suns!


I suspect that either the Forcepack is missing a line denoting that it's charges refresh each day, or else it is supposed to be a purely technological item; but read as written, it would appear that it can't be recharged at all.

I'd rule that it should refresh daily, myself.


Just an update: The package arrived last night, and everything is in pristine condition. Thanks again for making sure all this stuff made it's way to me!


Thanks!


So it's been another two weeks, and my order still says pending...


Thanks! I have to admit, I was feeling pretty cross about the whole thing; but I suppose I can't be too mad at a system hiccup.

So, I'll have to wait awhile for my stuff; at least now I know it's still coming.


Hello! I pre-ordered a number of Starfinder products back in January, and had them consolidated into a single order in March.

One of the products is being shipped when it releases in September, but from what I understand, the rest of the order should have shipped by yesterday at the latest, but it still says it is pending. When I opened the order up, it says it hasn't shipped because one or more of the items ordered is not in stock.

I was under the impression that pre-ordering would guarantee me copies? Any chance somebody could take a look and see what's up?

Thanks in advance.


I believe he is going off of the following:

Line of Effect wrote:


A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It’s like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it’s not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.

You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.

A burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation spell affects only an area, creature, or object to which it has line of effect from its origin (a spherical burst’s center point, a cone-shaped burst’s starting point, a cylinder’s circle, or an emanation’s point of origin).

An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell’s line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell’s line of effect.

Spells are the only things mentioned in the rule, and so by RAW only spells (and spell-like abilities) are subject to it.

I personally find that to be an oversight on the part of the rules; the rules that apply to Spells should have been written in such a way as to be applicable to all magical effects.


Katina Davis wrote:
Deadbeat Doom wrote:
Oh hey! Can I be added to the list of people who need their Starfinder shipments consolidated? Eight separate packages is a bit much for me...

Hey there!

No problem. I've consolidated everything into one order, and I'll go ahead and send you a confirmation email in just a moment. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help out in the meantime.

Thanks, and have a great weekend!
Katina

Hooray! Now I can take the money you saved me and dump it into a subscription to get the rest of the Dead Suns Adventure Path! Thanks!


Oh hey! Can I be added to the list of people who need their Starfinder shipments consolidated? Eight separate packages is a bit much for me...


They've already said that there will definitely be subscriptions, and that if you pre-order now, they will push the pre-ordered products over into your subscription once they are available so you don't end up doubling up on anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
suprise rounds are a thing and some one not making their check could mean the difference between winning or loseing the fight depending of the dificulty of the ambush

It is physically impossible to optimize Perception to the point that it will be actually useful against an ambush, since Stealth is much easier to boost, and most ambush encounters are against creatures with a high Stealth modifier.

If you can succeed at a Perception check against an ambush with any sort of consistency, you are playing something natively good at Perception, you dumped a bunch of resources into Perception (which guarantees you suck at something else), or it's just a regular encounter, not an ambush. I don't care how many feats, traits, and magic items you throw at the fighter, he'll NEVER be able to beat a rogue in a Stealth vs. Perception check; not even if the rogue's only putting skill points and a minor magic item into his Stealth.

Also, if you are having to deal with ambushes often, that speaks more towards your group's tactics and Stealth abilities than it does their Perception...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:
bitter lily wrote:


If your decision to keep your personal "working theory" isn't happy-making for some of your fans, why do it? Why not let us know in a blog -- nothing "official" -- what your personal theory is? If we as GMs want to tell a different story, you're still freeing us to do so. End of mystery in the sense of withholding information, on-going mystery in the sense of what we make of it.

Why not?

Because I don't have a personal theory.

I do not know how Aroden died, or why, or who did it, or in which room it happened. I don't find those things to be the interesting parts about him. In fact, it's kind of the one aspect of the character that I don't find particularly interesting.

The interesting thing to me is more in the "what now" aspect of what happens to the campaign world when "God" dies. What happens to institutions, to culture, etc. Add to that the idea that this also casts prophecy in doubt, and you've got a bunch of inherent questions that are more interesting to me than "who did it."

I never really considered "who did it" when I created Aroden. I left that to be determined later, to be woven into other stories by other authors, very likely stories that hadn't been considered yet, left for future development if we decided to develop it at all.

The "working theory" is more something James and others have pieced together in the time since Aroden's creation, tying in the few clues that I left with other cool stuff that they're planning to have a "maybe this is how it went down," but as I mentioned earlier, even that's flexible until we actually decide to address the issue. If we do.

I could outline an entire Aroden-focused Adventure Path with all kinds of insight into his life, his cult, and the ruins of his influence, but to be perfectly honest I'm not certain even that would answer the question of how he died.

I like that the people of Golarion don't know. So long as there's no "official" answer, the answer is free to be whatever you want it to be.

Huh.

Okay, I have to admit; this has changed my outlook on the Aroden Mystery situation. I had always viewed his death as a known variable, a fixed point in time and space, which radiated outwards to affect the rest of Golarion. My point of contention was with having been made aware that Aroden had definitively died, and that Paizo both a) knew how it happened, and b) were never going to reveal it.

Now I realize that the mystery of Aroden's death isn't about how he died; the mystery is about how Golarion is reacting to his death.

Very cool.

I retract my earlier statement of disinterest. In fact, now I think that the best ending for Pathfinder would be an AP about the return of prophesy; it could be kind of like Golarion finally getting over the loss of Aroden.

Thank you for this post, oh wise and benevolent dictator of my gaming budget!


Claxon wrote:
Deadbeat Doom wrote:

Uh, you guys know that a(n) (Anti)Paladin's power isn't tied to a Deity, right?

An Antipaladin's Aura of Evil comes from the Antipaladin, not from any outside source. You don't even need to worship a Deity. You could be an Atheistic character and still keep all of your mojo.

"Antipaladins worship dark deities in the same fashion that paladins worship deities of goodness, but this is no more a requirement of the antipaladin than of the paladin."

The rules are written that way to allow for non-Golarion settings.

In Golarion, Clerics and Paladins are required to have a deity.

Try again.

Religions wrote:


A paladin is more likely to not worship a given deity, but to simply abide by a personal code or organizational doctrine. Paladins who worship most commonly follow the ways of Iomedae, the goddess of justice. Like fighters, the paladin also may pay service to the deities of war or organization. Torag (command) is common, as are Abadar (nobility), Irori (self-perfection), Sarenrae (redemption), and even Shelyn (love).

Not only do Paladins NOT have to worship a Deity in Golarion, they straight-up usually don't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Tarrasque: and Army of One.


Having all the members of a party maximize Perception is pretty terrible, if efficiency is what you're aiming for. You only need one or two members with a high Perception, since if one character makes the check, the whole party benefits; but if the whole party makes the check, there is no increase in utility, only in wasted resources that were dumped into an already covered skill.

As long as somebody in the group has a high Perception skill bonus, it doesn't matter if the dwarf cleric is good at it or not; and if it doesn't matter, why waste limited resources on it? The OP will be far more likely to get use out of skills they are naturally good at (without traits or feats being spent); and they will probably be happier with those skills thematically, as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A Parity of Aeons.
A Safeguard of Agathions.
A Choir of Angels.
An Establishment of Archons.
A Denial of Asura.
A Liberation of Azata.
A Vacuity of Daemons.
A Massacre of Demons.
A Bureaucracy of Devils.
A Division of Demodands.
A Corruption of Divs.
A Brigade of Formians.
An Invocation of Genies.
An Obstinance of Inevitables.
An Essence of Kami.
A Bondage of Kytons.
A Befoulment of Oni.
A Disarray of Proteans.
An Escort of Psychopomps.
A Treachery of Qlippoth.
A Decadence of Rakshasa.


Captain Killjoy wrote:

A crew of goblins!

A rampage of goblins!
A... buffet line of goblins?

An Inflammation of Goblins!

A Deflagration of Goblins!

A Combustion of Goblins!


Saving Throws are related to Dex, Con, and Wis in the same way that Attack actions are related to Str and Dex.

A Will Save utilizes your Wisdom modifier, but it is not a Wisdom check; just as a Melee Attack roll will use your Strength, but it is not a Strength check.


ShroudedInLight wrote:
You have 11 HP thanks to your Favored Class Bonus (which btw means no other FCBs ever unless you want to be a commoner forever.)

I didn't see anyone else reply to this, so I thought it would be worth pointing out that your Favored Class needn't be your starting one.

Favored Class wrote:
Each character begins play with a single favored class of his choosing—typically, this is the same class as the one he chooses at 1st level. Whenever a character gains a level in his favored class, he receives either + 1 hit point or + 1 skill rank. The choice of favored class cannot be changed once the character is created, and the choice of gaining a hit point or a skill rank each time a character gains a level (including his first level) cannot be changed once made for a particular level. Prestige classes (see Prestige Classes) can never be a favored class.

So you would have to suck it up and not get anything at first level; but you would also then get the FCB for levels 2-7.


Looks like it's discontinued. Found it here.


Mighty 's morphing powered androids.


Uh, you guys know that a(n) (Anti)Paladin's power isn't tied to a Deity, right?

An Antipaladin's Aura of Evil comes from the Antipaladin, not from any outside source. You don't even need to worship a Deity. You could be an Atheistic character and still keep all of your mojo.

"Antipaladins worship dark deities in the same fashion that paladins worship deities of goodness, but this is no more a requirement of the antipaladin than of the paladin."


Team Four Star Plays: Dragon Ball Fusion, Part 6


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Welp, here's hoping that there's going to be subscriptions and consolidated shipping; I just ordered one of everything, and now I'm sad for August me's wallet...


As Johnnycat93 said, what you are wanting is the Effortless Lace, which you can find here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not that it matters; we all know that Paizo is super awesome when it comes to equality. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paizo is not eligible to be included in the CEI; for businesses, only those rated by Fortune magazine are reviewed by the HRC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seriously?

We are still doing this?

Really?

Is there no other silly pedantic thing to argue about?

How about a rousing conversation about falling Paladins? Fighters versus Wizards? Goblin babies? Hands?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I love the Pathfinder system, and I love the world of Golarion, and I love the various mysteries and intrigues; but, eventually, I am going to want to have a moment of revelation.

At some point, the mystery of how Dou-Bral became Zon Kuthon will be more frustrating than interesting; the creation of the Eye of Abendego will cease to be of concern, I will stop caring about why Asmodeus was entrusted with the key to Rovagug's prison, and what he plans on doing with it, and I'll give up guessing at the truth about the death of Aroden.

In every case save one, there might someday be a big reveal where we will finally be let in on what is going on; but not where Aroden is involved.

It honestly has meant that while I still dig for clues and tidbits of information about other secrets of Golarion, I pretty much just ignore Aroden.

I believe it was a mistake to state that the truth about Aroden would never be unveiled. It is one thing to tease people with dangled morsels and red herrings; it is quite another to just say, "Move along folks, nothing to see here".

At this point, the only thing that would get me interested in the mystery of Aroden again, would be a promise that the final Adventure Path Paizo ever puts out for Pathfinder will be about his death.

1 to 50 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>