Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

ShadowcatX's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 4,601 posts. 9 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character.


1 to 50 of 4,601 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Alexander Augunas wrote:

I did a damage analysis between a Holy Gun 19 / Mysterious Stranger 1 and a Paladin 20 with a gun in my blog, Everyman Gaming.

Check out my findings here.

If you really wanted to examine the holy gun archetype you should have compared the archetype either on its own or in the same build, either:

Holy gun 19 / Stranger 1
Paladin 19 / Stranger 1


Holy Gun 20
Paladin 20

Both of those will show that holy gun is even worse than what your comparison showed.

Also, a typical paladin's smite persists from one turn to the other, it doesn't end at the end of turn as you seem to imply when you claim that a paladin will only get one hit from his smite levels 1 - 5. You also didn't charge the paladin the feat cost to become proficient with a gun (or, if the paladin is archer, take the whole touch AC into account.)


Da'ath wrote:

Occam's razor would seem to disagree with this statement. Instead of rewording problem spells, removing those that cannot be repaired, and other simple miscellany which correct for a magical singularity, we should instead expand our focus to rebalance/buff (and thus escalate) every other class, feat, skills, and so on in the game, instead?

I would think repairing the problem instead of everything but the problem (as I've said before, with an even hand and objective perspective) would be the best fix.

First, as has been said, you are misapplying occam's razor. I'm not quite sure why. Is it something new you learned in school and wanted to use in the interwebs to show how smart you are? Either way, cut the condescension.

Second, look at ultimate combat for a minute and tell me, what is the single biggest part of that book. (I'll give you a hint, it is the spells.) And that is for ultimate combat mind you. There is a lot of magic available in this game.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, your definition of "where the problem is" isn't correct. The problem isn't "wizards are too powerful" the problem is "there is too large a gap between the power levels of casters and non-casters". Nerfing casters is a possible solution, but it is not the only possible solution, buffing the non-casters would take care of the actual problem just as well.



First, when you have something you want to say, instead of dragging up a 3 year old topic, start a new thread. Especially if you're only tangentially on topic to the thread you're necroing up.

Second, this thread is in Paizo's products, your re-write of the class should be posted in the homebrew section.


Remember you can only use a given natural attack once per attack.


Claxon wrote:

A single candle on a dark night can be spotted as far as 30 miles away.

The Earth's surface curves out of sight at a distance of 3.1 miles, or 5 kilometers.

If Earth were flat, or if you were standing atop a mountain surveying a larger-than-usual patch of the planet, you could perceive bright lights hundreds of miles distant. On a dark night, you could even see a candle flame flickering up to 30 mi. (48 km) away.

Is Golarion flat?


And it gets bigger here.


I thought this thread was going to be about the singer Luke Bryant and cds played backwards. . .


Some things are just more mechanically optimal than others.

However, if you compare what the feats do without the spending of a mythic power, then you'll see that furious focus does do something.


Globetrotter wrote:

Another downside is people don't thing about what if the GM used this against the players.

Everyone would either call foul or the battle would get boring.

You get hit again... Can I find him to fight back?
Nope. He cannot be detected. You're going to get hit again until you die.

Or you teleport away. Or you use AOE. Or you happen to get enough lucky blows to kill him.


richard develyn wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:

A desire to publish other people's works as one's own (as this question indicates) is quite distasteful and would certainly cause me not to purchase your products if I discovered that was what you were doing. Beyond that, I already own ghostwalk, why would I pay for content that I already own.

Instead of trying to figure out what you can get by with legally, create something new and you won't have any worries or any need of lawyers and you won't risk alienating your cliental.

My question does not in any way indicate a desire to publish other people's work as my own. Honestly, I've just been through this. The only thing that asking a question indicates is a desire to get to an answer.

Actually, it does, if you do more than just scratch the surface. People very rarely do things without a reason behind it. I could give you dozens of examples, but we both know there's a reason for asking the question you did.

Also, you seem awfully defensive. I said I wouldn't publish your works if that is what you were doing, I never claimed it was what you are doing. So why are you so defensive if your intentions are so honorable?

Finally, if you feel that my post, either the previous one or this one is an attack, please, feel free to use the report feature. If the powers that be believe it to be an attack, such as an ad-hominen I've no doubt that they'll take care of it.


If the powers granting you the power didn't want you to use it they wouldn't grant it to you.


Ask your DM.


A desire to publish other people's works as one's own (as this question indicates) is quite distasteful and would certainly cause me not to purchase your products if I discovered that was what you were doing. Beyond that, I already own ghostwalk, why would I pay for content that I already own.

Instead of trying to figure out what you can get by with legally, create something new and you won't have any worries or any need of lawyers and you won't risk alienating your cliental.


Yes, it has always been like that.

Editted for clarification.




While it has been mentioned, words of power is a significant nerf to spellcasters.

Also, banning 3rd party spells isn't doing anyone any good, the most broken spells are from Paizo. In fact one of the best fixes would probably involve throwing out the weaker Pizo classes and replacing them with more powerful 3rd party versions and the melee feats with scaling feats.


By RAW probably not. However, I seriously doubt it would hurt anything if someone had a cool concept.


Nope, the penalty is exactly what it says it is, and yes, it is kind of harsh. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it needs clarification.

You can still make use of the 2nd level spell slots, either with metamagic or just using higher slots for lower spells.


Elosandi wrote:

Use the specialist casters from 3.5 (warmage, beguiler, dread necromancer)

Use the martial adepts from DSP's path of war. (Warlord, Stalker, Warder)
Remove basic 9th level casters plus the summoner.

Magi, bards and inquisitors are now the generalist mages, and have an appropriately slowed rate of progression.

Mages who insist on the fast track to high level spells use a specialist class

Martial classes have options beyond hitting things.

Personally, I really like this option. I wish there were a couple more specialist type casters available, but c'est la vie.

Another option is to play E8 (or E6).


I'd highly recommend Thunderscape.


Ok, one of the reasons no one is commenting is because you specifically state you don't care about optimization. As such, we have no basis on which to suggest either archetype. Also, neither one is particularly strong.


Summoner might be worth a consideration as well.


andreww wrote:
Titania, the Summer Queen wrote:

already stated earlier

Improved eldritch Heritage

Blowing three feats and spending a load of point on charisma is a pretty bad deal for a druid. They don't get all that many feats as is and I couldn't see me paying that high a price for a couple of arcane spells.

Is it a high price? Sure. Contingency auto-wins encounters. It should be a high price.


RAW can swing both ways. So we have to look into what else has been said on the topic. My memory (confirmed by the person who quoted JJ) is:

This is not 3.5, bonuses are not added in the most favorable order any longer, rather they are now added in the least favorable order. Ergo, the robe invalidates the feat and the animal companion is stuck at 11.

I normally wouldn't use JJ as a rules person, but I believe this has been confirmed by other people as well, though i don't have any proof of that.


Personally, my favorite builds involve some form of spell casting (or psionics, though not often divine casting). The only class I've ever actually played without some form of spell casting is the Taskshaper from Rite Publishing, such a good and versatile class. So, for me, it is all about having versatility and tricks, backed up with enough power to pull them off.

That said, I don't go for extreme power builds (like armies of simulacra or the half-elf oracle that spontaneously knows all spells on the sorcerer/wizard list and the cleric list).


There isn't actually a best build (or even group of best builds). There are optimal builds, but I wouldn't necessarily call those best, and even those are often debated (heavily). If you really want this thread to do well, you'd first have to define what you mean by best builds.


Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
If you think a universal campaign setting that other people can publish content for is such a money maker for the campaign creator, why don't you create it? Then everyone wins.

2 things:

1) I didn't say a "universal campaign setting." I said a small, unused portion of an existing campaign setting that will (most likely) never be developed. Thank you for blowing my words out of proportion.

It amounts to the same thing, you're wanting a campaign setting where other people can publish material for it. Defensive much?

2) I am. Foreven Worlds: Fessor Subsector was the first of many releases that I am doing in such a case. The Foreven license says that anyone using the license can refer to someone else's material in an OGL-like fashion. It goes further then that. Another company could all but copy and paste my text and (as long as it was referenced properly) publish everything I wrote. So I am doing exactly that. I am putting my money where my mouth is.

Now this is what I like to see. I wish the project well. :)


Ignitorius wrote:

We're discussing a druid20 casting antilife shell , which has Area "10-ft.-radius emanation, centered on you" totally negating an AT LEAST Large monk10/druid10 with Reach at least 10 exactly in what manner ?

That's provided he doesn't for some odd reason choose to go elemental out of pure frustration.

You do realize this is ground for endless debate and DM fiat, but antilife shell isn't an end all, be all spell?

Taking flight and blasting away, or something like that, is still pretty valid for the druid20.

You bring into being a mobile, hemispherical energy field that prevents the entrance of most types of living creatures.

If you have reach, you still have to reach into the energy field, which prevents the entrance of living things. Would you argue that someone surrounded by a hemisphere of stone could be hit by reach?

Edit: And I see the point was already made.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Contestants enter the arena:

Round 1:

Monk / Druid does all the showing off of his muscles, shapeshifts into something big and frightening, shows the crowd his teeth and hams it up.

Druid 20 casts anti-life shell.

Round 2:

Monk/Druid is utterly unable to do anything.

Druid 20 takes a nap.

Round 198:

Monk/Druid is crying in a corner, still unable to do anything.

Druid 20 wakes up, nice and refreshed.

Round 199:

Monk/Druid notices Druid 20 has awakened and tries to get his crying under control.

Druid 20 stretches and yawns big.

Round 200:

Druid 20 refreshes anti-life shell.

Monk/Druid loses it. Nice people with white shirts have to come and put him in a safe room.

Druid 20 wins by default. . .


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you think a universal campaign setting that other people can publish content for is such a money maker for the campaign creator, why don't you create it? Then everyone wins.


So what y'all are saying is that the damage output of mythic characters is like something out of a myth?

Working as intended, nothing to see here.


IMO: The problem is "use the worst value in all other categories". Medium is worse than light, so it feels like the assemblage should be treated as medium armor.


Chernobyl wrote:

Benefit: When you use Power Attack, you gain a +3

bonus on melee damage rolls instead of +2. When your
base attack bonus reaches +4 and every 4 points thereafter,
the amount of bonus damage increases by +3 instead of +2.
In addition, the bonus damage from this feat is doubled
on a critical hit, before it’s multiplied by the
weapon’s critical multiplier.

the way I'm reading this, its the bonus from mythic power attack, not power attack, that is doubled...
Mythic PA is 1 higher than regular PA, so on a crit it becomes 2 higher
as an example---

to hit penalty:-3
PA +6 (one hand) +3 (off-hand) +9 (two-handed)
MPA +9 (one hand) +4 (off-hand) +13 (two-handed)
MPA crit +12 (one hand) +6 (off-hand) +18 (two-handed)

The way you're reading it is wrong. The entire amount of bonus damage comes from the feat, no algebra gymnastics necessary.


Why do you need to the rogue class? Why not just take a couple traits to give you say stealth and bluff (or whatever) as class skills, and let your high intelligence carry you through the rouge part?


Just play the character you want to play. Don't want to dump charisma? Don't dump it. It really is that simple.


If an archetype ever modifies the same class feature as another archetype you cannot take the two together. Even if they only overlap at the level 20 ability and you'll never get there, you cannot do it.

Neither archer nor weapon master will stack with another archetype.


I have not had a lot of experience with mythic so this is just my theory crafting:

For CR a typical Level 20 PC will be CR 20. A mythic 10, level 20 PC with npc wealth by level would be CR 24. Drop maybe 1 more point of CR for going from NPC wealth to no wealth, and he's still 3 CR above the norm, so in theory mythic is still more powerful. (And the general consensus is that each mythic tier is worth more than .5 levels.)

However, you need to realize how crippling no gear is to the majority of classes. Wizards can't have spell books or spell component pouches, and most classes miss out on getting weapons and armor, and without weapons they have to be concerned about their ability to penetrate all but the weakest DR.

I would expect monks (with druid friends), druids, and sorcerers to come out of the trade ok and most everyone else to lose out significantly. Of course this is very generally speaking, a punching build fighter might do alright, and a zen archer monk is going to come out of the trade wondering what it did to deserve this poverty stuff, but you get the idea.


Changing Man wrote:
Blackerose wrote:
Every author/artist is more important to me than a fictional book. You can't forget behind the "business" is a human writing because they enjoy the material, and enjoy making people happy.

This. So very much this.

But then, these realizations don't mesh so well with current entitlement and instant gratification culture...

When did expecting people to fulfill their promises become something to be looked down upon?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Blackerose wrote:
...So a Kickstarter I backed had an issue. The head writer got sever pneumonia, ended up in a drug induced coma in the hospital for the better part of a month, and then had to go to rehab to get his strength back. When he was able he did send a message explaining the delay.

You know, I can't help but notice everyone in this thread goes to the absolute worst case scenario for a kickstarter, but the very vast majority of the time a kickstarter falls behind it is not because of a worst case scenario, it is because they simply failed to properly plan ahead of time.

By your logic, he should have somehow added a few months to his delivery time "just in case"?

He should have added some time to his schedule, yes and the amount of time would be a percentage of the over all time of the project and also based on his general health. It probably wouldn't account for something that severe, but then getting something that severe is extremely small risk for the average person.

And I should, by rights be screaming for his head, because its "his issue" that he could have died? Instead I just shrug my shoulders, wish him a good recovery..and wait like a grown up.

Where have I ever said anyone should scream for anyone's head. Please, show me the post where I have said that. And if you can't, well then we can tell who the actual mature one is, it is the person who isn't doing strawman arguments.

If a writer has a child..or a spouse fall ill..maybe in addition to that, they have to work extra at their "real life" job to cover medical bills..the answer should be "well you should have thought about that before you started on a project"?

I can't help but think kickstarter must be awfully dangerous to a person's health. 75% of all kickstarter projects aren't delivered on time. If every one of those is because of a serious illness or death, that's so far beyond statistically probable I just don't know why people use it.

If I was working on a project, and a family member died..finishing the project would take the back burner for as long as I needed to deal with what needed to get done.

Do you have an actual job? One where you're paid to show up and do something? If so, why don't you try this argument on your employer, see what they say and get back with me.

If people decided that was not good enough..than I really don't need that money anyway,

Now there's something we can agree with. If a company can't fulfill its obligation it can return the money and no harm, no foul.


vs someone that gives a damn about the person WRITING the material. Every author/artist is more important to me than a fictional book. You can't forget behind the "business" is a human writing because they enjoy the material, and enjoy making people happy.

Tell me, do you feel the same way when someone at McDonalds asks you to pull forward and wait on an order then serves the person after you? Do you feel the same way when a hostess tells you there's a wait for a table but you can see a table clearly empty? Do you feel the same way when you drop your computer off at an IT shop and you're told it'll be a couple of days and a week later they still haven't fixed it?

If the answers to the above 3 questions are all honestly yes, then I'm impressed, give yourself a cookie.

However, expecting to get what you paid for, by the delivery date of a contract, is not cruel, evil, and lacking empathy, it is simply good business.


Garrett Guillotte wrote:
Marc Radle wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

I was a backer of Josh Frost and his Quantium fiasco where he used my money to fund 2 years of his living and then vanished.

While I understand the concept of business courtesy and that Lisa is a classy person, I half wish I knew why exactly JF left Paizo - that could have saved me 100$ which I could give to somebody who acts ethically

I had not heard of this before ... what happened? Maybe put it in a spoiler tag for those that aren't interested ...
** spoiler omitted **

You can read more about it on the project's kickstarter page here. All the comments and the updates are available to read.

davrion wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
So maybe I should add that to my list of suggestions for all kickstarters
You know, that wouldn't be a bad subject for its own separate thread as a guide for those thinking about running a future KS project. There's definitely a useful list of Do's and Don'ts to be made.

You're right. And by branching to a new thread it won't seem like I'm down on FMG (which I'm not). Good idea.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Blackerose wrote:
All I can say is that it must be nice to be able to know in advance when you will be ill, so you can work it into your schedule.
You don't. You just add a number of sickdays on to the estimated delivery time, and if you don't get sick you deliver early.

Thank you. This is basic project management. So maybe I should add that to my list of suggestions for all kickstarters; study up on project management.


First, giving the SNA extra feats defeats the purpose of this test.

Second, Chengar is correct for the most part. On his point #3 however, it is worth noting that the templates do not give the creatures a language any longer so you're still having difficulties communicating with them.

There's also another point, the summon monster list has been significantly expanded over time and some of those additions are just over powered for their level (like having a hell hound (CR3) on the SM II list). (This is, of course, assuming those additions are allowed.)


Zhayne wrote:
In my experience, a character with a notable weakness or low stat tends to be more memorable than Joe Average.

I couldn't agree more. What would Raistlin or Elric have been without their low constitutions?


Basically, this feat is poorly worded and it is up to each DM if he wishes to allow a PC access to it. RAW can go either way.


Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:
So figuring out a way to accomplish something within the rules is power gaming, but just saying screw the rules and making stuff up that accomplishes the exact same thing with less cost, is perfectly acceptable?

Creating feats would not be in the rules if it wasn't acceptable. However there has been printed Rules For creation of feat thus making it perfectly acceptable to create a feat.

Honestly your argument is invalid. Since it is completely ok to create a feat. If people didn't create feats we wouldn't have many other books besides core rule book.

It is perfectly acceptable to make feats, I don't disagree with that. I just disagree with you disparaging the rules appropriate way of doing it, and then suggesting a homebrew solution.

However, I will ask, what is the point of actually having requirements on feats if you just allow players to bypass them willy nilly by making other feats that do the same thing with different requirements?


Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:

If it is a Home Brew Campaign or a Non-sanctioned event then I recommend sitting down with the DM and proposing Creating a feat.

In the Creation of Feats it tells you to use a Feat that is already in existence as the Foundation for the feat.

Here is the Pitch:

The book has Arcane want to Make a Divine Strike that does the exact same thing but replaces the word Arcane with the Word Divine....Tada a new feat is born...without having to Power game the hell out of your character to just qualify for 1 feat.

Most good Homebrew GMs work with the player to make them happy as long as it wouldn't be game breaking....And I honestly do see a Divine Strike as a Broken Feat.

So figuring out a way to accomplish something within the rules is power gaming, but just saying screw the rules and making stuff up that accomplishes the exact same thing with less cost, is perfectly acceptable?



1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

I think it's much easier to lose a familiar than an arcane bond. If you take a ring for example, that's not a target for Disarm, hard to Steal, and if you take an Adamantium one, also hard to Sunder. It has the added benefit of letting you enchant a ring slot without a feat.

Meanwhile, as soon as your familiar starts casting spells, it becomes a target, and most familiars are still quite fragile. They have AC in the 15-25 range and half your hit points; one or two hits from a level-appropriate monster kills it.

Ok, let's pause for a moment. Most improved familiars can fly, many have some defensive spell like abilities, like invisibility or the like, and will benefit from the wizard's defensive buffs, keeping the familiar safe from most enemies isn't difficult at all. Beyond that, have you seen the difference between what happens if a familiar is killed vs. what happens if a bonded object is destroyed (or even just disarmed). That matters.

If a monster wanted to improve its action economy relative to the party, a nice opening move might be to kill all the really squishy party members that contribute to the PCs' action economy: the familiars. Isn't that what players would do to an NPC as well?

Yes and no. Tell me, what would you target if you were a swordsman, the little fluffy looking thing flying 20 feet off the ground by the guy at the very back of the group or the guy who just turned into a giant dragon at the front of the group, just a couple feet away from you?

Don't get me wrong, I like familiars more than arcane bonds. But I prefer familiars as advisors and scouts, rather than as combatants.

Something tells me you don't play a god style wizard.

Can we apply an action economy argument to the bonded object? Yes! The spontaneous spell it lets you cast is basically one free scroll every day, of exactly the right spell, at your full caster level. You basically "earn" 12.5*((level+1)/2)*level gp per day (the cost of a self-crafted scroll). And the action economy is better than a scroll, because you don't have to spend an action retrieving the "scroll".

Ok. First off, "saving" gold isn't action economy. Secondly, this isn't a fair comparison, it only ever comes up if the wizard absolutely has to have a spell he didn't otherwise prepare or is absolutely out of spell slots (more likely, but still not a position the wizard should get into).

Compare this to the level*200gp you pay every time your familiar gets killed because it made itself a valuable target in combat.

Instead of comparing the best case bonded object with the worst case familiar, let's compare the worst case for both.

Familiar dies, you are down a couple hundred gp per level, arcane bond is destroyed and you're a commoner with a few extra skills. I know which I'd pick.

My conclusion: Improved Familiar is good, but not so infinitely good that we don't need to seriously consider the alternative as well. And the Improved Arcane Bond, worth about 6 feats, is a strong argument to skip the familiar.

And I've already shown how your 6 feat theory is entirely wrong. You need to re-read that as I won't go back into that here.

Would every wizard that took arcane bond pick this feat up? Probably. It still isn't enough to make a significant number of wizards take arcane bonds over familiars, IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

First, be more careful with your quotes, don't act imply I said things I did not say.

RJGrady wrote:
One difference between being a publisher and a regular job is that publishers don't get sick leave.

Second, sure they do, they just have to schedule them into the project. Part of being an intelligent project head is being able to plan for things. You know that at some point, you will get ill, plan for it.

People do have multiple obligations and it's just not reasonable, logical, or fair to suggest a project can't have setbacks.

Of course a project can have setbacks, an intelligent project head will plan for them ahead of time, but even I'll admit that's not always perfect. However, running a year late on a project that was supposed to take 6 months isn't a setback, it is an out right failure, it is incompetence and it is probably legally actionable.

Kickstarters are not personal commissions. The project founder has a legal and ethical obligation to deliver, but the backers also have a legal and ethical obligation to be supportive and patient.

No they do not. They have a legal and ethical obligation to wait until the project completion date to receive their product, but pretty much nothing beyond that. The project head (that is the publisher) is the one who wrote the contract, he is the one upon whose shoulders fulfilling the contract rests upon, after all the backers have already fulfilled their legal obligation.

Again, I'll ask, how reasonable do you think the publishers would be if people took their projects and then didn't pay for a year or more. Do you think the publishers would continue to give that person (or group of people) products without demanding payment up front?

That is, in fact, the pledge they made when they backed the project: to support the success of the project.

They pledged financial support, which they fulfilled the moment the kickstarter ended.

I've had two good-sized projects make. One (Conquest of the Universe) is basically on schedule. The other (Do Not Approach) is far behind. It's not because I'm differently committed. It just has to do with what each project has required, and the resources I've had to put toward them.

And here you sit, making excuses and preaching at people you don't know on the internet. Such a good use of your time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

Remember, folks:

"RAW" stands for "rules as written".

Writing, by definition, involves the use of a language.

Language (or at least, the English one) involves grouping words together to form a meaning that's different than the sum of the individual words (i.e., language is different than a bulleted list).

If your idea requires ignoring how written language works, then your idea is NOT "rules as written", or "RAW".

Thank you Jiggy, you are much kinder and more patient than I.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is really, REALLY a stretch to even claim this is worth asking. No, it doesn't work like that, no the wording doesn't hint, or indicate or anything else that this is how it works.

1 to 50 of 4,601 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.