Outmaneuvered

The opposition to correcting problems is one thing really bothering me about how Paizo is running Pathfinder.

This. A hundred times, this!

Cartigan wrote:

The opposition to correcting problems is one thing really bothering me about how Paizo is running Pathfinder.

This. A hundred times, this!

This. A hundred times, this!

and the fact the are things "fixed" apparently without take a look twice at them. See Cockatrice Strike errata.

I deeply regret anything I said that resulted in what this thread has become.

I deeply regret anything I said that resulted in what this thread has become.

And the lesson here is: You have to think about what you say before you say it. Regretting it afterward doesn't help anyone.

And the lesson here is: You have to think about what you say before you say it. Regretting it afterward doesn't help anyone.

I expressed sadness at a lost opportunity and the thread rapidly devolved to assertions that Paizo is deliberately against remedying anything deemed wrong with their products. How I was supposed to anticipate that huge a derailment... I don't know. But that was the point of my regret... to draw into contrast that what I said and what this has become have no similarity.

See... what I want is for Paizo to have heard that I'm a candidate customer for a product like Combat Maneuvers of Golarion. What (many of) the other posters want is something entirely different, possibly involving blood.

I posed the regret comment to distance myself from that... hostility. Guess the sarcasm was too subtle. I'll try harder next time. <Grin>

I'd like to see a "voting" system setup where the community can identify issues they'd most like to see addressed. Paizo should present a weekly/monthly poll with contentious issues. For each issue, a thread should exist where people can discuss exactly what about the issue that interests/confuses them.

I vote for the Antagonize feat! The silence on this one is driving me crazy.

Since Maneuvers seem like they may be getting more FAQ/Errata love soon,
I thought I`d be thorough in getting some more of the `hanging` issues out here in sight, to be addressed.

First, the action usage of maneuvers / `in place of melee attack` thing:

The only place `in place of melee attack` seems to be defined is in a foot-note to the Actions in Combat table:
¨Some combat maneuvers substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full-attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity. Others are used as a separate action. ¨
Now I can see how it could be reasonable to expect people to understand that `in place of melee attack` means any melee attack roll without any further definition, but it seems like Paizo DOES think it`s something that needs definition, since it WAS included... But at the bottom of a table doesn`t seem the place to define something like that.
In addition, the specific wording is actually structured more like an exhaustive list, rather than using wording like `such as` which more clearly indicates that it`s just a list of common examples, and other attacks apply. PRPG has obviously gone in the direction of more new unique combat actions, i.e. cleave, spell combat, etc, and by the RAW one could understand that those actions can`t `deliver` CMBs, which isn`t in line with RAI as far as I understand.

Also, there are several things specific to Grapple which I brought up in a Grapple-specific thread, some I`ve brought up before, some I just posted now...here.

Spoiler alert. We will grapple with these next week...maybe the week after. We will see lucid we are after PaizoCon is over.

Stephen, it's been two weeks. What's the skinny?

Has this thread been forgotten? Stephen said there would be a bunch of grapple questions answered after Paizocon. Paizocon has come and gone (I was there!) but this thread hasn't gotten any updates.