So, I want to bring up a question that I've had a for a long time regarding Combat Maneuvers in Pathfinder, which is why do they provoke Attacks of Opportunity when used? This does little besides counter-act whatever incentive a character has for actually using the combat maneuver, and makes it so that each character needs a half a feat (the various Improved maneuvers chain) to make a single combat maneuver as viable as hitting someone with a sword.
Also, it makes no sense from a fluff perspective as well. Why should hitting someone with a sword not provoke an AOO, but shoulder bashing them, aiming at their weapon instead of them, trying to trip with your leg, throwing sand in their eyes, ramming them, using a free hand to grab a body part or something they have on them somehow does provoke one.
So, why do Combat Maneuvers have an AOO then?
So, I was getting into an argument with my brother over various parts of Pathfinder, when he suddenly said that he loved the random rolling for attributes and thought it was superior to point buy.
His reasoning was that point buy was too boring, leading to game after game of players having similar arrays of ability scores. When I pointed out that doing so would lead to imbalance between the players, he said that it was actually good because it made thing more realistic, and gave the poor guy who roll a max 14 an incentive to become as good as the guy who lucked out with 2+ 16's.
I didn't get much further into that debate, since any of my attempts to argue mechanical imbalance were shot down by his annoying version of the "ROLEplay, not ROLLplay mantra".
So, the purpose of this thread is to posit this question to the boards, which method is superior, point buy or dice rolling, and why do you believe so?
Okay, so I've read Pathfinder Horror Adventure, and one of the sections I was looking forward to was corruptions, due to the idea of a person horrifically changing as they try to cure themselves of it. Could base an entire campaign around it, but when I read the actual rules I was disappointed. Not angry or anything, just disappointed because I think that Paizo missed several opportunities here. I just want to list each and why, and generally have a discussion about if they made the right choices and how these things may be improved.
1st Problem: End of the stage is evil NPC.
The reasons I think that Paizo did this is because they didn't want plyers going fully corrupt just to gain extra abilities at early levels, but I would argue that giving them crippling weaknesses to go with those benefits would have evened it out. You could even fluff it as the character's mind and original nature rejecting the new form. IF anybody knows another reason, please tell me.
2. Stages of Corruption: I think there are way too few of these in it. it's essentially two stages and then *poof*, evil NPC. A lot of times it seems it can go by very fast, whereas I feel corruption should be slower and more gradual to represent a character's changing views and alignment rather than a quick change that feels like it was as fast as eat magic burger, turn evil. I think either more stages or some other way to draw out the process and show the character truly being corrupted. As is, I think it makes it go too fast.
3. Progression: Possessed does it best. The progression of corruption should have been linked to usage of the abilities granted by corruption, not arbitrary events and situations. Why? Because corruption is the player starting to use their abilities to further the fight against darkness, ignoring the origin of the powers in order to have more power to fight evil, until it becomes less and less about the fight and more and more about the power, or whatever the character grows to crave besides power. That is corruption, the slow descent from noble warrior to foul beast. What the actual rules feel like is a transformation, in that the character is being changed against their will. The Vampirisim and Ghoul corruptions don't feel like you becoming evil is any choice of the character, but rather the fact that you need to feed against your own will, or the Accursed, where it is irrational thoughts caused by the curse that make you begin to corrupt. In neither case is it corruption, it's compulsion/mind control. Possessed is corruption, because it's progression is based around using it's abilities because they make things easier, but at the cost of welcoming evil into one's self.
And that's all I'm going to say for now, need to head to bed soon. These are my personal views on how corruption should have been done, and I have no illusions that they are most likely not perfect, so feel free to disagree but please post why. If anybody from the Paizo staff can post why these decisions were made bout corruption, I would really appreciate it.
So, I've been building a 6th level cleric of Milani for a game, and have a few questions for people . First, my group is probably going to be using the Milani boons from the Hell's Rebels Player Guide, and I was thinking about going into Evangelist for my 6th level. Is the boons worth going for Evangelist?
Also, the Beacon of Faith Feat from the Inner Sea's Gods sourcebook. Is a +2 Morale bonus on Channels worth the feat slot, or should I go for something else?
Thanks for any advice.
I was planning on building a Catfolk ninja based around the natural claw attacks, but a lot of similiar threads have stated disadvantages of the build, including the fact that BAB doesn't apply, nor most of the weapon traits. So is a Claw natural variant viable, or shoulf I stick with Wakizashis? Either decision doesn't impact my build design to much, I would just need to free up a feat to get the Claws and a rogue trick to pick up the Vicious Claws trait. If I decide to get the Punce that may require a bit more building around.
Building a Kitsune Ninja Scout, 20 pt buy
Attributes will be (With modifiers)
I'm not a god Min-Maxer, and this my second-ever Pathfinder Character, so any advice would be greatly appreciated.