Corruptions and players.


Advice

1 to 50 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

So I've been reading through the corruptions and i'm curious if they're even viable for a PC to use without a GM using the Useful Corruption rules.

I've been looking over each of these and the Gift/Stain system seems interesting risk reward sort of system of giving you benefits with slowly increasing penalties. I realize these are supposed to be bad, but i'm curious how viable it would even be to play a character over several levels to obtain more manifestations?

The will save is already a bit high at a minimum of 16, meaning you'll need a decent wisdom score. So if you started at level 1 (like the book tries to suggest) and you're a cleric you might have a +6 will save, putting you at a 50/50 chance of making the saves to avoid progression. As many of these are compulsions to occur once a week or so is this even remotely sustainable? The Corruption stages seem to have no reversal system so its basically a 3 strike will save system. This was the optimistic will save as well, if the fighter gets it and assuming he just has a +0 wisdom bonus he could have a +0 will save. So now its a 25% or lower chance to make the save.

I understand there should be this ever-looming issue, but it seems like its really easy to succumb to the corruption and lose your character if you're not playing a high-wis + good will save class. But i would assume the Stains would continue to grant more and more penalties as you progress. My main concern from this is if your party is in a campaign with any travel/downtime. You could be on a boat and fall to your corruption while traveling from point A to point B. (Lich being the odd one out because its a fort save, and you can end up either constantly making saves or never making saves but many of the manifestations are working against you as you keep accruing con penalties while the DC keeps raising.)

I was curious what people's thoughts on the system were and if there's a way to work these into a character for a campaign at all.


You're pretty much right on the nose. Corruptions are punishments, which is an absolute shame. I wouldn't bother with them unless you're houseruling/homebrewing them heavily.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, it's a real darn shame that a mechanic introduced in Horror Adventures would be horrific.

The Corruptions are presented for the GM to modify as needed, so unlike most rules we bicker about here, there's not much point at all in obsessing over RAW. Use the Useful Corruption rules. Make it a Fortitude save when the fighter gets it (perhaps even allow them to pick which save they'd rather use). Be as harsh or generous as you want to be.

That said, some of these, like the Accursed corruption, aren't that hard to avoid progressing in—just treat people well and you might never have to roll. It comes down to roleplaying, not just the Will saves.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They're very thematic to have if the player in question wants to play slowly fighting/slipping into a monster.

Outside of that only the Lycanthropic one has a spelt out cure, the others would be by GM design, which is the intention, and would probably take multiple quests or a whole campaign.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Gee KC, I don't understand your reluctance to our turning a whole new genre into just another weapon in our arsenals. My goodness, you are acting like the genre is about people dealing with situations that are way out of their depths. Shouldn't summoning horrific and inscrutable beings be an asset? Corruptions endangering our immortal souls? What makes you think that the would be anything more than another item in our toolbox?

OK, I can't keep up this silliness any longer.

I doubt that very many people are interested in the horror themes, but I suspect a great many are disappointed that HA is not a free path to Lichdom/Vampirism/whatever uber-madness their little hearts lust for.

I would really like to think that I am wrong, and have totally misread too many posts.


Rysky wrote:
They're very thematic to have if the player in question wants to play slowly fighting/slipping into a monster.

I agree, with the thematic ideal and the idea that you could lose yourself to it. I think it could've benefited from either a longer time between saves or making it possible to maybe pull yourself out of the stages? Like a nat 20 or some sort of hard effort to pull yourself back would help quite a bit.

Daw wrote:
I doubt that very many people are interested in the horror themes, but I suspect a great many are disappointed that HA is not a free path to Lichdom/Vampirism/whatever uber-madness their little hearts lust for.

I'll admit i was one of those scrubs to a degree. But less for the power and more for the thematicness of vampirism/lichdom without the weak alternatives like Dhampirs and such (because spending a feat to get 5 temp HP from one creature subtype that I hope will be in enough abundance to even make remote use of this is so great). I was hoping more of a way to allow characters to obtain this rather than needing to apply templates that break the balance, but instead allow you to get some of the abilities while having to deal with all of the nasty drawbacks.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

The Corruptions are presented for the GM to modify as needed......

...That said, some of these, like the Accursed corruption, aren't that hard to avoid progressing....

While I somewhat agree, many of the people in my group are a bit leery of doing custom rules.

While i get your idea as well that some are hard to progress, things like Hellbound are incredibly easy to progress, especially with things like "Devil's Horns" which if your ever have an agreement presented to you you're in a no-win scenario where you have to accept and exploit the loophole, forcing your progression without any save.

That said at higher levels this would be an easier thing to deal with, cloaks, stat bonus items, and Iron will, so maybe this is just something that requires higher levels to deal with.


Ranmy,

Being interested in the corruptions is not a bad thing, it can make for an interesting character. It is there for a reason. Believing that the downsides are stupid and should have never been put in (and this has been posted) is munchkin. Concern over how fast it takes you over is a matter of taste. Believing that you should be able to avoid any downsides, is not a matter of taste. I don't see you falling into the Munchkin camp from what you have posted.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:

Ranmy,

Being interested in the corruptions is not a bad thing, it can make for an interesting character. It is there for a reason. Believing that the downsides are stupid and should have never been put in (and this has been posted) is munchkin. Concern over how fast it takes you over is a matter of taste. Believing that you should be able to avoid any downsides, is not a matter of taste. I don't see you falling into the Munchkin camp from what you have posted.

The problem isn't that there ARE downsides, the problem is the downsides FAR outweigh any potential strengths the corruptions may have even had. The result is a punishment system.

The Benefits/Stains are simply not even close to equal, and that's not even including the whole three strikes and you hand your DM your character sheet and go back to browsing tumblr for the rest of the session clause.


I'll definitely be tweaking the time between saves, I think they picked small amounts of time since leveling up is normally ridiculously quick in PF so it'd have to be quick or you only ever roll once.

Maybe they should've made the interval scale depending on what XP track your on? But, whatever, it's meant to be tweaked and fiddled with and warped.


Why should they be equal? More importantly, at what point would you consider them equal.

Do you feel that being evil, or falling into evil should give you an advantage?

I suspect any decent GM will decide where the lines get drawn or whether he wants them in the game at all.

Do you believe that a spiritual corruption should ever be a good thing?

Drawing the line harshly is thoroughly appropriate for the Horror Genre. It also does not provide ammo for the amoral toolset crowd.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Heretek wrote:
Daw wrote:

Ranmy,

Being interested in the corruptions is not a bad thing, it can make for an interesting character. It is there for a reason. Believing that the downsides are stupid and should have never been put in (and this has been posted) is munchkin. Concern over how fast it takes you over is a matter of taste. Believing that you should be able to avoid any downsides, is not a matter of taste. I don't see you falling into the Munchkin camp from what you have posted.

The problem isn't that there ARE downsides, the problem is the downsides FAR outweigh any potential strengths the corruptions may have even had. The result is a punishment system.

The Benefits/Stains are simply not even close to equal, and that's not even including the whole three strikes and you hand your DM your character sheet and go back to browsing tumblr for the rest of the session clause.

Honestly the penalties should outweigh the benefits. If we gave up feats/class features to use these there would be argument. But right now you can slap this stuff on top of anything.

I think the stain system is nice and is fine, the Lich one is a little nasty, but considering that if you're lucky the only time you need to save is when you level up and get new spells its not the worst thing ever.

My only problem were the corruption levels and how its possible to lose a character to it extremely fast to it, considering the system seems to be intended to want to give you greater benefits with growing burden as you level it makes sense to have some sort of finality.

I was partially wrong on the "no way to reverse stages" option as there's a 6th level spell calls "Alleviate corruption" allowing you to reverse 1 stage of corruption, and even remove a level of manifestation should the save be too difficult to keep up with. 6th level is a bit late to be able to handle it, but it is an option. The downside being you have to make a CL check and if you fail too hard you gain their corruption and get a manifestation level. And you can't self-cast it. So its not a perfect solution.

Stave off corruption is a 2nd level cleric/paladin spell that can grant a +2 on the saves, so its helpful as well in case you know their save is coming up soon.

That said the best prepared to combat the corruptions are paladins and clerics, which is funny considering a paladin is more likely to just off your character then let you try to keep hold of a corruption for power. Though a neutral cleric, or oracle would at least be cool with it.


The Werewolf, Ghoul, and Lich seems easiest to stave off if put in effort.


Ranmy,

Well said, well thought out. Kudos.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ranmyaku262 wrote:
Honestly the penalties should outweigh the benefits. If we gave up feats/class features to use these there would be argument. But right now you can slap this stuff on top of anything.

No, they really shouldn't. If these were replacing feats or class features then there shouldn't even be a penalty.

If you want to use corruptions purely as a form of punishment for your PCs then go for it, that's what they are there for as written. But others do enjoy the concept of great power at great cost. This isn't. This is "kind of ok power I guess? maybe? at great cost"

My recommendation is outright skip the corruption, and just throw on the corruption templates to your PC, using the rebuild rules. It makes a hell of a lot more sense, and is at least more balanced than the standard templates like Vampire.


Why wouldn't you just throw the existing templates onto the character?
Are you getting a better deal here?

The rules as written support the Horror Genre. If you just don't like the Horror Genre, we really have no basis for viable discourse.

Have you looked at World of Darkness?


Daw wrote:

Why wouldn't you just throw the existing templates onto the character?

Are you getting a better deal here?

The rules as written support the Horror Genre. If you just don't like the Horror Genre, we really have no basis for viable discourse.

The existing templates come at hefty CR+2 prices. These are highly problematic for a DM attempting to maintain balance within a campaign. The difference between the Vampire template, and the Vampiric Creature template are quite significant, and the Vampiric one is much less worrisome for a DM while carrying none of the problems of the actual corruption rules.

Your claim the rules are written for the "horror genre" mean exactly what I've been saying all along: They are punishment. They are not a player choice unless you just like being a masochist.

That isn't what the corruptions have been described as though. They have been marketed as "great power at great cost" when they are anything but.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:

Gee KC, I don't understand your reluctance to our turning a whole new genre into just another weapon in our arsenals. My goodness, you are acting like the genre is about people dealing with situations that are way out of their depths. Shouldn't summoning horrific and inscrutable beings be an asset? Corruptions endangering our immortal souls? What makes you think that the would be anything more than another item in our toolbox?

OK, I can't keep up this silliness any longer.

I doubt that very many people are interested in the horror themes, but I suspect a great many are disappointed that HA is not a free path to Lichdom/Vampirism/whatever uber-madness their little hearts lust for.

I would really like to think that I am wrong, and have totally misread too many posts.

You're wrong, and I strongly doubt you even read the initial post (much less MISread it) since the complain given is the short duration between saves needed.

No mention of gaining power, just an expressed concern that hey, maybe the saves are A.) Too high and B.) Too frequent for most characters with them to last more than a couple of weeks with them.

Making it more like a slow (or quick, as the case may be), inevitable "death" than any of the common uses of the trope.

Good on ya for turning it into an argument about something completely different though. Talk about your corruption.


Yeah, 3 stages seems too soon.
Yes, the Lycan one is 1/month normally, but still 5 stages seems better for both the play on
a. resisting the corruption while being a hero (or anti-hero): using evil for good before turning into what you hate, doesn't work as well in 3 stages unless you are succeeding a lot at your saves.
or
b. telling their falling and cursed story: again seems too quick to get my catharsis out of it.

But I guess, the narrative assumes you pass the majority of your saves?


Quote:
But I guess, the narrative assumes you pass the majority of your saves?

It would do a lot to improve longevity to lower the save to 10+manifester level.


Milo v3 wrote:
Quote:
But I guess, the narrative assumes you pass the majority of your saves?
It would do a lot to improve longevity to lower the save to 10+manifester level.

I think the main concern there would be that it would be incredibly easy to auto-win most saves (as long as you don't nat 1 of course). The system would need to be much more dynamic to the specific character's strengths/weaknesses.

I decided to just do a little basic look at chances to progress.

Corruption stages and chances:

Lets look at the two extremes, the fighter who has no will, and the cleric who has will to spare.

First corruption can be from 16 to 24 DC (maxing out at 9 manifestations).

First for the cleric:
Wisdom: 18 starting, 22 ending (from leveling bonuses)
Class bonus: +2 to +12
Magic items:+0 starting to +6 from headband of wisdom.
Resistance bonus(cloak): +0 starting to +5 end.

So the cleric can have a will save starting at 6 making their average save around 16, meaning about 50% of the time they'll make that save.

But by the end we could have a +26 (29 if they max out on inherent bonus). So by default gear progression the cleric has to crit fail giving a 95% success chance. If the cleric gets Iron will they could easily sit at 31 will and possibly outpace the DC for their corruptions even sooner.

Now lets compare the fighter:
Wisdom: 10 starting, 10 ending, he decided to just go full dump stat on it.
Class bonus: +0 to +6
Magic items: maybe the fighter gets the headband down the line so we'll say +0 to +6
Resistance bonus cloak: +0 to +5

So the fighter at first level has a 0 will save. Meaning they'll need to roll a 16 to make it putting their success chance at about 20%ish.
By the end their save would be +14, so now they only need to roll a 12, upping them to a 40% success rate. If they got iron will we can aim for a 50% success rate.

Now lets assume this fighter was made for corruptions and rather than he just got it and tried to run with it.
So lets add a +1 will trait.
And lets say using standard point-buy he got a 14 wisdom.

So his starting will save is 3, meaning he has to roll a 13 to make it. raising his chances to 35% from the 20%.
Now lets assume the person put 2 leveling points into wisdom.
So by the end he'll have a 18 will, 20 with iron will.

So their chances are about 70% success to 80% success. Which isn't perfect but its definitely more comfortable than before.

So taking all this data and using the suggested 10 base + manifestation level has it from 11 to 19 DC.

The cleric would start on a 90% success, and almost immedately cap out on success. (Actually with the +will trait they could have only nat 1s to worry about right away).
The fighter would start at 50% or higher if the focus will saves.

So basically.

With the current 15+Manifestation Class High Wis + good will classes already can quickly begin to outpace the DCs gaining maximum success chance, while low wis+ bad will basically have to catch up to their starting point.

If you lowered the DC by 5 as you suggest, clerics could almost immediately not care about the saves, and fighters would sit where clerics would currently sit at.

We would still want the saves to pose a danger, so maybe a more inclusive option is to base it on the higher of Will or Fort, or maybe lower the save, but base it on the lower of Will or Fort.

I think either would allow corruptions to still be a danger, but it would allow classes not in will saves to have a higher chance of success without handing immediate success to cleric/oracles/ect..


Lycan Corruption advances on a monthly (lunar) timetable?
How did I miss that? I love it.

Aren't there methods, spells, etc that also help slow and even push back the corruptions?

I suppose the trick, like everything else, is to find the sweet spot between inevitable and trivial. Where that spot is, exactly, is probably also a personal preference.


Daw wrote:

Lycan Corruption advances on a monthly (lunar) timetable?

How did I miss that? I love it.

Aren't there methods, spells, etc that also help slow and even push back the corruptions?

I suppose the trick, like everything else, is to find the sweet spot between inevitable and trivial. Where that spot is, exactly, is probably also a personal preference.

From what i saw in the book all i could find was a 2nd level cleric/paladin spell that gave +2 on the saves for 2days/level.

And then a 6th level that included witch, shaman, psycic, spiritualist, and cleric. The 6th level could either push back 1 corruption stage, or remove 1 manifestation (and by extension a manifestation level).
It requires a CL check with a DC of 10 + 2x their manifestation level + 3x their current corruption stage. So a CL check from 12 to 34. If you roll at nat 1 or fail by 5 or more you catch their corruption and gain a manifestation level (if you already have their corruption you have to save to prevent progression).
The final bit is you can't self-cast it.

So from what i can see thats the only way to turn back corruption stages which comes with a decent amount of risk for the caster.

So that option doesn't present itself until 11th/12th level. (its also 500 gp per HD of the person you're casting it on)

That said I do agree. Maybe the saves are intentionally hard for low-wis low-will classes, as they wanted to keep with the theme that a Inquisitor, cleric,monk, ect.. has more ability resist their corruption than a rogue or a fighter who require less mental discipline.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Daw wrote:


I doubt that very many people are interested in the horror themes, but I suspect a great many are disappointed that HA is not a free path to Lichdom/Vampirism/whatever uber-madness their little hearts lust for.

Yeah because clearly someone finding a mechanic overly punitive or heavy handed means they're just some evil munchkin looking for free power.

Some people were expecting interesting options with benefits and drawbacks that made them enticing for both the player and gm, corruptions do a bad job of being interesting by just feeling punitive for everyone involved.

I mean, the whole idea seemed to be that corruption was tempting. That you give up part of yourself for more power and flirt with the edge of madness. Instead it's just fail two saves and retire your character. I find that boring as a player because it means I have no reason to show any interest in them and I find that boring as a GM because there's no back and forth, it's just a slightly more elaborate save or die.

Some people were also expecting mechanics that could express a slow descent into darkness or a hero struggling to resist the evil within too, and corruptions do a bad job of that as well, the tracks are too short and many of them are ridiculously easy to fall into completely in very little time.

Quote:
I would really like to think that I am wrong, and have totally misread too many posts.

How can you when it feels like you're so blatantly trying to set up strawmen to fight?

Silver Crusade

Just an aside, some Corruptions are Will, others are Fortitude.


I think the corruptions are a great idea to try and give players the flavor of playing a vampire/werewolf/etc. in addition to their normal class. I also think a great number of GMs will hand wave some of the punishments/will saves in order to let players have the flavor they want.


Squigget wrote:
Some people were also expecting mechanics that could express a slow descent into darkness or a hero struggling to resist the evil within too, and corruptions do a bad job of that as well, the tracks are too short and many of them are ridiculously easy to fall into completely in very little time.

Agreed, I suspect that there will be a lot of stuff to improve this coming out. I like the fact that they didn't ignore darkness, The slow slide into darkness might get lost in shorter term game series though. I wonder what tweaks would work to fit into a longer term milieu.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Darkness is awesome and there was definitely a fear that Corruptions would just feel like free power.

I just think they went too far the other way. At least for me one of the interesting things about corruptions was creating a mechanical effect based around the idea of dark temptations and as they stand now there isn't much temptation because most of them are so punitive and so easy to fail.

I'll probably still use them, with some modifications, but I was hoping to see a lot more back and forth in how they worked: tempting the player closer to the end with power while slowly piling on penalties that made it harder and harder for them to keep from drowning in the dark.


I'm sure they had to include PFS play in their design model.
Subtle back and forth really doesn't work there.

I would hate to have to design something for both PFS and non-PFS play.


Daw wrote:

I'm sure they had to include PFS play in their design model.

Subtle back and forth really doesn't work there.

I would hate to have to design something for both PFS and non-PFS play.

I though the corruptions subsystem was flat out not disallowed in PFS? That would make PFS a non-issue when designing these rules.


Heretek wrote:
The problem isn't that there ARE downsides, the problem is the downsides FAR outweigh any potential strengths the corruptions may have even had. The result is a punishment system.

We ARE talking about rules on how to infest characters with corruptions and other unholy and unspeakable things that eats away at their body and soul? Yes?

Silver Crusade

Snowblind wrote:
Daw wrote:

I'm sure they had to include PFS play in their design model.

Subtle back and forth really doesn't work there.

I would hate to have to design something for both PFS and non-PFS play.

I though the corruptions subsystem was flat out not disallowed in PFS? That would make PFS a non-issue when designing these rules.

There were Boons given out at Gencon to allow Corruptions. So yes, Corruptions are very much a thing in PFS.

Silver Crusade

Rub-Eta wrote:
Heretek wrote:
The problem isn't that there ARE downsides, the problem is the downsides FAR outweigh any potential strengths the corruptions may have even had. The result is a punishment system.
We ARE talking about rules on how to infest characters with corruptions and other unholy and unspeakable things that eats away at their body and soul? Yes?

*shrugs*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ranmyaku262 wrote:

So I've been reading through the corruptions and i'm curious if they're even viable for a PC to use without a GM using the Useful Corruption rules.

I've been looking over each of these and the Gift/Stain system seems interesting risk reward sort of system of giving you benefits with slowly increasing penalties. I realize these are supposed to be bad, but i'm curious how viable it would even be to play a character over several levels to obtain more manifestations?

The will save is already a bit high at a minimum of 16, meaning you'll need a decent wisdom score. So if you started at level 1 (like the book tries to suggest) and you're a cleric you might have a +6 will save, putting you at a 50/50 chance of making the saves to avoid progression. As many of these are compulsions to occur once a week or so is this even remotely sustainable? The Corruption stages seem to have no reversal system so its basically a 3 strike will save system. This was the optimistic will save as well, if the fighter gets it and assuming he just has a +0 wisdom bonus he could have a +0 will save. So now its a 25% or lower chance to make the save.

I understand there should be this ever-looming issue, but it seems like its really easy to succumb to the corruption and lose your character if you're not playing a high-wis + good will save class. But i would assume the Stains would continue to grant more and more penalties as you progress. My main concern from this is if your party is in a campaign with any travel/downtime. You could be on a boat and fall to your corruption while traveling from point A to point B. (Lich being the odd one out because its a fort save, and you can end up either constantly making saves or never making saves but many of the manifestations are working against you as you keep accruing con penalties while the DC keeps raising.)

I was curious what people's thoughts on the system were and if there's a way to work these into a character for a campaign at all.

I think broadly horror only really works when the players agree to play along with the genre's assumptions. It's difficult to truly scare the players if they approach a horror scenario as if it's a more generic fantasy adventure - especially in PF with its CR-appropriate challenges and such emphasis on rewarding carefully built characters.

It seems to me that you may be identifying this broader issue in one specific case. If you're looking for a new gizmo for a character over a long-term campaign, you may well be right that there's not much here of value. I think this sort of system would work fine though if you had buy-in from the players and although they knew their PCs would suffer longterm if they took the deal, they will take it anyway because they're playing a game of heroes gradually being corrupted by the evils they're facing.


Rub-Eta wrote:
Heretek wrote:
The problem isn't that there ARE downsides, the problem is the downsides FAR outweigh any potential strengths the corruptions may have even had. The result is a punishment system.
We ARE talking about rules on how to infest characters with corruptions and other unholy and unspeakable things that eats away at their body and soul? Yes?

So you admit corruptions are a punishment.


Heretek wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
Heretek wrote:
The problem isn't that there ARE downsides, the problem is the downsides FAR outweigh any potential strengths the corruptions may have even had. The result is a punishment system.
We ARE talking about rules on how to infest characters with corruptions and other unholy and unspeakable things that eats away at their body and soul? Yes?
So you admit corruptions are a punishment.

I don't admit to anything. But you are aware that we're not talking about any divine boon or a power surge? It's curses and diseases.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The difference being corruptions were made to be more of a risk/reward system (at least, that's how they kept advertising them in the blog costs). Great power at the cost of increasing loss of humanity.

Omit the "great power" part (or, hell, even the "it advances when you use it" part) and it's just another curse or disease. It kills you slowly, you make a new character, whoop de doo.

I was expecting something more like the standard fiction trope than this. Stuff like in anime (Naruto's demonic possession, where it gets worse and worse every time he calls on the power) or the Venom Symbiote, orthe slow insanity from using Saidin in Wheel of Time, or a billion other things.

Basically, stuff like what's on this page. That seemed to be the promise, anyway. It seems like it took too much of a punitive bent for that to be the case.


Rub-Eta wrote:
Heretek wrote:
So you admit corruptions are a punishment.
I don't admit to anything. But you are aware that we're not talking about any divine boon or a power surge? It's curses and diseases.

Seeing as it's a yes or no question and you're deflecting, I'll take that as a yes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Heretek,
Please stop using the word punishment for this. Equating not getting exactly what you want to punishment is at best specious. It will not improve your position in any discussion.
I will repost one of my comments from a parallel thread, because I like being pedantic.

Paizo has added rules to turn what has previously been just a save or suck die roll, and made it interesting. Still bad, but not a "if you don't get this fixed in (time period) you are out of the game and there will be nothing fun about it" kind of bad. Heck you even get ambivalent new powers to spice things up.

Sorry this wasn't a Christmas kind of thing, but, too be fair, it is neither July nor December.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Heretek wrote:

It's a bad thing you don't want inflicted upon you.

Corruptions are simply a failure. They don't accomplish what they set out to do.

Again, we're talking about diseases and curses. On the flip side, they do grant advantages. I would consider them a failure if they where just a power boon to any character who picked them up. And I would hate them for being a mary-sue tool without these hard draw-backs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the problem is some people wanted them to be a straight power upgrade, and they're not supposed to be a power upgrade. It's supposed to be a horrific (it is Horror Adventures). It's supposed to be a terrible decline that grants you inhuman powers at a great price.

I haven't had a chance to look closely at all of the powers and drawbacks, but I think it accomplishes what it intended to.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Squiggy, I have no problem with the people who wished they might have been different and are discussing it civilly, but over the last few days I've seen too many people saying they fail at what they do or that they're "supposed" to act in some specifc way contrary to what they actually are.

The designers have been upfront with us ever since HA's announcement that the Corruptions would be horrible things to do to a character. I got the book expecting them to be as such. I got exactly what I was expecting and was told.

1 to 50 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Corruptions and players. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.