|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I'm currently playing in a "Goblin Game" which started out with "We Be Goblins" and has reached 12th level at this point. At the start of the campaign the DM used a Jell-O mold to make totally disgusting looking toads with chocolate skeletons and dried fruits for internal organs. She refused to tell people what they were made of until after we ate them though. One player almost gagged on his. It was great.
I could go on and on about our goblins and how much fun it has been to play them, but instead I'll just post my goblin's goblin song:
Sharky bite you on your knee
He has plenty of other songs, a 6 Charisma, and no ranks at all in Perform (Sing)
Running two PCs each would probably work fine. On the other hand, we had fun playing the higher level portion of the Kingmaker AP (12+) with just 3 PCs, and I'm currently running Council of Thieves for just 2 though I let them start out at 3rd level. If you're playing with less than 4 PCs Hero Points are a great option to help prevent TPK (I generally use them anyhow)
Regarding the 2 player CoT game, we felt that 1 PC per player might be better for roleplaying. The APL to CR also theoretically works out correctly, and splitting the XP between just two PCs should keep them about 2 levels ahead of where they're expected to be. It has worked fine so far. The fights have mostly been pretty easy, but there have been a few scares, and the players seem to be having fun. We're also using Background Skills from Unchained (which helps a lot with skill diversity)
In my opinion Stealth Synergy isn't very good. You're probably better off with Skill Focus (Stealth) in most cases, and expecting everybody to make a feat commitment to Stealth when the problem is that they won't even invest skill ranks in it seems like an odd assumption.
Anyhow, while helping your friends move more quietly sounds nice it could be tough to explain how you made the guy in full plate or the woolly mammoth really sneaky. There's also a bit of "something for nothing" which some DMs might not appreciate (players either if stealthy bad guys start sneaking Fire Giants into your camp)
A mundane option which often gets overlooked is simply having the noisy folks follow the stealthy ones from a good distance back. Being 60 or 100 feet back is around the same as having a +6 or +10 on Stealth. The problem is that when this method is suggested the less stealthy party members tend to become offended and insist on being right up front (basically acting like you said they're not good enough at Stealth, which technically they're not...)
Even if the nat 20 couldn't be deflected I'd expect that the attacker should still have to make another attack roll to confirm the crit. If your AC is high enough to annoy the DM then that second roll could easily miss.
I've had to talk several groups down from adopting a "nat 20 is an auto crit" policy in the past. A lot of people apparently find it very disappointing when they roll a nat 20 and nothing special happens. I'm kind of surprised that Mirror Image doesn't have a clause about failing against nat 20s.
If you enjoy using plastic dinosaurs as minis or the idea of it then I suggest that you visit your local dollar store. The toy section will probably have various dinosaurs, insects, and other "critters", some of which will likely be sized appropriately to be monsters in your games. I've even found unusual stuff like dinosaur skeletons.
Often the toys are in garish colors like bright yellow or green, fluorescent pink, etc, but the underlying sculpts are frequently pretty good. If you have even modest painting skills you can end up with several table quality minis for a dollar. You can also find a lot of sub-dollar minis online from lines like Dreamblade, Mage Knight, and Horror Clix. I'm usually happiest showing off the minis I got dirt cheap.
During Saturday's game one of the players was spending a lot of time sorting pawns into alphabetical order. It looked like a nuisance. Then again, finding the right minis is sometimes a nuisance too. Perhaps I'll get some stackable cabinets with small, removable drawers and put monsters with a certain theme in each drawer (fishmen, mushrooms, orcs, drow, etc)
@Kyaaadaa - I type fairly fast and guess I can really get going sometimes. I didn't meant to give the impression that Crane Riposte was "the problem" though - sorry if my post was misleading somehow...
@ErichAD - I think it would be a lot easier to just say it doesn't work against nat 20s. I'm not sure if changing infinite AC to infinite AC as long as you don't roll a nat 20 would be enough of a nerf to satisfy DMs or not. I guess it might depend on who they tend to see using Crane Wing, mid-AC folks trying to get hit one less time per round or high-AC folks looking to never get hit at all. I'd guess that the super high ACs would probably make that nerf seem more effective.
@Darth Grall - If they had jsut ruled that Crane Wing doesn't work against nat 20s would that have been OK with you? I don't think that ruling is likely to ever happen at this point. I'm just curious what different folks would find acceptable.
Man, T-Rex and his Monk killing troubles are making me kind of depressed at this point. I doubt that “T-Rex can’t kill the Monk!” was the complaint PFS DMs were calling in with though. I mean, maybe I’m wrong, but I’d guess it was the “infinite” AC and nat 20 negation. Anyhow, T-Rex has finally eaten all the 2nd level Masters of Many Styles with Crane Wing. They’re all gone, and they’ll never be back. My guess is that getting to auto-deflect an attack while fighting defensively with Crane Wing won’t either (at least not short of a combat trick, mythic feat, etc)
Kyaaadaa’s DM could have simply used a bunch of legal combat maneuvers like Awesome Blow. Up until a week or two ago he also could have sent in the double double-barreled Pistoleros to blow away anybody using Crane Wing. Can you deflect 14 attacks? If so then great, but you'd still take around 70 damage from the misses. That’s also all in the past now though. The road ahead has a 5th level or higher PC who gets an additional +4 AC once per round while fighting defensively, possibly more than once per round with combat stamina. At least I think it does - Crane Wing has already seen 3 revisions, and it still seems to be a contentious issue.
Is there something short of auto-deflect while fighting defensively which folks do feel would make Crane Wing "good enough" to be a viable feat choice? I mean, +4 AC once per round doesn't seem that bad to me, but obviously a lot of folks don't seem to like it. Would +8 be enough? How about +4 for the entire round and an AoO on the first attack which misses? Should the AoO from Crane Riposte be a "Vengeance Strike" which does double damage? Is there any change other than the restoration of the original Crane Wing which would make people happy about the Crane Style feat chain again, or has Crane Wing become so emblematic of caster vs martial disparity or other issues that no compromise can possibly be reached?
I'm always surprised at how little Mirror Image gets mentioned during these sorts of debates. It would combine well with any version of Crane Wing, especially v1, and at least to me it seems more useful in general if a bit slower to deploy (standard action vs swift)
Around half of my PCs tend to have Improved Unarmed Strike. Do you have a specific reason why you refuse to wear spiked gauntlets? Like maybe somebody in your group said, "If you wore a spiked gauntlet instead you'd be able to cut your way out if you get swallowed whole." and then you were like, "Stop telling me what to do!" (just kidding about that part, but seriously - what do you have against the spikes?)
I'm not clear on what the intent of the new ruling is. I mean, I can tell that if you want double damage from your lance or want to increase your damage with Spirited Charge then you (the PC) need to charge along with the mount. What I'm not sure about is whether you are flat out required to charge when the mount charges.
For instance, could a PC with Mounted Skirmisher choose between making a full attack or charging, or would he be forced to charge? Could a mounted Summoner or Sorcerer cast a spell when his mount charges, or would he be forced to charge too? If forced to charge would he be required to make a melee attack at the end? (I'm imagining a Sylvan Sorcerer who might not even have a weapon in hand)
Using Background Skills from Unchained can let those Fighters at least be good at Knowledge (Engineering) since it is a class skill for them. With 2 extra ranks per level to spend on less useful skills suddenly a lot of Fighters might become experts on stuff which comes up once in a while.
Regarding spiked gauntlets, a lot of players don’t seem to think of these on their own. That results in people like me suggesting that they should buy a spiked gauntlet, which generally results in them acting offended somebody is "telling them what to do". Seriously, most people I play with would rather have their PC die outright than submit to wearing a spiked gauntlet. Some of them refuse my advice so that they can feel they’re making their own decisions. For others it is simply an attempt to frustrate to frustrate me. Either way, nobody I play with besides my girlfriend ever uses spiked gauntlets.
I've seen plenty of nerfs to casting in the past such as Terrible Remorse, which started out really broken. Still, the thing my martial PCs most often feel bad about is that failing a Will save is so often a complete disaster. If fewer spells took you out of the fight or made you a liability with a single bad (or often even average) d20 roll I think that would be a pretty effective nerf to the casting world.
Of course going from the all or nothing of SoL/SoD to something less decisive would make it even more annoying when the party caster just plonks away with "save negates" and the DM's saving throw dice are hot. I really like the idea of stuff which gives a lesser effect on a successful save though. Balancing spells by having them do nothing on a successful save but be devastating on a failed one doesn't lead to more fun IMO. I'd rather see the effects blended towards the middle a little. I'm not saying that will ever happen, but Pathfinder tried to remove or reduce SoD. Maybe SoL based on a single roll should start getting phased out too. This is especially true for group SoL since I don't like one turn encounters much.
I think that examining the scope of Crane Wing by putting T-Rex in a comedic "strawman" outfit and pitting him against the theoretical 5th level Monk or 2nd level pre-errata Master of Many Styles misses the point or possibly even several points. If you're only expecting to be hit infrequently then being able to auto-deflect while keeping your full attack is very good. Nat 20 negation is also the sort of thing which drives many DMs absolutely bonkers.
I don't think that fighting the errata war of 2 years ago over and over forever really helps anybody though. If we concentrate on the actual Crane Wing we have right now or at least the general power level it fits into maybe we can better make suggestions for Paizo to consider if they make any future adjustments to the Crane feats or the combat tricks for them.
People can't agree about whether CWv1 fit under the acceptable power ceiling (Paizo says no), but I wonder if they feel CWv4 is above the power floor for being a desirable feat at least in some builds (barring "just being silly" and "my build is that my PC is a total loser"). I used v2 for a while and found the guessing kind of irritating. I liked v3, found it effective, and enjoyed the AoOs. I don't have enough experience with v4 yet to say much though in theory it looks OK.
I’ll be playing a Mythic game this afternoon. We’re 11th level with 3 Mythic tiers, and while we’re pretty powerful the game doesn’t feel unbalanced - at least not in the party’s favor. We get beat down more in that game than any other I’m playing right now. Maybe it is the Mythic monsters. Maybe it is the DM using tactics - tough for me to say since I'm just a Fighter (well, my PC is)
@Crimeo - You’re assuming that the DM will react to the PCs by changing the encounters in the campaign. This isn’t always the case in an AP and should never be the case in PFS. I kind of prefer those styles of play since they're less likely to turn into a contest of what cool powers I can find and how the DM can frustrate them.
@Anzyr - To be fair, Paizo often changes the rules after a game has started. I generally wouldn’t blame a DM for using the official rules (though the vehicular combat rules have enough problems that actually I might)
@Psyren - As I posted previously, "In another thread, Mark Seifter suggested that the new combat trick for Crane Wing might involve allowing you to regain the +4 AC bonus for 5 Stamina points after it has been used." Mark also mentioned the idea of this giving you another chance to get an AoO from Crane Riposte, which I guess would make it like a very limited use Snake Fang. We also agreed that using the Crane Wing trick shouldn't count as an action.
@Ssalarn - What's the new mounted charge definition?
Yeah, Slumber is only one of the tools the Witch can use to prevent the DM and other players from having too much fun. I'm not sure if it and Ice Tomb are technically "overpowered", but they seem to suck the fun out of encounters sometimes. Ice Tomb also often leaves us asking a bunch of questions like...
Those are just some of the questions I remember. It seems like new ones come up every session, much more so than with most other spells and abilities. I also suspect that the DM pads encounters with a little more than the PCs could usually handle on the assumption that the Witch's hexes will negate an enemy or two. When her d20 is hot for saving throws the party suffers and the Witch feels pretty useless. Thematically it is a cool power (pun partially intended), but in play it seems to have some issues.
The halfling could even use his hand to push off the attacker. Explaining how the halfling without Crane Wing lives through actually getting bitten by the dragon seems a little tougher and probably involves some of the same mental gymnastics. Why does a halfling's shield prevent him or her from being knocked flying by a giant's club? It is a game of imagination I guess.
I'd really dislike getting a new errata which makes my PC's feat practically useless against many common foes. The fact that it would make the feat super effective against other foes seems like it would serve primarily as an encouragement for homebrew DMs to use the foes I suck against. This already happens to a limited extent with Greater Trip, but I was aware of that problem when I took the feat. Adding Crane to the pile of easily frustrated feat chains isn't a fix or an improvement IMO. I wonder if the idea of not being able to deflect natural weapons is a ripple from the old Crane Wing vs T-Rex debate though.
The Background Skills variant in Unchained can help relieve the skill problem many Fighters suffer from. As I’ve posted in other threads, my Viking is actually good at sailing his longship now.
Low Will saves really are a big problem. I think the root of that problem is that the results of a single failed Will save are often too extreme.
@Lemmy - I think you've confused MC Hammer with Sir Mix-A-Lot.
It didn’t seem germane to the discussion, but the DM for my girlfriend’s Scarred Witch Doctor did in fact grandfather the old rules in for her PC since otherwise the PC would have sucked at hexes and been unable to cast spells. Obviously a rebuild could have produced a playable PC, but being dumb as dirt is an important part of that particular PC's roleplaying.
Back to discussing the recent errata for Ultimate Combat, I got my first chance to use Crane Wing v4 this week, and it worked OK. The sample size was only 3 melee combat rounds though, and my PC only got attacked in 2 of them. In another thread, Mark Seifter suggested that the new combat trick for Crane Wing might involve allowing you to regain the +4 AC bonus for 5 Stamina points after it has been used.
Regarding GS6+, I think working well with multiclassing is pretty common for martial classes. If you're a multiclassing fan like me you might think this is a feature rather than a bug. In many cases the class you jump to is also susceptible to dipping. Five levels is actually a pretty significant investment.
Back when I smoked I felt that outdoor smoke breaks were a great idea, especially since most people wouldn't have wanted me smoking in their house or forcing them to inhale second hand smoke.
Recently during a game played at another player's house his nephew's girlfriend came down to hang out and observe the game for a little while and started blowing huge clouds of "vapor" which spread over the combat mat like a vanilla scented obscuring mist. It was kind of weird since smoking indoors has long been considered pretty rude. I'm not sure if the same etiquette applies to vaping or if I've just become an old curmudgeon.
It was definitely a potential nerf for PCs like my girlfriend's Orc (not half-orc) who had a 5 Int and an 18 or 20 Con. I guess I should have been more specific.
Anyhow, the fact that the intended nerf was actually a buff for half-orcs since they don't get the orcish -2 Int only makes the errata look even clumsier in my opinion.
It amuses me when people refer to Scarred Witch Doctor as Scared Witch Doctor. I guess the ones still out there using Con are probably scared that somebody will find out about the errata and try to enforce it on them. I like nerfs, but I think the SWD nerf could have been handled more gracefully, perhaps with stuff like decreasing spells per day or forcing the SWD to inflict non-lethal damage on herself to memorize each spell so that she could choose between having a full complement of spells or having a giant bucket of HP (and do so in a way very thematic to the archetype)
Of course if the problem was with the hexes rather than the high HP then a nerf to the hexes themselves would probably be more effective (if perhaps even less popular)
If they do change Crane Wing again I hope they allow you to apply the +4 AC once per round after you're "hit". I'd prefer that not to cost an action since I have better things to do with immediate and swift actions. The potential drawbacks I can see:
I don't think either one of those seem too bad.
I’ll be attempting to keep a running tally of statistics over the next few sessions to see how CWv4 stacks up against CWv3 and maybe CWv1 during gameplay. Our first session since the change was not a great sample since there were only about 2-3 rounds of melee combat. During that time CWv4 worked for me once, and CWv3 wouldn’t have helped since the affected attack hit by 4 while all the others missed badly.
I figured that regenerating the +4 AC bonus after it has been used would be one of the more likely fixes for the Crane Wing combat trick. The 5 point price seems a little steep. I guess if it isn't an action to use that might help make it appealing compared to the Crane Style trick, which gives +1 AC per stamina point up to +3 but requires an immediate action. I suppose that the potential for an extra AoO also might be tempting if you've already got Combat Reflexes or have other reasons to take it.
If everybody is looking at their phones at least they aren't delaying the game with hour long discussions of TV shows.
If you can get your players to roleplay the interactions between their PCs that should liven up the table a bit. If they're not that into roleplaying in character you could at least try to get them commenting on each other's actions (and perhaps even offering possibly unwanted tactical advice)
There's also a chance that making the encounters a little more dangerous would cause people to engage and "stay on their toes" a little more.
As folks have said, Handy Haversacks can really help with item management. You also might want to consider Unseen Servant.
I suggest against having your familiar use attack spells. Each DM reacts to useful familiars differently, but I think most folks can agree that if the familiar starts killing stuff then stuff is more likely to kill it back.
There's more encouragement to stick with MoMS now than there was before, but after playing around with theoretical builds a little I think that bailing out after the 2 level dip still looks pretty appealing. Maybe removing the prereqs besides Monk level for feats in the wildcard slots would be enough to tempt more folks to stick with MoMS levels though. I haven't thought of any particularly overpowered combos that it would allow yet since it isn't like there would be early entry - maybe you'd save a feat or two and some skill ranks though for styles like Boar and Snake you really need the skill ranks to get the most out of the style...doesn't seem too extreme to me...
Anyhow, those are just some thoughts. I'm personally not a foe of multiclassing and don't see why sticking with a single class should always need to be better than mixing several together. Delaying too many of the benefits of a class or archetype until high levels would punish everybody, not just level dippers. Once you've got 4-6 levels into a class that seems like a pretty significant investment to me though. I wouldn't consider Gunslinger 5 and then finishing off with other levels to be plundering Gunslinger any more than I would Paladin 4 with Oath of Vengeance and then other levels to be plundering Paladin. I suppose you could push out the big Smite Evil power from Oath of Vengeance a few levels to stop us dippers, but then the "real" Paladins would suffer too.
As far as Mutagens go it could be tough to beat Mutation Warrior 4 as a buff and bonus feat package, and it doesn't even stop you from participating in the extremely popular Barbarian 2 or 4 programs. I guess that multiclassing flexibility is one of the strengths of martial classes (or perhaps one of the weaknesses depending on how you feel about it)
Even if it were true that the original Crane Wing was only a problem PFS scenarios and APs it seems reasonable to me that Paizo would want to fix it since those are Paizo products and so is Ultimate Combat.
I'd be pretty surprised if Paizo suddenly decided to say, "Oh, to heck with it, let's bring back the original Crane Wing!" I wonder if they intend to ever release additional Mythic material though and whether something more like the original feat would be considered more reasonable for Mythic Crane Wing, perhaps in a web enhancement. I kind of like the idea of having higher power level material segregated into clearly optional sources which make it easier for DMs to decide and enforce what's allowed (and perhaps with less pleading, wheedling, and guilt trips from the players)
I guess another option to tweak Crane Wing will be when they adjust what the Combat Trick in Unchained does since it no longer works. I guess the simplest change would be to say you can designate an opponent for an extra +2 AC which works just like the previous version of Crane Wing. I think that the current cost of 5 points seems awfully high though, especially since you can get +3 AC against everybody by spending 3 points with the Crane Style trick (granted that's an immediate action instead of no action). Another simple and effective option might be to let you "regenerate" the +4 AC bonus after it is used.
Making it difficult to identify a creature which has a disease sounds pretty weird.
Fighter: "Hey, is that a dog?"
I agree that version 3 needed a FAQ to make it work as intended, but having played a lot of combats with it I felt that the benefit of getting that AoO just about every round was pretty helpful and made Crane Riposte a very satisfying feat to have. When you needed to designate the opponent for the +2 AC bonus was a bit of an open question though. My group figured it at least had to be done before the attack though, not retroactively.
Even without a steady stream of AoOs the effective +1 to hit from Crane Riposte while fighting defensively should be reasonably effective (kind of like a Weapon Focus which stacks with Weapon Focus), but the feat might end up feeling a little boring anyhow.
For what it's worth, I use the Total Defense option pretty frequently since my PC has some offensive options with Swift and Move actions. It can also be nice when getting hit seems unacceptable (say against a one attack foe with energy drain)
The Totem Spear sounds like a fun thematic gimmick, but it doesn't look like it provides any actual bonus to the Bard's casting or performances. There used to be masterwork instruments in 3.5 which had at least marginal benefits. I'm not sure if Pathfinder has anything similar.
What I'm thinking of is basically giving up traditional handheld weapons and the opportunity to use a shield for some other benefits. Maybe it could cost a feat. Maybe it could be an archetype. Maybe it is just silly and nobody else would be interested. Perhaps I'll start a separate thread on it...
I'm still surprised that the focus is mostly on stuff like Crane Wing version 1 vs T-Rex, the history of Crane Wing in PFS, or encounter design philosophy rather than whether the latest version of Crane Wing is better or worse than the one immediately preceding it (since that's the change we're actually dealing with at this point)
@Darth Grall - What seemed less intuitive to you about the previous version? Was it the lack of clarity regarding how and when you designate the enemy who you're using the +2 AC bonus against for the round? If so then how did you rule on that?
@Acalaphus - I agree that refusing to solve problem A until problem B is solved too seems like a path unlikely to lead to many solutions.
I'd guess that the MoMS change will make PCs with all or mostly MoMS levels more common. I think they will also be more powerful in the long run due to the attack bonuses and increased flexibility. They might miss stuff like Snake Fang at lower levels, but they probably shouldn't have had those things at lower levels anyhow (especially the dippers). I'll have to admit that I planned out several potential PCs all around dipping MoMS2 to plunder Snake Fang early, but deep down I knew it would probably cause a scandal at the gaming table (sort of like I never used the original Crane Wing except in theoretical builds)
I did use a 2 level MoMS dip to pick up Snake Fang for a 17th level BBEG (MoMS 2 / Vivisectionist 15 with Crane+Snake) but he'll probably just need a slight rebuild since he was primarily interested in Fuse Style. It looks like you still get Fuse Style at 1st level, so I think he'll just need to free up a feat to take Snake Sidewind. That's a pretty boring feat IMO, but it is definitely worth suffering through to get to Snake Fang if it can't be avoided.
It is kind of weird that using Acrobatics makes you flat-footed rather than just causing you to lose your Dex bonus. The rules for Climb are more specific and include losing your Dex bonus to AC but not becoming flat-footed. Anyhow, somebody walking on a tightrope is clearly taking actions. On the most basic level they're using Move actions to walk that tightrope. I also think they'd be allowed to perform other actions.
@Ascalaphus & LazarX - Incidentally, one of my PCs urinated on a fire elemental, and at least two have taken a leak on allies to "help wash off" acid. I can't recall a time when one my PCs took dump "on camera", but I do have a type of swarm in my games called hell monkeys. They eat hellfruit, which is highly acidic and poisonous. They also make a lot of ranged attacks.
I'm surprised that the discussion seems so focused on comparing the newest version of Crane Wing (CW4) to the original version (CW1), which is long gone, instead of to the previous version (CW3). I got the impression that Paizo felt like they were giving Crane Wing users a boost here, but actually the most recent change seems like it could be a bit of a drag at least for my PC.
It took me a while to find the FAQ which confirmed it, but the previous version you were allowed to make an AoO the first time your selected enemy missed you each round:
FAQ (Dec 19, 2014) wrote:
"Whenever you are fighting defensively, and you use Crane Wing to add a dodge bonus against an opponent, that opponent’s first attack that misses you provokes an attack of opportunity from you."
I felt like the increased AoO rate from Crane Riposte with CW3 was pretty good compensation for decrease in the defensive bonus of Crane Wing itself. I've been using CW3 for a while now, and I was very happy with it. I'd put the +2 bonus on the most dangerous attacker or, perhaps more frequently, on the enemy who I most wanted to attack. This practically ensured that I'd get an AoO since very few of the enemies our party faces hit my PC's AC+6 with every attack. Since my PC generally fights with just his Bite (a stylistic choice) these AoOs have become a pretty significant part of his damage output. Now there's probably only around a 20% chance that a miss will trigger an AoO, and the DM and I will need to keep checking with each other to see if somebody has hit that unlucky 4 AC window.
I might have shrugged off the AoO loss if the +4 AC bonus and resulting AoO could be used on demand. Losing the both the AoO and the choice of who to defend against makes the errata seem like a nerf rather than a boost to me though.
I'd like to clarify that I think the Crane feats are still pretty decent. I just also think that if the errata was meant to improve them then the results were a mixed bag.
I was greatly pleased to see the change to double-barreled muskets and even more pleased to see the FAQ clarifying that it applies to other double-barreled guns. This is an issue I’d been discussing on the boards for a long while now.
Litany of Righteousness seems like another good change to me though honestly I would have rather seen it nerfed to just grant bonus damage or only do double damage on the first hit.
I have mixed feelings about the latest update to Crane Wing. It is tough to compare and contrast it with the previous version since I can’t seem to find a copy of that. Anyhow, it seems to me that simply allowing you to apply a +4 dodge bonus to your AC once per round after you are hit would have been more flexible and easier to use during play than giving you a +4 bonus which disappears when you’re hit by 4 or less. That ship has probably sailed, but I do hope that the Combat Trick for Crane Wing gets updated at least via FAQ.
Overall this errata had some good changes and helps to improve my faith in the Pathfinder system. Some folks have brought up the idea that the game might lose players because of rules updates, but the game also might keep players because of rules updates.
How effective AC is as a defense depends largely on the game you’re playing in. If you’re in PFS or an AP based game where the DM doesn’t make a lot of changes then AC is likely to work well. In homebrew games it is easy for a DM to pump up the monsters or simply bypass your AC if he or she really wants to. Like many things, it kind of comes down to the DM’s style and group politics.
I don't think the DR from an Invulnerable Rager with Improved Stalwart would be high enough that DMs would flip out, but it might be interesting to see how it works in play. I've seen several PCs with DR/- in the 4-5 range, and their DMs have rarely seemed bothered by it.
I have a lingering distaste for disguised or poorly described monsters after playing with a DM who often refused to describe most monsters beyond something like "He's a big guy" or "It is kind of hairy". It seemed like he was afraid that if he admitted the "big guy" had blue skin one of the players might guess it was a Frost Giant and try using a fire spell.
Whether or not it would be reasonable to try using fire against blue stuff and cold against red stuff is probably a matter of opinion. Fighting sparsely described monsters represented by plastic soldiers isn't great fuel for the imagination though. That's a shame since the DM's story and descriptions of roleplaying encounters were usually detailed and interesting.
People hates the AC though, they hates it! In a lot of cases the DM will keep cranking up the enemy attack bonuses until he can hit your AC, so lower AC might mean less powerful enemies (who in turn might not hit as hard - allowing the high HP and DR to be more effective)
That's probably more true in homebrews than APs, but I think it would be interesting to see a DR based Barbarian who adventures with a Court Bard and sickens enemies (whether via Thug Rogue levels or just intimidate and a Cruel Weapon). A whole party of debuffers with a DR based tank might be able to reduce the threat of most encounters significantly and have fun with stuff (like when our Sorceress was slapping debuffed mooks to death with her spiked gauntlet)
As I recall, the Chinese wanted lots of silver back in the day and that affected worldwide trade at least until the English found another trade good which created its own demand.
Perhaps the plan was to fashion all that silver into silverware for the Western world. I've always found it a little funny that most forks seem to be made in countries which use chopsticks instead.
Convincing the DM to use the Background Skills variant from Unchained can make your Fighter's skills a lot more interesting. Ever since we started using it my Viking can actually sail his longship! Unfortunately longships completely suck, but that's an entirely different issue...
Regarding Dirty Trick Master, I know that folks trying to gain an advantage will sometimes hide from RAI under the biggest RAW rock they can find, but the guy who wrote the feat feels that you should be able to remove the nauseated condition as a standard action even though a nauseated character usually can't perform standard actions. That seems pretty fair to me, but since my Dirty Fighter can substitute a Dirty trick for an attack maybe I've got a different perspective than somebody who can only use Dirty Trick once per round.
Back on the subject of weird, I've had a few PCs who skipped natural attack items like Helm of the Mammoth Lord mostly for style reasons. For instance, I didn't want my Paladin/Bard looking rat-like and biting people with Smite Evil, so I skipped the mechanically advantageous Ring of Rat Fangs. Building a PC who uses as many natural attack adding items as possible might be amusing. Does anybody know if the Alchemist's Tentacle discovery can be used with other natural weapons as part of a full attack?
@Use Headbutt! - I like the idea of impaling somebody on your horns while charging, but it looks like Impaling Charge requires the Powerful Charge monster ability. Is there a feat or item which grants that?
It depends if you're a bearserker or a bareserker.
The idea of Barbarians with tons of HP and maybe DR but horrible AC is pretty interesting to me since that's a style of play people seem to heartily approve of (as opposed to my PCs who tend to focus on high AC and get criticized for being "no fun")