Sometimes I don't know what you guys will be satisfied with as an indicator that I know from what I'm sayingthis is coming from someone who never, ever plays full casters.Awkward moments.
I don't play them anymore as PCs because I got tired of auto-winning. And I still play them plenty when I GM. Happy now?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, there was the one time my Aldori Swordlord cohort soloed two dragons that were each of her CR in this weird festival game arena combat from an outtake of the AP. Or the time she got into a fight with a Mythic Nightskitter. And another with a Mythic will-o-wisp that was hilarious because one attack provoked a chain of 20 attacks of opportunity. And more stories that are spoilers for the AP (these were all for encounters the GM added). I'd be happy to post a highlights reel in a spoiler block if you like! But there's literally dozens of stories, so before I take the time to write 'em up, let me know if you (and...Ok, I simply HAVE to know how this bolded part happened.
I will tell you because it was amazingly awesome.
Anyway, after it dropped the PC Fighter in one round, we sent my cohort to face it. It activated some ability where tons of eyes grew out of it, which was actually a mythic power to get an AoO every time it was attacked for one round. It had Mythic Combat Reflexes, so no limits to AoOs. Keep in mind we are not mythic, we're just four non-mythic PCs with a pair of cohorts. My cohort is an Aldori Duelist/MoMS (at this level, pure Aldori would be better in almost all cases, but in this case Snake paid off) Snake and Crane like 80%+.
Anyway, we had no idea the ability was only one round once a day or even what it did. Rhiana attacked the monster, so it got an AoO. It missed, so Rhiana got a punch AoO from Snake Fang. This gave the creature an AoO. It missed, so Rhiana got a punch AoO from Snake Fang. Also once it hit and she used Crane Wing for an AoO. However, Rhiana has only +9 Dex, so that meant she got only 10 AoOs. Actually counting, that makes 21 AoOs total, huh? She did actually take some damage in there. Also, the GM described that time must be warping because 22 attacks just happened in reaction to Rhiana's first iterative (at that point she continued her attack routine)
Erick Wilson, I guess that the fact that you never play full casters made you have this impression about crane wing. Also, what is this prase supposed to mean: "My friend has a Paladin/Bard that is even more beastly, and again the Crane tree made it possible, and it shouldn't be possible." You actually mean that you support a decision that makes the imbalances of the game even more severe?
Whoa, over-interpret, much?
I never play full casters in PFS, these days. That does not mean I have never played casters, ever, in my 26 years of Role-playing, or that I don't have ample understanding of how they work. I've played them countless times, as both player and DM.
I don't play them in PFS because it ruins the fun. The mods aren't challenging anyway. With Wizards in the mix, they are absurd cake walks.
As far as making the imbalances more severe, well, look... We all know that casters are boss. Eventually, you just resign yourself to this fact. I view people who play them as...well, it's kind of like playing the banker in Oregon Trail. You're playing the game on easy mode. I have moved on, and I'm more interested in finding ways to be just adequately effective while using bizarre builds and aesthetics. The game to me now is more like some combination of solving a puzzle while painting a picture. I don't really play to "win." It's hard to define what that would even be in this game, but by any semi-objective measure, "winning" (at least in PFS) by itself is just too easy a goal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FYI Snake fang allows you to perform that AOO during a full-defense action.
I don't play [...] in PFS because it ruins the fun.
Looks like it.
Can we cut down on the talk about casters? and the insults and insinuating please?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I first saw Crane Wing, coming from 3.5, I thought that "the devs know what they are doing, they managed to make the one-handed combat style competitive". I guess now I am being proved wrong.
I thought the same, which makes this errata all the more soul crushing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like it.
I don't play [...] in PFS because it ruins the fun.
Sure, there's a lot of truth to this. I will always prefer a home game. PFS is its own animal. There have been threads to the effect that organized play ruins gaming, and while that's a little hyperbolic, there's a grain of truth to it.
Erick Wilson, I guess that the fact that you never play full casters made you have this impression about crane wing. Also, what is this prase supposed to mean: "My friend has a Paladin/Bard that is even more beastly, and again the Crane tree made it possible, and it shouldn't be possible." You actually mean that you support a decision that makes the imbalances of the game even more severe?
Whoa, over-interpret, much?
I never play full casters in PFS, these days. That does not mean I have never played casters, ever, in my 26 years of Role-playing, or that I don't have ample understanding of how they work. I've played them countless times, as both player and DM.
You're hyperbole probably lead him to this conclusion.
I agree with the errata, and this is coming from someone who never, ever plays full casters . I always play martials, and particularly favor monks. But seriously, the Crane feats were absurd.
I don't think its over-interpretation to conclude that you never play a caster.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we cut down on the talk about casters?
Why would we? It's a large reason why people are so pissed. A feat steps on the toes of mirror image and gets the nerf bat. Really hammers home the idea that martials can't have nice things.
This errata came right after this months series of rogue/fighter/monk suck threads which all ended in the defenders giving up on the classes.
Then this errata comes out right after people were feeling like mundane martials have serious problems. It's a real kick in the teeth to people who were holding out hope that these classes would get some love.
Can we cut down on...the insults and insinuating please?
As far as I can tell, you're at the head of the pack in this regard. I'm not trying to insult anyone. Casters are what they are. We all know they're OP. I'm not insinuating that, I'm outright saying so. I'll still play them in home games, where the challenge level is mutable. I just don't play them in a fixed-challenge environment like PFS, because they make it too easy. No insult there, just talking shop.
FYI Snake fang allows you to perform that AOO during a full-defense action.
I'm not sure that's actually the case. The new crane wing specifically calls out being in total defense for the deflect and thus the riposte riposte to function. Snake fang isn't that specific which would imply the rule about no AoO's when in total defense would still be in play.
FYI Snake fang allows you to perform that AOO during a full-defense action.I'm not sure that's actually the case. The new crane wing specifically calls out being in total defense for the deflect and thus the riposte riposte to function. Snake fang isn't that specific which would imply the rule about no AoO's when in total defense would still be in play.
Jason was pretty clear that feats override that general rule.
Erick Wilson, I guess that the fact that you never play full casters made you have this impression about crane wing. Also, what is this prase supposed to mean: "My friend has a Paladin/Bard that is even more beastly, and again the Crane tree made it possible, and it shouldn't be possible." You actually mean that you support a decision that makes the imbalances of the game even more severe?
Whoa, over-interpret, much?
I never play full casters in PFS, these days. That does not mean I have never played casters, ever, in my 26 years of Role-playing, or that I don't have ample understanding of how they work. I've played them countless times, as both player and DM.
You're hyperbole probably lead him to this conclusion.
I agree with the errata, and this is coming from someone who never, ever plays full casters . I always play martials, and particularly favor monks. But seriously, the Crane feats were absurd.I don't think its over-interpretation to conclude that you never play a caster.
Okay. I never, ever play casters anymore, in PFS. If that's all clear now, let's move on...
Though, as an aside, you really don't have to actually play casters to understand how they work. Even if you don't GM (which I do, a lot), you still get the idea when you play in enough games with a caster in the party.
Well, there was the one time my Aldori Swordlord cohort soloed two dragons that were each of her CR in this weird festival game arena combat from an outtake of the AP. Or the time she got into a fight with a Mythic Nightskitter. And another with a Mythic will-o-wisp that was hilarious because one attack provoked a chain of 20 attacks of opportunity. And more stories that are spoilers for the AP (these were all for encounters the GM added). I'd be happy to post a highlights reel in a spoiler block if you like! But there's literally dozens of stories, so before I take the time to write 'em up, let me know if you (and...Ok, I simply HAVE to know how this bolded part happened.I will tell you because it was amazingly awesome.
** spoiler omitted **...
Ok, so it wasn't YOU that did all 20+ AOs. That makes more sense.
So...how come the Will-o-Wisp didn't stop after the first two or three AOs? It could see you were still going, it's not a dumb creature,a fter the first several exchanges you'd think it would go "Hmm, something's wrong here" and re-evaluate that tactic. Was it just possessed by mind-less rage or something?
Lead Designer
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well Good Morning Everyone,
I just want everyone to know that these threads are on life support. I understand that some of you are clearly very upset about this, but the inability of some posters to remain civil is starting to turn this into a problem. Being rude to your fellow posters and paizo staff is not going to let you have your way.
There are few issues I want to address.
1. Because one thing is powerful, even overpowered, does not mean that we are not going to tackle other imbalances. If we lived by that philosophy, nothing would ever get taken care of. We cannot possibly hope to take care of every balance issue (perceived or real) simultaneously. Its a process. It is ongoing. Some folks have mentioned some other issues here (and I am not here to discuss them in an already meandering thread) and many of them are on our radar.
2. I am looking at putting out some clarification on Crane Riposte in the near future to ensure that it is working as intended with the feat chain. It clear to me that the wording is not quite right for the revision and it needs some work to avoid confusion. That will go up in the errata section as soon as the Dev team can come up with a consensus.
3. Folks should recognize that there are some feats we expect to be common and should be pegged at the top of the power curve (or close to it). We expect to see a lot of people with Power Attack. Thats why its in the core rulebook. That is not to say other feats cannot be as good (or close to it), but if we are always putting out Feats (and other mechanics) that trump existing ones, we end up with power creep. Its a delicate balancing act, and not one that we always get right. Every rule builds on those that have come before and as time goes on, it becomes more and more difficult to foresee all the ramifications. Thats not meant to be an excuse, I just wanted to give folks an idea of what we have to deal with on a daily basis. Concerning this feat, we came to agree that it was pushing a bit to high above the base line. We pulled it back. We are looking to see if we went too far. Its clear to us that many of you think we have. We will take that into consideration going forward.
Thats about all to start the day... play nice folks. If we have to keep moderating this thread, it will just get locked.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Jason was pretty clear that feats override that general rule.FYI Snake fang allows you to perform that AOO during a full-defense action.I'm not sure that's actually the case. The new crane wing specifically calls out being in total defense for the deflect and thus the riposte riposte to function. Snake fang isn't that specific which would imply the rule about no AoO's when in total defense would still be in play.
Yeah, but the feat would have to specifically state that it does so. Snake Fang indicates special parameters under which you can make attacks of opportunity. Total defense still states that you cannot make attacks of opportunity, so you still can't.
Well, there was the one time my Aldori Swordlord cohort soloed two dragons that were each of her CR in this weird festival game arena combat from an outtake of the AP. Or the time she got into a fight with a Mythic Nightskitter. And another with a Mythic will-o-wisp that was hilarious because one attack provoked a chain of 20 attacks of opportunity. And more stories that are spoilers for the AP (these were all for encounters the GM added). I'd be happy to post a highlights reel in a spoiler block if you like! But there's literally dozens of stories, so before I take the time to write 'em up, let me know if you (and...Ok, I simply HAVE to know how this bolded part happened.I will tell you because it was amazingly awesome.
** spoiler omitted **...
Ok, so it wasn't YOU that did all 20+ AOs. That makes more sense.
So...how come the Will-o-Wisp didn't stop after the first two or three AOs? It could see you were still going, it's not a dumb creature,a fter the first several exchanges you'd think it would go "Hmm, something's wrong here" and re-evaluate that tactic. Was it just possessed by mind-less rage or something?
I was also missing a lot. At some point, that wizard called out in Aklo "At least one of you is making a mistake to continue this" and both Rhiana and the wisp ignored him.
Well, there was the one time my Aldori Swordlord cohort soloed two dragons that were each of her CR in this weird festival game arena combat from an outtake of the AP. Or the time she got into a fight with a Mythic Nightskitter. And another with a Mythic will-o-wisp that was hilarious because one attack provoked a chain of 20 attacks of opportunity. And more stories that are spoilers for the AP (these were all for encounters the GM added). I'd be happy to post a highlights reel in a spoiler block if you like! But there's literally dozens of stories, so before I take the time to write 'em up, let me know if you (and...Ok, I simply HAVE to know how this bolded part happened.I will tell you because it was amazingly awesome.
** spoiler omitted **...
I guess I would have to say, Snake Style set this up, having nothing to do with Crane Wing, except it was used once, and crane wing does not cause snake style *miss* to trigger, per the FAQ on deflected attacks.
Oh, that story was totally mostly about Snake (clearly Crane doesn't give more than 1 AoO per round so the 20 AoOs had to be from something else)--it's just too fun not to mention it. The dragons, for instance, were entirely Crane, but they are less ridiculously funny.
Jason was pretty clear that feats override that general rule.FYI Snake fang allows you to perform that AOO during a full-defense action.I'm not sure that's actually the case. The new crane wing specifically calls out being in total defense for the deflect and thus the riposte riposte to function. Snake fang isn't that specific which would imply the rule about no AoO's when in total defense would still be in play.
^^^^This. They have opened a small floodgate on the previously held belief, which was pretty much universal, it appears, that total defense is the specific negating the general usage of a feat. Now, we have to legitimately wonder if monk who gets dazed or stunned while in snake style is also allowed to take AoOs because 'specific (feat) overrides general (condition)".
|
Some people occasionally pop in and say, "run APs crane wing OP" and then move on without saying any details.Oh, oh! I can tell a story!
There once was an AP where the boss cast cloudkill, and followed with circle of death.
Everybody died, crane wing did nothing, the end!
I think the point is that most monsters are melee based, rather than magic based, and if you are playing an AP where most of the enemies are monsters, Crane Wing becomes pretty powerful - overly so, in my opinion. Parties tend to be relatively balanced in their distribution of melee and ranged, while monster groups are not.
I believe the monk in my current RotRL AP can easily pump her AC up to 32 (or thereabouts) at 9th level, and it's only that low because she needs has a Vow of Poverty, and as such can't wear other AC boosting items. One of the fights (party CR +1) has a monster that attacks alone, and has either a +18/+13 weapon with +10 bite, or +15 2 claw with +15 bite. I'm going to use the natural attacks here, because calculating them is easier.
With the natural attacks, the monster hits on a 17-20. That means there's a 1-in-5 chance any given attack will hit, and unless my math is off, I think there's about a 5% chance (7 out of 125, again, assuming I'm doing binomial distribution correctly) that two or three attacks hit. That means that, 95% of the time, the monster will not be able to get through to the PC. That's...a lot.
Unless I want to metagame an unintelligent monster, there's really no reason for it to try to sneak past the monk (who is usually enlarged in combat) to get at the squishier targets behind her.
Now, yes, I can (and did) up the difficulty by adding in some lackeys, or combining two encounters into a single encounter. This wasn't a big final boss, as it was a CR 10 creature up against a level 9 party. As written though, many of the combat encounters with melee monsters seem incredibly underwhelming for my group, as very few attacks get through, and the party can use and abuse its one trick pony strategy of enlarging the monk, holding a chokepoint, and hammering the monster from a distance. Either I need to change monster tactics, add in more mooks, and add in more spellcasters, or use the errata.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
3. Folks should recognize that there are some feats we expect to be common and should be pegged at the top of the power curve (or close to it). We expect to see a lot of people with Power Attack. Thats why its in the core rulebook. That is not to say other feats cannot be as good (or close to it), but if we are always putting out Feats (and other mechanics) that trump existing ones, we end up with power creep. Its a delicate balancing act, and not one that we always get right. Every rule builds on those that have come before and as time goes on, it becomes more and more difficult to foresee all the ramifications. Thats not meant to be an excuse, I just wanted to give folks an idea of what we have to deal with on a daily basis. Concerning this feat, we came to agree that it was pushing a bit to high above the base line. We pulled it back. We are looking to see if we went too far. Its clear to us that many of you think we have. We will take that into consideration going forward.
To quote Gandalf, "Hope is kindled!"
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3. Folks should recognize that there are some feats we expect to be common and should be pegged at the top of the power curve (or close to it). We expect to see a lot of people with Power Attack. Thats why its in the core rulebook. That is not to say other feats cannot be as good (or close to it), but if we are always putting out Feats (and other mechanics) that trump existing ones, we end up with power creep. Its a delicate balancing act, and not one that we always get right. Every rule builds on those that have come before and as time goes on, it becomes more and more difficult to foresee all the ramifications. Thats not meant to be an excuse, I just wanted to give folks an idea of what we have to deal with on a daily basis. Concerning this feat, we came to agree that it was pushing a bit to high above the base line. We pulled it back. We are looking to see if we went too far. Its clear to us that many of you think we have. We will take that into consideration going forward.To quote Gandalf, "Hope is kindled!"
But no one will remember this the next time they feel like saying the design team doesn't listen, just like the don't remember the last time, or the time before that. :/
^^^^This. They have opened a small floodgate on the previously held belief, which was pretty much universal, it appears, that total defense is the specific negating the general usage of a feat. Now, we have to legitimately wonder if monk who gets dazed or stunned while in snake style is also allowed to take AoOs because 'specific (feat) overrides general (condition)".Jason was pretty clear that feats override that general rule.FYI Snake fang allows you to perform that AOO during a full-defense action.I'm not sure that's actually the case. The new crane wing specifically calls out being in total defense for the deflect and thus the riposte riposte to function. Snake fang isn't that specific which would imply the rule about no AoO's when in total defense would still be in play.
Guys, no. The rule is "no AOOs while in total defense." If the feat doesn't specifically say something to the effect of "You can make AOOs/this AOO while in total defense" then there's no conflict. The total defense rule still applies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But no one will remember this the next time they feel like saying the design team doesn't listen, just like the don't remember the last time, or the time before that. :/3. Folks should recognize that there are some feats we expect to be common and should be pegged at the top of the power curve (or close to it). We expect to see a lot of people with Power Attack. Thats why its in the core rulebook. That is not to say other feats cannot be as good (or close to it), but if we are always putting out Feats (and other mechanics) that trump existing ones, we end up with power creep. Its a delicate balancing act, and not one that we always get right. Every rule builds on those that have come before and as time goes on, it becomes more and more difficult to foresee all the ramifications. Thats not meant to be an excuse, I just wanted to give folks an idea of what we have to deal with on a daily basis. Concerning this feat, we came to agree that it was pushing a bit to high above the base line. We pulled it back. We are looking to see if we went too far. Its clear to us that many of you think we have. We will take that into consideration going forward.To quote Gandalf, "Hope is kindled!"
I'll remember and I'll remind others of it too. Too many terrible companies out there to not remember the good ones as such.
3. Folks should recognize that there are some feats we expect to be common and should be pegged at the top of the power curve (or close to it). We expect to see a lot of people with Power Attack. Thats why its in the core rulebook. That is not to say other feats cannot be as good (or close to it), but if we are always putting out Feats (and other mechanics) that trump existing ones, we end up with power creep. Its a delicate balancing act, and not one that we always get right. Every rule builds on those that have come before and as time goes on, it becomes more and more difficult to foresee all the ramifications...
Thank you Jason et al. This quote pretty much sums up what I had hoped was the reason for this change. I can now take the Crane Style feats off my list of house rules.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But no one will remember this the next time they feel like saying the design team doesn't listen, just like the don't remember the last time, or the time before that. :/
Personally I'd have quite liked it if they tried a test balloon instead of releasing errata like this into the wild completely out of the blue... Asking and listening instead of printing and backpedaling. At the moment this feels like the Amulet of Mighty Fists or Flurry of Blows with a single weapon stories all over again.
Guys, no. The rule is "no AOOs while in total defense." If the feat doesn't specifically say something to the effect of "You can make AOOs/this AOO while in total defense" then there's no conflict. The total defense rule still applies.^^^^This. They have opened a small floodgate on the previously held belief, which was pretty much universal, it appears, that total defense is the specific negating the general usage of a feat. Now, we have to legitimately wonder if monk who gets dazed or stunned while in snake style is also allowed to take AoOs because 'specific (feat) overrides general (condition)".Jason was pretty clear that feats override that general rule.FYI Snake fang allows you to perform that AOO during a full-defense action.I'm not sure that's actually the case. The new crane wing specifically calls out being in total defense for the deflect and thus the riposte riposte to function. Snake fang isn't that specific which would imply the rule about no AoO's when in total defense would still be in play.
With respect, until further clarification from Mr. Bulmahn that now stands as merely your opinion. Snake Fang and Crane Riposte say you can take an Attack of Opportunity. It used to be that only certain things provoked that AO, distracting actions and movement. These style feats clearly fell into the category of expanding the list of things in the former category. The specific that overrode the general, of course, was if you couldn't take AOs in the first place. For example, being flat-footed or using total defense.
Now, however, we've been told that not only does Snake Fang and Crane Riposte override the 'you normally can't take an AO at this time' general rule, it ALSO overrides the 'you DEFINITELY can't take an AO because of this action/condition' specific rule. See the problem? We now apparently have dueling specifics here with no clear metric on how to weigh them or where to draw the line.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the moment this feels like the Amulet of Mighty Fists or Flurry of Blows with a single weapon stories all over again.
You mean where the community (outside of PFS, even!) wanted something and Paizo listened and acted?
Yeah, you're right, it is kind of like that!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quoted from another thread:
No specifically, but mirror image is a known quantity for us. It is range personal, easily foiled by some relatively common spells, brought down on a miss, and generally limited to a pair of character classes that are not exactly known for rushing into combat.
Like the crane style feat is very personal, easily foiled by spells and lots of other tactics and mostly used by a class known to pose little threat in combat.
Concerning this feat, we came to agree that it was pushing a bit to high above the base line. We pulled it back. We are looking to see if we went too far. Its clear to us that many of you think we have. We will take that into consideration going forward.
Thanks Jason. This is pretty much my biggest issue. I can see how this feat might have been a bit more powerful then it should have been, but now it feels nearly useless by comparison. I do hope that eventually a balance can be reached that makes the feat fun and useful while not being too powerful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well Good Morning Everyone,
I just want everyone to know that these threads are on life support. I understand that some of you are clearly very upset about this, but the inability of some posters to remain civil is starting to turn this into a problem. Being rude to your fellow posters and paizo staff is not going to let you have your way.
There are few issues I want to address.
1. Because one thing is powerful, even overpowered, does not mean that we are not going to tackle other imbalances. If we lived by that philosophy, nothing would ever get taken care of. We cannot possibly hope to take care of every balance issue (perceived or real) simultaneously. Its a process. It is ongoing. Some folks have mentioned some other issues here (and I am not here to discuss them in an already meandering thread) and many of them are on our radar.
2. I am looking at putting out some clarification on Crane Riposte in the near future to ensure that it is working as intended with the feat chain. It clear to me that the wording is not quite right for the revision and it needs some work to avoid confusion. That will go up in the errata section as soon as the Dev team can come up with a consensus.
3. Folks should recognize that there are some feats we expect to be common and should be pegged at the top of the power curve (or close to it). We expect to see a lot of people with Power Attack. Thats why its in the core rulebook. That is not to say other feats cannot be as good (or close to it), but if we are always putting out Feats (and other mechanics) that trump existing ones, we end up with power creep. Its a delicate balancing act, and not one that we always get right. Every rule builds on those that have come before and as time goes on, it becomes more and more difficult to foresee all the ramifications. Thats not meant to be an excuse, I just wanted to give folks an idea of what we have to deal with on a daily basis. Concerning this feat, we came to agree that it was pushing a bit to high above the base line....
1. I hope you aren't insinuating that more nerfs on the way, because count me out. I'm not interested in that kind of pathfinder.
2. Cool
3. Fine, but I think you guys are finding out that printing too much material under the power curve is also problematic. It starts setting precedents that cause classes that depend on these general mundane mechanics to fall further and further behind.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the moment this feels like the Amulet of Mighty Fists or Flurry of Blows with a single weapon stories all over again.You mean where the community (outside of PFS, even!) wanted something and Paizo listened and acted?
Yeah, you're right, it is kind of like that!
No, I mean where Paizo decided to 'clarify' that flurry of blows required two different weapons, singularly screwing monks in the WBL department. And then reversed the ruling after a massive outcry on the forums that lasted for weeks if not months.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jason, thanks for the post. Jiggy is right; we all appreciate that you and the other developers are listening to us. I think the frustration a lot of people have results from the essential power imbalance between casters and martials that has been ingrained in D&D (and by extension Pathfinder) from the very beginning.
I understand that there is theoretically little you can do about this without making major overhauls to the game. Pro-martial players, though, may ask themselves "Well, why don't they make those overhauls?" And this thought is where the problem begins. They look at an errata like this and say to themselves "Why are they changing this but they're not changing wall of force/magic missile/glitterdust/dominate person/black tentacles (etc, etc, etc)?" Then they get mad.
I understand people who think this way, but I also understand the designers' position. Ultimately, you just have to accept that casters were a mistake in the first place, but now they're a sacred cow and there's nothing that can really be done about that. Just accept this and move on and go on enjoying the game as best you can. When considering balance issues, just pretend casters don't exist, because otherwise you will never be able to rest and arguments will be never-ending. There is simply no other perspective that makes sense of things.
It is for this reason that I completely support the Crane Wing errata, despite being a player who overwhelmingly favors playing martial classes. The feats in question were definitely imbalanced when compared to similar feats and abilities that do similar things, and when you ignore the existence of casters entirely. That's the only way that balance can and should be measured in this game, if any of us are going to keep our sanity.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. I hope you aren't insinuating that more nerfs on the way, because count me out. I'm not interested in that kind of pathfinder.
I'm fairly certain that he just meant that the argument "but class X has an OP skill too!" doesn't justify keeping in an overpowered skill, even if it's on a so-called underpowered class.
At the moment this feels like the Amulet of Mighty Fists or Flurry of Blows with a single weapon stories all over again.You mean where the community (outside of PFS, even!) wanted something and Paizo listened and acted?
Yeah, you're right, it is kind of like that!
Took forever though. Didn't happen like that. There are also a lot of other complaints that tend to seep in when people speak out when they're agitated, or things they point to they think are wrong. Not always spoken well, but you get to see a bit of where the malcontent is.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Concerning this feat, we came to agree that it was pushing a bit to high above the base line. We pulled it back. We are looking to see if we went too far. Its clear to us that many of you think we have. We will take that into consideration going forward.Thanks Jason. This is pretty much my biggest issue. I can see how this feat might have been a bit more powerful then it should have been, but now it feels nearly useless by comparison. I do hope that eventually a balance can be reached that makes the feat fun and useful while not being too powerful.
Personally, I'm hoping Crane Wing is rewritten as follows:
-Benefit: Once per round, when fighting defensively or using total defense with at least one hand free, you can attempt to deflect one melee attack that would otherwise hit you. The attacker suffers a -4 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack misses as a result of the penalty, it is deflected, dealing no damage and having no other effect (instead treat it as a miss). You do not expend an action when using this feat, but you must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed.
THIS I could easily live with. There's no pointless guessing on which attack to attempt to deflect, it applies to any kind of attack made against you by your opponent, and natural 20s would still get through. Also, none of this total defense silliness, meaning Crane Riposte works with it again and this whole 'which specific wins the fight' stuff can end!
Now, however, we've been told that not only does Snake Fang and Crane Riposte override the 'you normally can't take an AO at this time' general rule, it ALSO overrides the 'you DEFINITELY can't take an AO because of this action/condition' specific rule. See the problem? We now apparently have dueling specifics here...
It's possible I'm not fully understanding your argument, but at the moment, no, I'm not seeing the problem. Well, I should say that I see where it's an issue with the Crane feats (which specifically address Total Defense) but not with Snake Fang (which does not). What am I missing?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jason, thanks for the post. Jiggy is right; we all appreciate that you and the other developers are listening to us. I think the frustration a lot of people have results from the essential power imbalance between casters and martials that has been ingrained in D&D (and by extension Pathfinder) from the very beginning.
I understand that there is theoretically little you can do about this without making major overhauls to the game. Pro-martial players, though, may ask themselves "Well, why don't they make those overhauls?" And this thought is where the problem begins. They look at an errata like this and say to themselves "Why are they changing this but they're not changing wall of force/magic missile/glitterdust/dominate person/black tentacles (etc, etc, etc)?" Then they get mad.
I understand people who think this way, but I also understand the designers' position. Ultimately, you just have to accept that casters were a mistake in the first place, but now they're a sacred cow and there's nothing that can really be done about that. Just accept this and move on and go on enjoying the game as best you can. When considering balance issues, just pretend casters don't exist, because otherwise you will never be able to rest and arguments will be never-ending. There is simply no other perspective that makes sense of things.
It is for this reason that I completely support the Crane Wing errata, despite being a player who overwhelmingly favors playing martial classes. The feats in question were definitely imbalanced when compared to similar feats and abilities that do similar things, and when you ignore the existence of casters entirely. That's the only way that balance can and should be measured in this game, if any of us are going to keep our sanity.
Your comment just highlights how silly it is to be nerfing martials