SKR is an Official Rules Guy. His word on rules questions is official Paizo stance. Argue with it if you want, but he's as official as it gets.
Does not change the fact that in this case the RAW say clearly a different thing than he does. So if he does want it to be "official" this case needs an erratum / rewording.
Actually I'd prefer if he just retracted the statement, but if he wants it to stand, well: he will have to reword the feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The character didn't take Deflect Arrows because he gets it for free later as a Duelist.
We're early in the test process. And the only combination that can take Crane early is the Master of Many Styles. The character that took it has still fallen to archers with Rapid Shot and animals with more than one natural attack or more than one creature attacking him. And spells and spell-like abilities are equally effective. The Shadow Demon had no problem fearing him or possessing him.
I think Crane Style is very well made. A potent feat, but not over-powered save at very low levels. You still have to be fighting defensively, which gives you a minus to hit. To use fighting defensively, you have to be in combat and attack at least once a round, othwerwise you have to be in total defense to use Crane Style. There are plenty of things that can still affect you.
And if someone really wants to build a defensive style where they dart in and out of combat getting only one attack a round, then so what. It's a fighting style. All the guy has to do to deal with it is ready an action to grapple or trip and knock the guy down to get full attacks on him or kill his friends.
The RAW is contradictory in this case Hyla. If you search the RAW you'll also find multiple examples that line up with SKR's statement. He's not issuing an errata he's delivering a clarification.
Could you point me to this examples?
The way I see it, at the moment natural attacks are pretty much defined as "attacks made without a melee weapon".
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has been beaten to death in many threads. A natural weapon is a melee weapon.No, I believe that is to exclude natural weapons.
Again, has this been clarified?
Hm. Does not seem to be used in the rules this way consistently though. In the natural attacks section, it is distinguished between unarmed, natural and melee weapon attacks
So your stance is that since its a bit unclear you are going to ignore the opinion of one of the developers of the game system and argue that he is wrong?
If natural attacks are not weapons then about half the rules in the game don't work with them... at all. The whole combat chapter? Toss it.
"Attack Bonus Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is the following:"
Oops, there is no BAB for Natural Attacks, I guess they just flail around ineffectively?
"When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result."
I guess since natural attacks aren't weapons they do no strength damage either?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again from the combat chapter:
"Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using"
"You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties."
Maybe there is something going on here, natural attacks are made with natural weapons? Weird!
So your stance is that since its a bit unclear you are going to ignore the opinion of one of the developers of the game system and argue that he is wrong?
If natural attacks are not weapons then about half the rules in the game don't work with them... at all. The whole combat chapter? Toss it.
"Attack Bonus Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is the following:"
Oops, there is no BAB for Natural Attacks, I guess they just flail around ineffectively?
"When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result."
I guess since natural attacks aren't weapons they do no strength damage either?
Its not a bit unclear, its totally clear.
Natural attacks are defined as "attacks made without a melee weapon", how they are treated regarding BAB and Str bonus to damage is detailed in that same section.
Again from the combat chapter:
"Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using""You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties."
Maybe there is something going on here, natural attacks are made with natural weapons? Weird!
Note how its always "natural weapon" and never "natural melee weapon". In the core rules "melee weapon" ALWAYS refers to a manufactured weapon, and NEVER to a natural weapon..
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This reminds me of the bible thumpers who show up at my doorstep who have three versus memorized and talk about how you should read the bible and understand it. They would go next door to the former preachers house and come out 2 hours later with a stunned look on their faces.
Melee is a way you use a weapon, not a classification of a weapon.
If you use a chair to hit something, it is a melee weapon.
If you throw a chair at someone it is a ranged weapon.
Well rules are using a codified set of expressions. You can't always approach them with linguistic usage. As this example shows nicely.
I repeat: In the PFCR, "melee weapon" ALWAYS refers to a manufactured weapon. In the PFCR "natural attacks" are DEFINED as being attacks made without a melee weapon.
Therefore, the feat crane wing as worded does NOT apply to natural attacks.
There is no need to even discuss this.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its not a bit unclear, its totally clear.
Natural attacks are defined as "attacks made without a melee weapon", how they are treated regarding BAB and Str bonus to damage is detailed in that same section.
It is totally clear that you are unwilling to listen to anyone.
*PLONK*
So a what's being said is a character with the crane wing feat could parry a huge sized greataxe swung by a frost giant because its a "melee weapon"
But the same character couldn't parry a claw attack from a house cat...
Yeah that doesn't make sense...
I think melee weapon attack applies to anything used in melee(sword,claw or fist) to attack.
Sometimes Even in a fantasy game, you shouldnt rule out good old common sense.
Sometimes Even in a fantasy game, you shouldnt rule out good old common sense.
That way lies madness, you know that, right?
It is totally clear that you are unwilling to listen to anyone.*PLONK*
Not at all. I just believe that, in a rules discussion, the rules, as written, should be common denominator.
You seem unwilling to accept that, your decision. Just keep calm.
Unfortunately, you cannot use the rules as written without interpretation.
While that may be true, there are different degrees of interpretation needed, depending on the case. This case is pretty clear to me.
Pretty much. You're not using the Rules as Written, you're using the Rules as Interpreted by Hyla.
Of course, always. ;)
SKR is an Official Rules Guy. His word on rules questions is official Paizo stance. Argue with it if you want, but he's as official as it gets.
There seems to be only a few types of weapons in this game system
Melee weapons: This category includes:
Armed Attacks (That are not considered ranged)
Unarmed Attacks
Natural Attacks
Ranged Touch Spell Attacks (
Ranged Weapons:
Armed Attacks (That only can be used at ranged: Bows, etc..)
Natural Attacks (That only can be used at range: Shooting Quills, etc..)
Ranged Touch Spell Attacks
Area Effect Weapons:
Spells or abilities that do not require a roll to hit.
And that's it.
Thus, anything that makes one considered "Armed" for purposes of melee attack is considered a Melee Weapon.
A Good example is anything that you can take the Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, or Weapon Finesse feat for is a melee weapon. Natural Attacks, Armed Attacks, Unarmed Attacks, and Ranged Touch Spells all qualify for the above feats. For weapon focus and weapon specialization this has been cleared up with a faq. For weapon finesse it actually states natural weapons within the feats description.
This is a very simple game system, looking at the rules and trying to make it more complex only harms the system and the enjoyment of playing in it.
Melee is a way you use a weapon, not a classification of a weapon.
If you use a chair to hit something, it is a melee weapon.
If you throw a chair at someone it is a ranged weapon.
Well rules are using a codified set of expressions. You can't always approach them with linguistic usage. As this example shows nicely.
I repeat: In the PFCR, "melee weapon" ALWAYS refers to a manufactured weapon. In the PFCR "natural attacks" are DEFINED as being attacks made without a melee weapon.
Therefore, the feat crane wing as worded does NOT apply to natural attacks.
There is no need to even discuss this.
Using this logic
Melee Attack always refers to Melee Weapon (as the only definition of Melee attack is defined by use of Melee weapons)
Page 182 Core Rules book.
Thus Natural Weapons do not gain STR Modifier bonus to hit. As the rules say only Melee Attacks get that bonus. Thus every monster printed by the the guys at Pathfinder would be wrong.
OR
Natural Attacks = Melee Attacks
Melee attacks must be made with Melee Weapons.
Thus Melee Weapons = Natural Weapons
And all the monsters printed in the books are correct.
It is either one or the other, do you think that they would have made that massive a mistake in printed material?
Specific rules beat general rules. The section detailing natural attacks state that strength bonus is added "as normal".
Specific rules beat general rules. The section detailing natural attacks state that strength bonus is added "as normal".
"These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and
deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plusyour Strength modifier, as normal)."
The structure of the sentence is very specific and clear..
These attacks are made using your full attack bonus
and
deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal)
The modifier is only applied to the second section of the sentence. It separates the to hit from the damage and further highlights the Strength modifier only for the damage section of the sentence.
Of course you could say the the Strength modifier applies to the entire statement which makes sense, however as written it does not.
The same structure says that a natural attack is a melee attack.
Melee attacks can only be made by melee weapons.
H
Melee attacks can only be made by melee weapons.
No.
Note how the rules differentiate clearly between natural weapons, melee weapons and unarmed attacks:
"Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:"
"Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach [...]You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes"
"Natural Attacks: Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon)"
As you see, the rules differentiate between:
- melee weapon (attacks)
- natural weapon (attack) / natural attack
- unarmed strike / attack
I just wouldn't allow it, or make it require a Reflex save or something, but mostly just not allow it.
A "deflect" combat maneuvre as a free action would be the way to go if you want sth. like this.
Anyway, I have currently a lvl 10 monk in my campaign, who uses crane style. We ruled it as only applicable against manufactured weapons (you know, melee ones... ;) ) and did not have much problems wth it so far. The monk does not get hit often because of his insane AC anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...and a monk will always beat a fighter in a sword fight.
I never thought I'd see such a sentence.
You should try Crane Style with a Hungry Ghost Monk with Punishing Kick. You do a full attack gaining temporary hit points then use one of your attacks to Punishing Kick your opponent 15 feet back so he has to move to you to make a single attack that you dodge with Crane Wing and attack him again with Crane Riposte. Pretty nasty combination. I'm using this combination on my players. I want to see the surprised look on their faces when my frost giant monk villain uses this tactic on them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is important that just getting Crane Style and Crane Wing takes 5 lvls if you don't have the Master of Many Styles archetype (though this archetype does ,with a human's bonus feat, have the potential to get these feats by lvl 2 and the entire chain by lvl 3)
Most fighters will only have to wait one lvl before they get another attack, but in the meantime they can still use two weapon fighting to bypass the Crane Wing feat's block of a single attack. Any Monk with Flurry of Blows could also bypass this defense.
As for the rules lawyering, there was an article somewhere that covered the fact that the rules were intended to both simulate reality and allow some fantastical abilites on top of that, however imperfectly they meet these requirements. Which also means that the developers intended for players to use what is commonly referred to as "common sense," as uncommon as that trait might be.
To Hyla: I believe that the article in question specifically named the method you are using to adjudicate the rules as something along the lines of Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove Me Wrong, Neyah! (RAIITAYCPMWN)
And just note that if you are going to apply "your Strength modifier, as normal" to your natural attacks you are also making a judgement call as to what is normal.
Normal for what? A melee attack? A rule that only affects attacks with weapons?
It seems that by your own logic you have just defined natural attacks as attacks with natural weapons.
And if that is not enough, what about the sub-section about "'Armed' Unarmed Attacks" in the "Unarmed Attacks" section (CRB p182).
If they are considered armed attacks, what are they "armed" with? Natural weapons? Wouldn't that make it a weapon attack?
Just saying that you should be wary of trying to rules layer too much, especially when it flies in the face of common sense and logic. There will always be someone who can poke holes in it. It might just take a bit to encounter that person.
And it makes you a munchkin.
I have a sensei monk in one game. he makes good use of the crane style while hes busy buffing the group. and since i gave up flurry for Sensei its not a big deal fighting defensive and all that all the time. plus i have a higher ac then the fighter atm.
I think it is important that just getting Crane Style and Crane Wing takes 5 lvls if you don't have the Master of Many Styles archetype (though this archetype does ,with a human's bonus feat, have the potential to get these feats by lvl 2 and the entire chain by lvl 3)
Most fighters will only have to wait one lvl before they get another attack, but in the meantime they can still use two weapon fighting to bypass the Crane Wing feat's block of a single attack. Any Monk with Flurry of Blows could also bypass this defense.
As for the rules lawyering, there was an article somewhere that covered the fact that the rules were intended to both simulate reality and allow some fantastical abilites on top of that, however imperfectly they meet these requirements. Which also means that the developers intended for players to use what is commonly referred to as "common sense," as uncommon as that trait might be.
To Hyla: I believe that the article in question specifically named the method you are using to adjudicate the rules as something along the lines of Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove Me Wrong, Neyah! (RAIITAYCPMWN)
And just note that if you are going to apply "your Strength modifier, as normal" to your natural attacks you are also making a judgement call as to what is normal.
Normal for what? A melee attack? A rule that only affects attacks with weapons?
It seems that by your own logic you have just defined natural attacks as attacks with natural weapons.
And if that is not enough, what about the sub-section about "'Armed' Unarmed Attacks" in the "Unarmed Attacks" section (CRB p182).
If they are considered armed attacks, what are they "armed" with? Natural weapons? Wouldn't that make it a weapon attack?
Just saying that you should be wary of trying to rules layer too much, especially when it flies in the face of common sense and logic. There will always be someone who can poke holes in it. It might just take a bit to encounter that person.
And it makes you a munchkin.
The key to using Crane Style is to limit the foe to a standard attack action.
TWF will then require yet another feat to have any chance of doing damage on a standard action, and the Crane user will be up 2 attacks to one, at full BAB, because of the AoO.
If the Crane allows the enemy to make a full attack, well, yeah, Crane technique isn't quite so good...although the AC benefit is equal to having a shield, and eliminating the most damaging of the enemy's attacks is massive damage mitigation.
On your turn, grab your weapon with both hands, hack away, take your hand off when your turn is done.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I think it is important that just getting Crane Style and Crane Wing takes 5 lvls if you don't have the Master of Many Styles archetype (though this archetype does ,with a human's bonus feat, have the potential to get these feats by lvl 2 and the entire chain by lvl 3)
Most fighters will only have to wait one lvl before they get another attack, but in the meantime they can still use two weapon fighting to bypass the Crane Wing feat's block of a single attack. Any Monk with Flurry of Blows could also bypass this defense.
As for the rules lawyering, there was an article somewhere that covered the fact that the rules were intended to both simulate reality and allow some fantastical abilites on top of that, however imperfectly they meet these requirements. Which also means that the developers intended for players to use what is commonly referred to as "common sense," as uncommon as that trait might be.
To Hyla: I believe that the article in question specifically named the method you are using to adjudicate the rules as something along the lines of Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove Me Wrong, Neyah! (RAIITAYCPMWN)
And just note that if you are going to apply "your Strength modifier, as normal" to your natural attacks you are also making a judgement call as to what is normal.
Normal for what? A melee attack? A rule that only affects attacks with weapons?
It seems that by your own logic you have just defined natural attacks as attacks with natural weapons.
And if that is not enough, what about the sub-section about "'Armed' Unarmed Attacks" in the "Unarmed Attacks" section (CRB p182).
If they are considered armed attacks, what are they "armed" with? Natural weapons? Wouldn't that make it a weapon attack?
Just saying that you should be wary of trying to rules layer too much, especially when it flies in the face of common sense and logic. There will always be someone who can poke holes in it. It might just take a bit to encounter that person.
And it makes
I'm happy to not be playing with this guy in my RPG games, he read the rules and he assumes no one else has the right about those.
And it makes you a munchkin.
Aw, dammit. ;)
Seriously: That is not what a munchkin is.
I have a sensei monk in one game. he makes good use of the crane style while hes busy buffing the group. and since i gave up flurry for Sensei its not a big deal fighting defensive and all that all the time. plus i have a higher ac then the fighter atm.
If you are buffing you are not attacking and thus not fighting defensively?
Via Crane Wing you can attempt Combat Maneuvers (Grapple, Trip...) deflecting AoO!
Random 2 year necro bump?
Careful there, Cao! To animate such an ancient being, this guy must be using some crazy powerful dark magic! Wouldnt want to get on his bad side, who knows if hes a lich disguised as a forum poster of sorts?
No, guys... I'm not a lich. I'm just playing a MoMS Monk 3 with Dodge, Crane Style, Crane Wing, Crane Riposte and Improved Initiative: that's really amazing! :D
IMHO, "melee weapon attack" it's an errata. The correct version of Crane Wing should be:
"Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you can deflect one MELEE ATTACK that would normally hit you. You expend no action to deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you."
No, guys... I'm not a lich. I'm just playing a MoMS Monk 3 with Dodge, Crane Style, Crane Wing, Crane Riposte and Improved Initiative: that's really amazing! :D
IMHO, "melee weapon attack" it's an errata. The correct version of Crane Wing should be:
"Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you can deflect one MELEE ATTACK that would normally hit you. You expend no action to deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you."
Is it a melee weapon attack? Yes, you can deflect it.
If it is not a melee weapon attack, you cannot deflect it. This certainly means you cannot deflect a grapple, bull rush, reposition, dirty trick, drag, overrun, or steal maneuvers. None of these combat maneuvers use a weapon normally, though I believe reposition attempts can be made with a weapon with the trip feature listed on it.
Disarm, sunder, trip can be performed with weapons and normally are. However, they can be performed without a weapon as well. If a weapon is used you could deflect it. If a weapon is not used, you cannot deflect it.
An unarmed strike is a weapon though, and does give you any bonuses you have to unarmed strikes on Grapple and Bull Rush maneuvers, at least, from your list of supposed 'not melee weapon attacks', and certainly mean Disarm, Sunder, and Trip would always qualify for deflection.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An unarmed strike is a weapon though, and does give you any bonuses you have to unarmed strikes on Grapple and Bull Rush maneuvers, at least, from your list of supposed 'not melee weapon attacks', and certainly mean Disarm, Sunder, and Trip would always qualify for deflection.
Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon (natural weapons and unarmed strikes are considered weapons for this purpose) to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses (enhancement bonuses, feats such as Weapon Focus, fighter weapon training, and so on) apply to the roll.
So were both right and wrong.
Grapple and bull rush cannot be deflected, unless you have some special ability that lets you use a weapon on a grapple or bull rush like the Polearm Fighter's Sweeping Fend. Otherwise, they don't count as using a weapon. However, even when unarmed and performing a trip or disarm it seems you count as using an unarmed strike.
To Tursas, expect some table variation about how this is played out with combat maneuvers.