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?
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...
I guess the best I could put it is that Crane Riposte is about WHEN you can take AOs. Total Defense is about whether you CAN take AOs. Similarly, Snake Fang is about WHEN, flat-footed is about CAN. If you can't take an AO, when doesn't matter. If you can, then the when comes into play. Look at the respective wordings between the two feats:
Whenever you use Crane Wing to deflect an opponent’s attack, you can make an attack of opportunity against that opponent after the attack is deflected.
While using the Snake Style feat, when an opponent’s attack misses you, you can make an unarmed strike against that opponent as an attack of opportunity.
Remember, deflecting with Crane Wing requires no action. Similarly, you don't have to do anything with Snake style to trigger Snake Fang, the attack simply has to miss you, no immediate action to substitute Sense Motive or anything else required. Also, you don't drop out of a stance by being hit with flat-footed.
So, whether you're doing total defense with Crane Style or flat-footed in Snake Style, you have a feat that says the deflected/missing attack now provokes an AO, which you may take. Normally, total defense / flat-footed prevent this. According to JB, that's not the case anymore with the former. Since the two scenarios are functionally identical, there's no reason to not think the same with the latter. Both the feats and the total defense/flat-footed are specifics, but total defense/flat-footed was considered MORE specific and had logical precedence based on the inferred, "can you do this > when may you do this" rule. Because of the explanation given for how Crane Riposte now works, that rule is in jeopardy. As a result, so is the idea that flat-footed, or ANY negative conditions, prevents all sorts of other actions granted by specific feats, spells, and class abilities. The flood-gates have opened.| 2 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!
If the developers really believe a fix is needed, then I second this one.
I think this is a fantastic idea!
-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.
I second that. This I would play because even if it's not guaranteed, you at least have the option of cherry picking the attack roll and not wasting it.
|
Could you point me to them (or list them)? It'd be a lot more helpful than telling me my issues with the feat are invalid.Didn't I do that?
You did indeed. Perhaps a tad condescendingly ("Le gasp~."), but it was solid advice. However, the issue is an in-game problem, and I had hoped to address it as such. The player in question with the feat is essentially the whiniest player in the group. If I pull his special power out, or even suggest altering it, I'm very likely going to hear complaints about it for the rest of the game. Although I suppose if the issue is between whiny and dull combat, I'm going with whiny.
I agree that the style was hit harder than it needed to be, but I still think that it needed to be hit. I'll probably wind up running it more akin to as it was posted in the "Crane Wing Errata for the Errata" thread, or the suggestion posted in this thread by Cerebus Seven.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is a fantastic idea!
-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.
No.
This again has a 100% success rate. You're only going to use it when it's going to work. There's no chance of waste, no conflicting roll.
This is horribly worded. If the attack misses because it got a -4 to hit, OF COURSE IT DEALS NO DAMAGE. That's not Crane Wing. That's just an AC bonus.
You simply won't use it unless the hit is within 4 of your AC. Which means when you bother to use it, it works 100% of the time. It's not a +4 bonus against any attack, it's a +4 against an attack that already hit you, and now you can say 'no' after the fact. Maybe. If it's useful to you.
The errata is about gambling on which attack to direct your attention and parry/Wing towards. Not in retroactively picking the only one the Wing can work on.
==Aelryinth
If you want we can compare this to another 3 feat value chain on another martial character like saaaaay iunno Greater beast totem which is already at least as good as the crane style chain if not better and you let me take that line as a monk and you can have Crane style.Folks, if this is going to devolve into a martial vs caster debate this thread will be locked in the very near future. This errata was for Ultimate Combat... which is mostly about martial characters. Thats all there is to it. Anyone looking for some sort of grand conspiracy can look elsewhere.
(removed a few posts on this matter)
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
A closer three feat comparison, I think, is right around the corner with Snake Style.
I think this is a fantastic idea!
-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.No.
This again has a 100% success rate. You're only going to use it when it's going to work. There's no chance of waste, no conflicting roll.
This is horribly worded. If the attack misses because it got a -4 to hit, OF COURSE IT DEALS NO DAMAGE. That's not Crane Wing. That's just an AC bonus.
You simply won't use it unless the hit is within 4 of your AC. Which means when you bother to use it, it works 100% of the time. It's not a +4 bonus against any attack, it's a +4 against an attack that already hit you, and now you can say 'no' after the fact. Maybe. If it's useful to you.
The errata is about gambling on which attack to direct your attention and parry/Wing towards. Not in retroactively picking the only one the Wing can work on.
==Aelryinth
The GM should know the player'S AC. So he could just tell the player that he hit but not which AC he hit. And in addition to this the suggested version would not help vs natural 20. So it would be weaker. And sufficiently that.
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
Folks, if this is going to devolve into a martial vs caster debate this thread will be locked in the very near future. This errata was for Ultimate Combat... which is mostly about martial characters. Thats all there is to it. Anyone looking for some sort of grand conspiracy can look elsewhere.
(removed a few posts on this matter)
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
This is not about caster vs martial disparity, Jason, but said disparity is real and it's a big problem. And this errata makes it even bigger. But that's not my main concern.
My main concern is about options and variety.
Sadly, there are relatively very few feats that are actually useful, and most of them are some sort of boring numerical bonus. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone when I say that martial classes lack (viable) options. How many feats give Fighters the ability to do something cool, interesting or unique? How many of them are not locked behind a wall of unreasonable prerequisites?
I'd love to play more martial characters, but as long as my only decent options are saying "I full attack", it won't be a fun experience. Which is a shame. Repeating the same sentence and actions over and over is boring!
I usually play on a public area, where many people play all sorts of RPG, and I always allow new people to join the table and play with my group. Sadly, more than once I've seen new players give up on the game because they found out PF martial classes are very limited on what they can do. I've seen many people want to do cool stuff with their legendary warrior character just to be incredibly disappointed that all they could do with any chance of success was stand still and attack. I've seen player literally stand up and leave the table when they realize how harmful simply moving 10ft is to their effectiveness.
Crane Wing was one of the very few feats that allowed martial characters to do something different and cool. Now it's nerfed so hard I honestly can't see any player ever using it again.
It's bad enough that martial characters are almost forced into 2-handed or archery builds if they want to be effective (maneuvers scale really badly and took a serious and unnecessary nerf from 3.5, TWF needs high attributes, lots of gold and lots of feat just to stay relevant, crossbows are a joke, thrown weapons are pathetic, dueling is awful and just became even worse). Losing one of the very few interesting martial options in the game, (apparently because PFS GMs can't adapt, no less) is a big slap in the face of fans of martial classes everywhere. Especially considering how easy it's to get around CW (ranged attacks, spells, maneuvers, area effects, catching enemies flat-footed, multiple attacks, etc).
I love this game, as it can be seen by the fact that I spent hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours on it. I have pretty almost every hard cover book, many player companions, quite a few APs, all PFS novels, lots of HeroLab packs, official campaign dice sets (RotRL is my favorite). Every time I talk to someone moderately interested in RPG, I try to convince them to play with my group at least once and try the system. I always welcome new player in my table unless I already have 8+ players there.
Now, thanks to this errata, for the first since I started playing Pathfinder, I'm sad to say I considered the idea of stop playing the game. And not because of CW, specifically. I don't think it's that good... I've never even used a character with CW (but already GMed for 3 of them).
That's how disappointed I'm.
And I'm disappointed not because martials got nerfed while casters still have all their overpowered toys to play with... I'm disappointed because I see this happening time and time again with no indication of changing any time soon.
I'm disappointed because Paizo seems to be more concerned with removing, nerfing or banning options for martial character, (despite how underpowered they are, like during the 2-handed/armor spike ruling) than with increasing character variety.
I'm disappointed because Paizo seems to favor nerfing everything else instead of buffing weak options.
I'm disappointed because all of that reduces character variety, which in turn, reduces player fun.
And most of all, I'm disappointed because the design team doesn't seem to care about any of these issues. No matter how often players point them out.
|
The errata is about gambling on which attack to direct your attention and parry/Wing towards. Not in retroactively picking the only one the Wing can work on.
I think you're over estimating how much "gambling" will be done. For iterative attackers, the most cost effective time to spend crane wing is at the start. Same with many monsters with natural attacks, the crane wing will be spent on the primaries. For a monster with one attack, crane wing is always spent on that one attack.
It's not really a problem as far as I'm concerned that it works 100% of the time. Because in all of the scenarios I just mentioned, you may not even run into an attack that would only exceed your AC by +4 and be effective to even try to crane wing, and therefore might not even get a chance to spend it. And you already can't deflect natural 20s because of the new wording.
I really don't see it as a problem. And I think the gambling is non productive anyway, because all it does is make people shy away from the feat. If making people gamble was the goal, why not just have a guaranteed deflect if you had to spend your crane wing prior to revealing the results of the roll? It seems too weird to be the intention.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In short, the arguments come down to: Yes, you can use attacks that are effective against all melee characters (ranged and spells) OR use things that are ineffective (mooks, grapple, and melee) against a Crane Chain user.
Fair enough.... but nothing has been said that actually invalidates this argument. Arguing against it is like suggesting fire elementals fire immunity needs to be nerfed because fireballs are ineffective against them. If the only damage spells out there were all fire based, then a point could be made, but they aren't.
Could you point me to them (or list them)? It'd be a lot more helpful than telling me my issues with the feat are invalid.Point is, as someone who runs a non-PFS game, I need to either let my party get away with using Crane Style to out-defend monsters, or step up the monsters to the point where I'm doing one of three things:
1. Add in more caster enemies
2. Give monsters more iterative attacks/add in more monsters
3. Give monsters Crane Style (which feels goofy and nerfs the party martials)I'm not a fan of any of those three options, as they mean that if I drop the monk, the rest of the party is easy prey. Honestly, the easiest way I see to keep the game balanced is to eliminate (or alter) the Crane Style feat chain.
except there are way more then 3 ways to deal with the old crane wing. They've been mentioned many times on the here already. So I'm not sure how constructive your point is when you've arbitrarily picked 3 ways to deal with the problem that you don't like.
1. use ranged weapons
2. after a miss or 2 ignore the monk and focus down the other PC's3. have multiple monsters attack the same character (you don't necessarily need to add more monsters total, but the deflection only matters if it missed once)
4. have the enemy ambush the party (getting into a style is a swift action)
5. Let it be. Your player has a fun toy. Let him enjoy it. I assume you don't have anti-magic fields everywhere to stop the wizard from using his abilities all the time.
6. Make the monk come to you when you have a reach weapon and ready an action to attack.
7. Use a combat maneuver that can't be deflected by crane wing.
8. Have a caster target him (you don't need to add more, but I assume you have some, sometimes).
also, if your party monk is so powerful that anything you do to challenge him will make the rest of your party easy prey, I think your group has bigger issues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No.
This again has a 100% success rate. You're only going to use it when it's going to work. There's no chance of waste, no conflicting roll.
This is horribly worded. If the attack misses because it got a -4 to hit, OF COURSE IT DEALS NO DAMAGE. That's not Crane Wing. That's just an AC bonus.
You simply won't use it unless the hit is within 4 of your AC. Which means when you bother to use it, it works 100% of the time. It's not a +4 bonus against any attack, it's a +4 against an attack that already hit you, and now you can say 'no' after the fact. Maybe. If it's useful to you.
The errata is about gambling on which attack to direct your attention and parry/Wing towards. Not in retroactively picking the only one the Wing can work on.
==Aelryinth
- First, please calm down.
- Second, I specifed that to spell out that deflect means no damage and no other effect. You know, like the old version of Crane Wing used to do with deflections. The old version which no longer exists.
- Third, this wouldn't stop attack rolls hitting an AC 5 or more above the defenders AC. Obviously, it would also not stop a natural 20, though it might prevent the critical confirmation.
- Fourth, you do not explain how this is a bad thing or why a gamble is a necessary component of a proper errata for this feat. This is STILL a downgrade from how Crane Wing used to work. Why is it not enough?
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, thanks to this errata, for the first since I started playing Pathfinder, I'm sad to say I considered the idea of stop playing the game.
I think this is a point that people can misinterpret. It's not that people just LOVED and NEEDED crane wing to make the game fun, it's that changes like this show the Paizo dev team is taking the concept of martial in the opposite direction that people actually want.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, thanks to this errata, for the first since I started playing Pathfinder, I'm sad to say I considered the idea of stop playing the game.I think this is a point that people can misinterpret. It's not that people just LOVED and NEEDED crane wing to make the game fun, it's that changes like this show the Paizo dev team is taking the concept of martial in the opposite direction that people actually want.
Well said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, thanks to this errata, for the first since I started playing Pathfinder, I'm sad to say I considered the idea of stop playing the game.I think this is a point that people can misinterpret. It's not that people just LOVED and NEEDED crane wing to make the game fun, it's that changes like this show the Paizo dev team is taking the concept of martial in the opposite direction that people actually want.
True, which is why I mentioned that I have personally never even played a character with CW. I did GM for 3 of them, though. And not even once I had any problem challenging him and rest of the party.
But you're right. I edited my post to make it more clear that my problem is not with CW in particular, but with the apparent design philosophy behind the ruling.
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*** I can practically count on both hands the number of times that character took damage in her entire career, and that's largely because she had Crane Wing from like 2nd level on.
And once again, anecdotal evidence supports that Crane Wing is not the problem, MoMS letting people skip prereqs is the problem. Thanks for supporting the understanding that the wrong thing got fixed.
Removed post. I love off-color language, but let's keep it out of here. Thank you.
[Edit - And I removed the comments to that post - Jason]
Stephen is too cool to use his Mod powers in like everyone else. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stephen is too cool to use his Mod powers in like everyone else. :PRemoved post. I love off-color language, but let's keep it out of here. Thank you.
[Edit - And I removed the comments to that post - Jason]
He said he liked off-color language :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I gotta say, I appreciate a company that interacts with it's customers and continuously tries to improve our game game experience. Lay off a bit and let them know how it works so that have a base line to work with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not play Pathfinder Society. And while I know your living campaign is popular I believe the majority of pathfinder players play their own campaigns, with their own GMs.
We all know, there are many things in Pathfinder that are broken. Sometimes these hurt PFS (From My understanding) and I know some archetypes are band in PFS, this doesn’t bother me. Every GM needs to come up with their own house rules to ensure game balance. And the nature of a Living Campaign requires such action.
However, in my home game, it is my GM’s task to handle balance, and to create house rules as they are necessary. Crane wing can be broken, especially when taken at a low level because of a broken Archetype, but its also the only mechanical benefit that was worth taking to build a duelist style fighter around.
Now in one of my home games, which I have been playing nearly every week for two years, my dashing noble duelist, renowned throughout the kingdom for his unmatched ability in a one on one duel with a rapier, will wake up in our next meet and be completely incapable of doing the one thing he is supposed to be good at. He does 1/3rd of the damage of a barbarian, and now has less defense than someone using a shield.
Sure, maybe we can house rule this and use the old rules. But its much easier In any group to ban what is broken on a case by case basis than buff what isn’t.
Pathfinder is not and should not be World of Warcraft. I play pen and paper role playing games. If I wanted to play World of Warcraft and have the mechanics of my character change every week, I would do so. Pathfinder and/or DnD will never be "balanced" despite anything you do. Balance is taken care of our GMs, or by me when I'm GMing. Changes like this ruin characters and they ruin games.
If GM’s in PFS can’t have the latitude to ban things that they deem unbalanced or inappropriate on a case by case basis, please have sweeping changes like this, only affect the PFS crowd.
Sincerely,
A loyal costumer for many years, growing increasingly disturbed
Well said. Really points out the issue with "just house-ruling it"
Just like to add, if I ever run another PFS scenario again, I'm going to tell my players to use the old version of Crane Wing.
Sure, maybe we can house rule this and use the old rules. But its much easier In any group to ban what is broken on a case by case basis than buff what isn’t.
Ah, see, that is part of the problem here.
In your home game, if you don´t like the errata, don´t use it.If you play PFS, if the old crane styles disturbs play/makes things boring at the table, you are not allowed to alter it!
Because of this they had to alter it with an errata.
If you don´t like it, talk to your DM and just use the old version.
|
Lead Designer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I'm disappointed not because martials got nerfed while casters still have all their overpowered toys to play with... I'm disappointed because I see this happening time and time again with no indication of changing any time soon...
There is a lot to Lemmy's post and I appreciate your well rationed plea. Understand that there is no agenda to keep Martials down. The directive is to keep the game relatively stable and balanced, as defined by the core. You may not agree with this philosophy, but I dont really think it is healthy for the game system to wait until book 5 or 10 to go in and try and right all the wrongs of the system. Nor do I think that errata is right way to go about it. There are certain balance aspects and play considerations that we inherited from 3.5 and like it or not, we are stuck with them. If I were to change these issues in a further book down the line, it creates a great number of problems for us in terms of system stability and sustainability. Suddenly the new book becomes a must have, which is a barrier to new players.
Much of what we do is to maintain the ongoing game, while still providing new and interesting options for your table. Balancing all these is a tricky game and we are bound to get it wrong now and again. I can honestly say that we do want martial characters to flourish. We want them to have their moment to shine. When we release errata for a book like Ultimate Combat, it might seem like we are picking on martials while not touching casters, but that is just the nature of how errata for a single book works. The updates for Ultimate Magic were pretty much solely targeting casters.
So, I am sorry that you feel we are taking the game in the wrong direction. We are just trying to take care of the problems as we see them and as time allows. We are not always going to get it right, but we are trying.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
*** I can practically count on both hands the number of times that character took damage in her entire career, and that's largely because she had Crane Wing from like 2nd level on.And once again, anecdotal evidence supports that Crane Wing is not the problem, MoMS letting people skip prereqs is the problem. Thanks for supporting the understanding that the wrong thing got fixed.
You have not, I take it, read Master of Many Styles?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Concerning the caster/martial imbalance many see, one book that put the martials on even footing with casters in 3.5 was "the book of nine swords".
If it would be remade for pathfinder i would be so happy...
|
Design Manager
|
You have not, I take it, read Master of Many Styles?*** I can practically count on both hands the number of times that character took damage in her entire career, and that's largely because she had Crane Wing from like 2nd level on.And once again, anecdotal evidence supports that Crane Wing is not the problem, MoMS letting people skip prereqs is the problem. Thanks for supporting the understanding that the wrong thing got fixed.
I have. Your point?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have not, I take it, read Master of Many Styles?*** I can practically count on both hands the number of times that character took damage in her entire career, and that's largely because she had Crane Wing from like 2nd level on.And once again, anecdotal evidence supports that Crane Wing is not the problem, MoMS letting people skip prereqs is the problem. Thanks for supporting the understanding that the wrong thing got fixed.
Considering that archetype's the ONLY way to get Crane Wing earlier than level 5, it certainly sounds like he's read it.
You have not, I take it, read Master of Many Styles?*** I can practically count on both hands the number of times that character took damage in her entire career, and that's largely because she had Crane Wing from like 2nd level on.And once again, anecdotal evidence supports that Crane Wing is not the problem, MoMS letting people skip prereqs is the problem. Thanks for supporting the understanding that the wrong thing got fixed.
I think reading master of many styles is why he knows how you get crane wing at level 2. Edit: Ninja'd. Twice at that!
Concerning the caster/martial imbalance many see, one book that put the martials on even footing with casters in 3.5 was "the book of nine swords".
If it would be remade for pathfinder i would be so happy...
Yarr, there were actually a number of good things scattered through out the books of 3.5, but much of it isn't OGL and is a bit out of reach. I think the intention was to say core 3.5, but I'm not a mind reader.
Concerning the caster/martial imbalance many see, one book that put the martials on even footing with casters in 3.5 was "the book of nine swords".
If it would be remade for pathfinder i would be so happy...
Sadly, they decided against that very early on. It kind of makse sense, too: such characters could get REALLY powerful with those maneuvers, especially since each one was, at worst, a once/round ability.
I do believe Dreamscarred Press has something like this in the works, however. I think it's called 'Path of War'. Needless to say, very interested in seeing how that turns out.
Another potential fix would be to change the MoMS bonus feats from all the feats in a style chain to just the first level introductory feats, elemental fist and the regular monk feats (and maybe give back flurry at the expense of some of their other class features.)
Concerning the caster/martial imbalance many see, one book that put the martials on even footing with casters in 3.5 was "the book of nine swords".
If it would be remade for pathfinder i would be so happy...Sadly, they decided against that very early on. It kind of makse sense, too: such characters could get REALLY powerful with those maneuvers, especially since each one was, at worst, a once/round ability.
I do believe Dreamscarred Press has something like this in the works, however. I think it's called 'Path of War'. Needless to say, very interested in seeing how that turns out.
Actually ToB was considered one of the most balanced things and was very self contained about its power. The main ways to give it oomph were combinations in other books, such as leap attack.(Path of War is not that great, imo, and definitely not the same. Follows a different design philosophy.)
Probably off topic if we walk down this path though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Much of what we do is to maintain the ongoing game, while still providing new and interesting options for your table.
[...]So, I am sorry that you feel we are taking the game in the wrong direction. We are just trying to take care of the problems as we see them and as time allows. We are not always going to get it right, but we are trying.
We appreciate what you are trying to do. But from the player point of view it really often looks like you were trying to reduce diversity. Interesting builds that add color to the game are being killed by FAQs or erratas. This one was just one too much for some of us.
When, for example, people tried to find an alternative to using the roxxor weapon composite bow and looked at the halfling warslinger trait it was very disappointing when using it with special slings was shot down because this seemed to have no reason than to kill diversity.
Now people that tried to find a defensive build in a game where all out offence seemed to be the only option (for martials at least) you kill this diversity, too.
This is what upsets some of us.
it bought martial classes into viability, casters need a multi megatonne nerf nuke before martials need looking at.Concerning the caster/martial imbalance many see, one book that put the martials on even footing with casters in 3.5 was "the book of nine swords".
If it would be remade for pathfinder i would be so happy...Sadly, they decided against that very early on. It kind of makse sense, too: such characters could get REALLY powerful with those maneuvers, especially since each one was, at worst, a once/round ability.
I do believe Dreamscarred Press has something like this in the works, however. I think it's called 'Path of War'. Needless to say, very interested in seeing how that turns out.
Be wary of that pendulum, dude.
You have not, I take it, read Master of Many Styles?*** I can practically count on both hands the number of times that character took damage in her entire career, and that's largely because she had Crane Wing from like 2nd level on.And once again, anecdotal evidence supports that Crane Wing is not the problem, MoMS letting people skip prereqs is the problem. Thanks for supporting the understanding that the wrong thing got fixed.I think reading master of many styles is why he knows how you get crane wing at level 2. Edit: Ninja'd. Twice at that!
Oh oops. I skimmed his post and thought he was complaining about my GM letting me take the feat when I shouldn't have (reminds self not to idly follow threads while watching Dexter). But yeah, without that archetype the feat becomes a lot less problematic. But still probably unbalanced.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I'm disappointed not because martials got nerfed while casters still have all their overpowered toys to play with... I'm disappointed because I see this happening time and time again with no indication of changing any time soon...
There is a lot to Lemmy's post and I appreciate your well rationed plea. Understand that there is no agenda to keep Martials down. The directive is to keep the game relatively stable and balanced, as defined by the core. You may not agree with this philosophy, but I dont really think it is healthy for the game system to wait until book 5 or 10 to go in and try and right all the wrongs of the system. Nor do I think that errata is right way to go about it. There are certain balance aspects and play considerations that we inherited from 3.5 and like it or not, we are stuck with them. If I were to change these issues in a further book down the line, it creates a great number of problems for us in terms of system stability and sustainability. Suddenly the new book becomes a must have, which is a barrier to new players.
Much of what we do is to maintain the ongoing game, while still providing new and interesting options for your table. Balancing all these is a tricky game and we are bound to get it wrong now and again. I can honestly say that we do want martial characters to flourish. We want them to have their moment to shine. When we release errata for a book like Ultimate Combat, it might seem like we are picking on martials while not touching casters, but that is just the nature of how errata for a single book works. The updates for Ultimate Magic were pretty much solely targeting casters.
So, I am sorry that you feel we are taking the game in the wrong direction. We are just trying to take care of the problems as we see them and as time allows. We are not always going to get it right, but we are trying.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Jason, one of the big things mentioned across several threads is the shenanigans that many others (martials included) can pull off that aren't being reigned in. Invulnerable Ragers with Come and Get Me is something brought up often. So to are things Fast Study, or Simulacrum, Planar Binding, etc.
Some of these issues have been problems since the game began (Simulacrum Wish Factory was pointed out in the playtest stages of Pathfinder and never fixed). Some of them have come out due to additional resources, like Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic etc. Despite people pointing these abilities and powers out, they aren't changed.
Then comes along things like Brass Knuckles, the Flurry of Blows, 2-handed w/ armor spikes and now Crane Wing. They were aspects of the game that (with the exception of Crane Wing and possibly armor spikes) weren't very powerful in the first place, but weakened for seemingly arbitrary reasons (we don't like the flavor). Crane Wing was weakened because single enemies with single attacks could be shut down by a guy with Crane Wing. That isn't a fault of the feat, it's a fault of the encounter. In home games, a GM can change this, but in PFS they can't, so instead of banning the feat in PFS, the feat is changed for everyone, everywhere (houserules not withstanding).
While there have been some minor nerfs to casters over the course of Pathfinder, more and more people are seeing nerfs to Martials for seemingly no reason.
Pathfinder already suffers from a problem of 'I full attack' instead of being able to do cool things like mixing Spring Attack and Vital Strike, or Charge and Cleave. If these options were available, you'd see them used more often. As it stands, they can't be mixed, so people don't take them.
Crane Wing was one of the few feats in the game that was seen as good, without being a direct DPR increase feat (like Power Attack). Now that it's been so heavily weakened, people aren't going to take it, and instead just go back to picking DPR feats.
|
Design Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh oops. I skimmed his post and thought he was complaining about my GM letting me take the feat when I shouldn't have (reminds self not to idly follow threads while watching Dexter). But yeah, without that archetype the feat becomes a lot less problematic. But still probably unbalanced.
As opposed to what?
Please tell me, what is Crane Wing unbalanced when compared against? What are you trying to say that a feat with multiple prerequisites that lets you block one melee attack a round and comes online at 5th level is unbalanced against? Because remember, that's the same level that other characters can fly, turn invisible, and annhihilate small buildings with flaming explosions. So I can stop one guy, once, from stabbing me, and suddenly the guy who can cure blindness and and repair broken limbs, or the guy who can strike down scores of enemies with lightning bolts, or the guy whose pet can make three or more attacks in a single round are getting pushed out of the picture? Or that the unstoppable rage-monster who can do literally three times as much damage with one of his attacks is getting edged out?
What is it unbalanced against? Deflect Arrows which comes on line at level one? Why didn't they just take the Deflect Arrows disclaimer "Unusually massive ranged weapons (such as boulders or ballista bolts) and ranged attacks generated by natural attacks or spell effects can't be deflected" and modify it for melee attacks?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, that's an easy one Ssalarn: T-rexes. And, uh, people who only ever Vital Strike. Ghosts, maybe?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, that's an easy one Ssalarn: T-rexes. And, uh, people who only ever Vital Strike. Ghosts, maybe?
That deserves a montage. Pictures of people using crane wing to deflect a charging T-rex, a walking vital striker, and a ghost. Ending with a music video about not being able to be touched. Some shuffling here and there.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Crane Wing was one of the few feats in the game that was seen as good, without being a direct DPR increase feat (like Power Attack). Now that it's been so heavily weakened, people aren't going to take it, and instead just go back to picking DPR feats.
Word. Crane Wing actually introduced potential in the game for martial characters to do something other than try and be the guy who hits the hardest and still meaningfully contribute. Now we've got a feat that is roughly as useful as a shield that only works once a round, and a follow-up feat that isn't useful at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stephen is too cool to use his Mod powers in like everyone else. :PRemoved post. I love off-color language, but let's keep it out of here. Thank you.
[Edit - And I removed the comments to that post - Jason]
Why, yes I am. :)
The Crane chain has multiple problems. First, let's compare it to a pouncing barbarian.
The pouncing barbarian is nigh useless at low levels, unless he's wielding two weapons, which is strictly inferior to using a big weapon. He gets no benefit from Pounce without a Haste spell until level 7+ if he's using any style other then TWF.
More importantly, his opponents can attack him back and do tons of damage. Barb does damage, monster does damage, everyone is happy.
Crane Wing allows the player to control the battlefield. If he can limit a character to one attack, he's basically invulnerable.
On top of this, he gets an AC bonus equal to wielding a shield, except it's a dodge bonus and applies to touch AC.
He can do this while two-handing a weapon. Take the longsword or bastard sword and two hand on your turn, take your second hand off at the end of your turn to get the full defensive benefits.
On top of being able to totally neutralize a hit (not an attack, mind you, a HIT. Crane Wing is NEVER wasted), you get a free attack at your highest BAB when you do shut the enemy down.So, all you have to do is shut down multiple attacks from your foes. This can be accomplished with Spring attacking, and simple positioning so that your enemy cannot charge if they happen to have Pounce.
You have now created an invulnerable character. At low levels, no humanoid enemy that is not dual wielding can hurt you, and since they actually have to hit you TWICE (while you have the equal of a Shield+3 for AC) to do any damage, the fact is they aren't going to do anything to you.
You are now melee invulnerable until at least level 7. At level 7, you're reliably now neutralizing the best attack of any creature that DOES get off a hit on you, and forcing it to rely on attacks that have less hit chance. Oh, and generating a free attack.
That is LOADS better then simple DR.
Two things that I wanted to say regarding this post. First, barbarians can't pounce at low levels; only casters (summoner) can. And second, how many feats do you think a low level character has? You say that a spring attacking character with the full crane style chain is invulnerable until level 7. I say that you can't get spring attack and the full crane style chain earlier than level 7 anyhow since it requires seven feats to do both, leaving no feats for anything else.
So, SSlarn, what you're saying is errata Crane Wing. Only errata it against big things instead of all things.
Thus letting you keep on utterly dominating humanoid opponents in melee, which is the real abuse of the system. Monsters tend to get more attacks then humanoids do, except the occasional one attack wonder.
But, yeah, when the level 2 character can kill the T-Rex in perfect safety, it ain't level 5 that's the problem.
And again, if you're finessing a rapier with this style, your damage problem is that you're finessing a rapier, NOT that you're using Crane WIng. Cause my guy 2h'ing his bastard sword on his turn and one handing on off turns isn't having near your damage problems, savvy?
==Aelryinth
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I'm disappointed not because martials got nerfed while casters still have all their overpowered toys to play with... I'm disappointed because I see this happening time and time again with no indication of changing any time soon...
There is a lot to Lemmy's post and I appreciate your well rationed plea. Understand that there is no agenda to keep Martials down. The directive is to keep the game relatively stable and balanced, as defined by the core. You may not agree with this philosophy, but I dont really think it is healthy for the game system to wait until book 5 or 10 to go in and try and right all the wrongs of the system. Nor do I think that errata is right way to go about it. There are certain balance aspects and play considerations that we inherited from 3.5 and like it or not, we are stuck with them. If I were to change these issues in a further book down the line, it creates a great number of problems for us in terms of system stability and sustainability. Suddenly the new book becomes a must have, which is a barrier to new players.
Much of what we do is to maintain the ongoing game, while still providing new and interesting options for your table. Balancing all these is a tricky game and we are bound to get it wrong now and again. I can honestly say that we do want martial characters to flourish. We want them to have their moment to shine. When we release errata for a book like Ultimate Combat, it might seem like we are picking on martials while not touching casters, but that is just the nature of how errata for a single book works. The updates for Ultimate Magic were pretty much solely targeting casters.
So, I am sorry that you feel we are taking the game in the wrong direction. We are just trying to take care of the problems as we see them and as time allows. We are not always going to get it right, but we are trying.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
I know lots of the balance problems with PF were inherited from 3.5, Jason. And I completely understand that you guys have to keep much of it in the the name of backwards compatibility.
I never thought there was some conspiracy to keep martials down... But at this point, there might as well be, since that's all every errata seems to do. It doesn't matter if this is caused by an agenda or simply bad luck, the end result is the same. Like I said, I honestly can't remember ever seeing an errata nerfing spells or caster-specific feats.
Caster x Martial disparity is a real problem. And while you guys didn't create it, and probably don't like the fact that it exists, you also repeatedly refuse to address the problem, instead making it even worse with rulings like the CW one.
But again, that's not even my main concern.
I'm mostly worried about losing character variety and versatility. Instead of nerfing CW and banning 2-handed + armor spike, why not add more feats and items for players who enjoy dueling, crossbows, thrown weapons, unarmed combat, etc? Why not create feats that increase a character's mobility, maybe even leading to Pounce or something similar to the Mobile Fighter's ability to lose 1 attack in order to be able to move and make the rest of his full attack? That'd be really cool.
Wouldn't it be much more fun for every player and GM to have more options instead of less?
I like your products, Jason, the heavy investment that I put in the game proves that. If I criticize PF, it's just because I want it to grow better and better.
I have never insulted Paizo or any of its employees. Ever. I'm not a hater. I'm a fan who is seriously concerned about the fact design choices seem to ignore balance and favor restriction over player creativity.
Again, caster/martial disparity is a concern, but not my biggest one. Decreasing variety is the real problem here, at least IMO.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think think that there should be a process where we see the errata beforehand. As long as the majority (80%) or more like the rule or dislike the rule it either stays the same. Or gets errata. As well as a good friend pointed out when it comes to System Design 101. Check the downstream effects of what you implement. Before releasing it not after.
While I can respect Jason position I do think that the mistakes with errata are happening too often. Once or twice even three times. Except it keeps happening too often. Six years into the design process on PF. These types of errors should not be happening. Or as little as possible. While I'm not as frustrated as Lemmy. I'm getting close. I know the devs are human yet at the same time I would like them to learn from their mistakes.