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
Aha, see? It IS about the T-rexes!
|
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.
I feel that the +4 bonus to AC rather than complete deflect when fighting defensively is a more than reasonable errata to address the problems you've brought up. No more deflecting natural 20's. No more 100% neutralizing creatures that can only get 1 attack a round (for whatever reason). Now, you can only block attacks that fall between a limited window, so even the big guys with one super hard hitting attack have a pretty decent chance to hit. Cool.
The problem, in my opinion, is that it's too difficult to trigger on the few situations where it could be used, which makes it highly unappealing, and hurts builds that rely on Crane Riposte. Because you have to try and guess when the enemy is going to hit you, the chances to properly execute a Crane Wing have plummeted tremendously. And because of the wording on Crane Wing, you cannot trigger Crane Riposte unless you are in full defense.
I think Crane Wing can be adjusted in such a way that it is still useful and Crane Riposte is still possible to use, without losing the balancing benefits we got out of the errata. I hope the design team does this soon.
My wings were too strong!
Now nerf Daniel LaRusso, please.
Lead Designer
|
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.
There are a large number of process concerns that make it very difficult for us to release errata before it is final, the largest of which is a time and manpower issue.. but I dont want to get pulled off on that debate.
As for the number of errata problems, we actually have a very solid track record on this. There have been thousands of individual changes to the books over the past 5 years and relatively few issues that we've had to revisit. Now it so happens that some of the more high profile ones have been recent, on the whole its not nearly so flawed a system as you seem to think.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
|
Design Manager
|
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
I savvy that
a) You abuse the two-hand/one hand free action loophole, which still doesn't break the feat.b) You are perpetuating the fallacy that somehow not getting hit once a round allows you to "keep on utterly dominating humanoid opponents in melee". Not getting hit once does not equate to dominance. It isn't even in the competition.
c) The problem, once again is that Master of Many Styles is a terrible archetype that is the true source of all the problems. If Master of Many Styles weren't one of the most poorly executed archetypes, allowing a ludicrous level of power during its first two levels and then doing nearly nothing worthwhile afterward, there would be exactly one level where a Crane Wing combatant would have a powerful advantage against humanoids. And theat advantage doesn't even touch what any spellcaster can do at the same level, nor does it compare to the real dominance of a cavalier, barbarian, trip ninja, or any of a number of other classes.
Two things that I wanted to say regarding this post. First, barbarians can't pounce at low levels; only casters...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.
Note that I don't get level limits, nor do I state 'barbarians' when I say Pounce. Big Cats are, after all, the most common things with Pounce.
Spring Attack comes online just when things are getting more attacks at you. Ah, he gets a full attack! No problem, I'll just limit him to one with Spring Attack. The synergy is incredible. And Spring attack allows you to avoid 'charge lanes', since it isn't limited to straight lines, and works really well with movement boosts.
==Aelryinth
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.
There should be a process or preview to obtain feedback before these changes are finalized. It is such a big step to errata newly made errata...there is a huge bar to getting CW back to something usable at this point. I can't believe this awful, cumbersome, game-slowing change would have gone forward if the forum reaction was previewed.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. use ranged weapons
This works great when monsters are built for ranged, but most monsters aren't. Having a back-up ranged attack rarely helps, since their attack bonus and/or damage usually suck.
2. after a miss or 2 ignore the monk and focus down the other PC's
Which means the creature just spent 1-2 rounds doing nothing in combat, while the rest of the party were kicking its butt. Action economy is already skewed in the party's favor, forcing enemies to waste time with useless actions isn't a solution. Plus, if you do this too quickly, or often enough, it turns into favoritism and the other PCs get screwed over.
This also points out one of the benefits of Crane Style over mirror image. A monster, even a stupid one, can see that mirror image is up, and choose not to mess with the big group of guys that seem to be occupying that square. He can put his turn to good use attacking someone else. Only someone who knows about martial arts (or who has studied the PCs) is likely to recognize a Crane Style user before attacking, and so inevitably they waste a turn or more on attacking them.
3. 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)
The more creatures there are in the encounter, the lower the individual CR of the creatures will be, which means they'll have an even worse chance to hit the Crane Style-er. Rogue Eidolon did a pretty good break down of this problem in a couple places.
Plus, you have the inverse problem of number 2. If, in every fight, every monster gangs up on the Crane Style-er, the rest of the party is going unchallenged, and the CSer is going to feel like he's being picked on.
4. have the enemy ambush the party (getting into a style is a swift action)
Not every monster is built for ambush. And the ones that are can still be foiled by a good Perception score. At best, this gives you one round of fair combat. If you don't knock the CSer unconscious, or hit him with a status effect of some kind, it's back to business as usual. How fun is it for the CSer if every combat becomes "survive round one or sit out the fight"?
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.
But what if I'm not having fun? What if the rest of the party isn't having fun, because all the monsters are going after them instead of the crane style-er?
6. Make the monk come to you when you have a reach weapon and ready an action to attack.
Sweet, I scored one hit on the crane style-er! He's adjacent to me now. Maybe if I five foot step away and ready an action...oh, now I'm making one attack per round instead of full attacking, and I've opened myself up to losing my turn altogether if the CSer doesn't trigger my readied action. This sucks. Maybe useful at low level.
On a tangent, my player has actually been using a lot of total defense lately. He'll set himself up between the enemy and the rest of the party and total defense (provided it makes sense with the terrain and the foe, which in the AP so far it often has). If the enemy wants to attack the party, he's got to move up next to the CSer (and get his single attack deflected) or try to move past and put himself in danger of getting flanked. So much for total defense being useless!
7. Use a combat maneuver that can't be deflected by crane wing.
Because tons of prebuilt monsters and NPCs have the proper feats for this! (Sarcasm)
I'll add 7b. Use feint. which I did to my Crane Style-er once, it was magical. It has the same problem of course, so few NPCs are built as feint-ers.
8. Have a caster target him (you don't need to add more, but I assume you have some, sometimes).
Classes that take Crane Style also tend to have good saves, and evasion. Reign of Winter, the AP I'm running, telegraphs pretty strongly that its going to be a witch-centric AP, so all my players built to resist magic. Consequently, I've had terrible success with magic against my Crane Style-er.
Plus, you get the same problem as #3, if every spellcaster dumps their good stuff on the Crane Style-er, then the rest of the party is getting easy spellcaster fights, and the CSer is getting picked on.
In short, these are all great suggestions if I'm writing encounters for a party with a Crane Style-er. However, I work and go to school full time, so I run APs, largely as written (I make some tweaks, and I try to make sure my party has fun).
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.
There are a large number of process concerns that make it very difficult for us to release errata before it is final, the largest of which is a time and manpower issue.. but I dont want to get pulled off on that debate.
As for the number of errata problems, we actually have a very solid track record on this. There have been thousands of individual changes to the books over the past 5 years and relatively few issues that we've had to revisit. Now it so happens that some of the more high profile ones have been recent, on the whole its not nearly so flawed a system as you seem to think.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Jason, I think part of the reason you've seen the community react the way it did was that, if you didn't pay any attention to PFS, you had no idea Crane Wing was even on the Dev team radar, much less a change to it right around the corner. It was sudden, unexpected, and that just exacerbated the existing 'martial vs caster' feud that many see as being a key feature of Pathfinder.
Considering both the PRD and your 3rd-party sister site, d20pfsrd.com, have already changed the text of Crane Wing, if there any possibility of letting the community know what other things are being looked at for revision? That way, those of us without a copy of the book on hand could make a note of the prior text for house-rule purposes if we desire. Also/Or, perhaps you could tell us what ways the Dev team typically looks for data on imbalance / improperly functioning elements within the game. I get that posting test data and quantitative figures backed up by coherent, reasoned argument to the boards is one way, but are there any others or is that pretty much it as far as fan/player submitted feedback?| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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
I savvy that
a) You abuse the two-hand/one hand free action loophole, which still doesn't break the feat.
b) You are perpetuating the fallacy that somehow not getting hit once a round allows you to "keep on utterly dominating humanoid opponents in melee". Not getting hit once does not equate to dominance. It isn't even in the competition.
c) The problem, once again is that Master of Many Styles is a terrible archetype that is the true source of all the problems. If Master of Many Styles weren't one of the most poorly executed archetypes, allowing a ludicrous level of power during its first two levels and then doing nearly nothing worthwhile afterward, there would be exactly one level where a Crane Wing combatant would have a powerful advantage against humanoids. And theat advantage doesn't even touch what any spellcaster can do at the same level, nor does it compare to the real dominance of a cavalier, barbarian, trip ninja, or any of a number of other classes.
a) it's not abuse, it's action management. It also completely shuts down the 'I do crap damage, so this feat is fine' complaints you're seeing. Cranes don't need to do less damage then anyone if they want to.
b) Reducing the damage of the attack that manages to hit you to nothing, getting a free attack off of it, all the while reducing your opponents down to one attack, equates to absolute dominance, thank you.
c) Master of Many Styles is indeed a problem, for purposes of getting the feat early. It just accelerates the power, it doesn't define it. Crane Wing is clearly extremely powerful all on its own, MOMS just really showcases it.
d) We aren't comparing martials and casters again, are we? We're comparing martials and martials. And if all those other classes are so dominant, why don't we hear the same level of fuss we do with Crane Wing?
Not that a Come and Get Me Barbarian isn't loads more powerful, but that would mean nerfing a barb. Crane Wing is available to EVERYONE. That's why you're seeing it here, because so many classes across so many games use it.
That's the difference. If every class in the game could get COme and Get Me/Robilar's Gambit, you'd very soon hear it start coming up on the fricassee machine. CaGM has one big drawback...you have to get in melee and basically get hit a whole lot while using it. It doesn't make you invulnerable.
And that AC penalty for the invulnerable rager nicely takes care of the penalty your attacker has for using Power Attack and all.
===Aelryinth
[b]1On a tangent, my player has actually been using a lot of total defense lately. He'll set himself up between the enemy and the rest of the party and total defense (provided it makes sense with the terrain and the foe, which in the AP so far it often has). If the enemy wants to attack the party, he's got to move up next to the CSer (and get his single attack deflected) or try to move past and put himself in danger of getting flanked. So much for total defense being useless!
I don't believe characters using Total Defense can serve as flank buddies.
Have other errata changes received this sort of reaction? I haven't noticed a response like this to anything in a while.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
[b]1On a tangent, my player has actually been using a lot of total defense lately. He'll set himself up between the enemy and the rest of the party and total defense (provided it makes sense with the terrain and the foe, which in the AP so far it often has). If the enemy wants to attack the party, he's got to move up next to the CSer (and get his single attack deflected) or try to move past and put himself in danger of getting flanked. So much for total defense being useless!I don't believe characters using Total Defense can serve as flank buddies.
They can't that turn, but when they five foot step into flank on the next turn, well, flanking happens.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are a large number of process concerns that make it very difficult for us to release errata before it is final, the largest of which is a time and manpower issue.. but I dont want to get pulled off on that debate.As for the number of errata problems, we actually have a very solid track record on this. There have been thousands of individual changes to the books over the past 5 years and relatively few issues that we've had to revisit. Now it so happens that some of the more high profile ones have been recent, on the whole its not nearly so flawed a system as you seem to think.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
I can understand that. Not every errata needs to be discussed in depth, especially when it's just reworking existing text for clarity or adding missing information that should have been there to begin with.
However in this case, there was a significant change to a feat that a lot of people not only use, but actually built their character concept around. There should have been a post giving a heads up about the proposed changes to the feat (Similar to what's done in the playtests - for example, in the Advanced Class Guide with the proposed changes to the Arcanist class). At least that way, people could discuss what they like/don't like about the change and maybe come up with something that works for everyone.
You wouldn't need the whole errata document for this. Just a thread to say "Here's what we're planning. Please provide feedback." It probably would have saved you a few headaches.
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.
I agree with half of your sentiment. Yes, they should add the stuff you call for. But they should also errata CW etc precisely in order to preserve character variety. When certain options are too good, everyone takes them or else feels like they're screwing themselves over if they don't take them. Pretty soon, it's like the Dark Souls forest where everyone is walking around in Stone Armor with Mask of the Mother.
| 6 people 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.
There are a large number of process concerns that make it very difficult for us to release errata before it is final, the largest of which is a time and manpower issue.. but I dont want to get pulled off on that debate.
As for the number of errata problems, we actually have a very solid track record on this. There have been thousands of individual changes to the books over the past 5 years and relatively few issues that we've had to revisit. Now it so happens that some of the more high profile ones have been recent, on the whole its not nearly so flawed a system as you seem to think.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
I suggest taking 10 on your craft(errata) check. Also by using the craft skill it will make it more understandable why errata takes so long to make :P
Have other errata changes received this sort of reaction? I haven't noticed a response like this to anything in a while.
Hmm... Depends on how you define things. The free action FAQs got a pretty big rise for instance.
Something to remember is that things can be pretty well stealthed in. I really don't keep an eye on FAQs and errata for instance, but then this post came up telling Paizo thank you over something that I didn't quiet agree with. Similarly, a lot of the updates to PFS rules I don't keep up with, but when someone says "hey, blood transcription got banned" I'm just like "Oh hey! When was that?".
|
Lead Designer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suggest taking 10 on your craft(errata) check. Also by using the craft skill it will make it more understandable why errata takes so long to make :P
Ha.. ok. that made me laugh. In all seriousness though, these take a while because we are busy working on three different upcoming books, the ACG, XXX, and XXX, not to mention planning XXX, XXX, XXX, and XXX.
This is just one component of our job, in addition to FAQs, playtests, reviews of other paizo rules content, brainstorms, approvals, scheduling meetings, team lead meetings, and about 50 other minor tasks. There is a lot of to do, which is why I am always hesitant to add yet another step to any of our processes (like a public pre-review of errata). We barely have the time for the things we have on our plate as it is.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
However in this case, there was a significant change to a feat that a lot of people not only use, but actually built their character concept around. There should have been a post giving a heads up about the proposed changes to the feat (Similar to what's done in the playtests - for example, in the Advanced Class Guide with the proposed changes to the Arcanist class). At least that way, people could discuss what they like/don't like about the change and maybe come up with something that works for everyone.
You wouldn't need the whole errata document for this. Just a thread to say "Here's what we're planning. Please provide feedback." It probably would have saved you a few headaches.
The operative words here are "not only use, but built their character concept around." Almost every build in d20 is a delicate house of cards, and if you dramatically change one element, you may very well screw the whole thing, from ability score allotment to magic item selection on down. The devs still need, however, to be able to make changes.
The only solution I can see here is to make one of two things, insofar as possible, "official" policy (in PFS if nothing else). Either existing characters get grandfathered in when changes are made OR the player gets to do a COMPLETE rebuild (including magic items) if his character has the feat/class/whatever that got errata'd.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
In all seriousness though, these take a while because we are busy working on three different upcoming books, the ACG, XXX, and XXX, not to mention planning XXX, XXX, XXX, and XXX.
Wow. I had no idea there was a six-product lineup of adult material in the pipeline. So much for PFS being a PG-13 campaign! O_O
|
I'm a little disappointed in the pathfinder community... Why so much hate? Yes it's different, but it's not bad. Give it a little time, play with it, but don't judge a book by it's cover.
Weren't style feats meant for monks and unarmed people (hence the unarmed strike requirement)? That being said, most people that I've seen get crane wing got that instead of some of the other styles was to take advantage of AoO with a weapon. This kind of brings the style more in line of what the other styles focus in: unarmed strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In all seriousness though, these take a while because we are busy working on three different upcoming books, the ACG, XXX, and XXX, not to mention planning XXX, XXX, XXX, and XXX.Wow. I had no idea there was a six-product lineup of adult material in the pipeline. So much for PFS being a PG-13 campaign! O_O
You have an ID to show... Right? Or maybe Paizo just found a lot of really good words that use X. Maybe we have a really good book on Xylophones coming up...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suggest taking 10 on your craft(errata) check. Also by using the craft skill it will make it more understandable why errata takes so long to make :PHa.. ok. that made me laugh. In all seriousness though, these take a while because we are busy working on three different upcoming books, the ACG, XXX, and XXX, not to mention planning XXX, XXX, XXX, and XXX.
This is just one component of our job, in addition to FAQs, playtests, reviews of other paizo rules content, brainstorms, approvals, scheduling meetings, team lead meetings, and about 50 other minor tasks. There is a lot of to do, which is why I am always hesitant to add yet another step to any of our processes (like a public pre-review of errata). We barely have the time for the things we have on our plate as it is.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Thats a lot of XXX's
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In all seriousness though, these take a while because we are busy working on three different upcoming books, the ACG, XXX, and XXX, not to mention planning XXX, XXX, XXX, and XXX.Wow. I had no idea there was a six-product lineup of adult material in the pipeline. So much for PFS being a PG-13 campaign! O_O
The Book of Erotic Fantasy shall rise again.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little disappointed in the pathfinder community... Why so much hate? Yes it's different, but it's not bad. Give it a little time, play with it, but don't judge a book by it's cover.
If you think it's hate, you're completely missing the point.
|
Lead Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thats a lot of XXX's
Yeah, just trying to give an idea of the scope of how we work. Its not just the book we are currently working on, but the after that (which we have to order text for), the one after that (which we have to draw up an outline for) and the ones after that (which we need to start prepping, brainstorming, and getting approval for).
I have a very long calendar in front of me... but this is off topic, so I will leave it at that.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
I suggest taking 10 on your craft(errata) check. Also by using the craft skill it will make it more understandable why errata takes so long to make :PHa.. ok. that made me laugh. In all seriousness though, these take a while because we are busy working on three different upcoming books, the ACG, XXX, and XXX, not to mention planning XXX, XXX, XXX, and XXX.
This is just one component of our job, in addition to FAQs, playtests, reviews of other paizo rules content, brainstorms, approvals, scheduling meetings, team lead meetings, and about 50 other minor tasks. There is a lot of to do, which is why I am always hesitant to add yet another step to any of our processes (like a public pre-review of errata). We barely have the time for the things we have on our plate as it is.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Were you surprised by the depth of reaction regarding the change to Crane Wing?
|
Lead Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Were you surprised by the depth of reaction regarding the change to Crane Wing?
A bit. We expected some reaction, but I am a little surprised by how much this has upset some folks.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer about to head off to a playtest for a bit
I think it's because the change didn't just change the effectiveness of the feat, it changes the very nature of the feat, going from a Reactive guaranteed post-roll declared defense to a proactive declared unsure pre-roll defense.
Previously a player could bank on avoiding an attack each round (one of fairly few effects available to martial classes not easily replicated by spells - at best spells can stack miss chances) as long as he was fighting defensively, had a free hand, and was aware of the incoming attack. Now he still has to fulfill the same requirements but instead he has to randomly select one attack, which may or may not be a threat, to get a minor AC bonus on a single attack (+4 Dodge is nice but since the feat requires a free hand you should consider this AC bonus vs a shield, which provides similar or higher AC and doesn't have hefty feat chain requirements). It also slows down the game unnecessarily since the GM now has to ask the Crane Wing character if he wants to Wing before each attack resolved against him.
The Total Defense and Crane Riposte thing is very counter-intuitive since Total Defense (with 3 acrobatics ranks, which is a fairly safe guess for this build) grants you a +6 AC bonus and Crane Riposte only grants you an attack if you deflect an attack, ie if the opponent rolls well enough to hit you in the first place - presumably something quite hard for the opponent since you've suddenly gained a +6 bonus above your normal AC. Compare this to the CAGM barbarian which specifically opens itself up to attacks in order to get the AoOs.
If the +4 Dodge bonus was declared after the attack roll was resolved instead of before, and Crane Riposte came into effect whenever Crane Wing let you avoid an attack, I believe people would be a lot less upset.
All that said, a better solution would be to simply note that a natural 20 cannot be deflected by Crane Wing, and take a long hard look on the MoMS dip shortcut.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suggest taking 10 on your craft(errata) check. Also by using the craft skill it will make it more understandable why errata takes so long to make :PHa.. ok. that made me laugh. In all seriousness though, these take a while because we are busy working on three different upcoming books, the ACG, XXX, and XXX, not to mention planning XXX, XXX, XXX, and XXX.
This is just one component of our job, in addition to FAQs, playtests, reviews of other paizo rules content, brainstorms, approvals, scheduling meetings, team lead meetings, and about 50 other minor tasks. There is a lot of to do, which is why I am always hesitant to add yet another step to any of our processes (like a public pre-review of errata). We barely have the time for the things we have on our plate as it is.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
To be honest I'm shocked (pleasantly) that you're giving it this much personal attention. Again, I think you guys made the right call (to errata CW in some way, at least- the specifics need work as you say). Now if I could just tug on your coat for a moment about Ricochet Shot, Clustered Shots, slumber, composite bows, dominate person... jk ;)
By the way, another thought I just had. You guys could probably save yourselves a lot of headaches by just acknowledging that casting is mo' better than martial stuff. You were willing to say explicitly that magic missile, while far overpowered, is a sacred cow that you simply weren't willing to sacrifice- why not state explicitly that that's basically the case with the casting classes in general? Then people could just get on with their lives and accept that the choice to play a martial class is about personal style, not optimization.
Anyway, thank you for, well, this game that we love. But more specifically, thanks for your time and attention to this issue.
It would be a much better aproach. I will even be on favor of rising the dodge bonus.
If the +4 Dodge bonus was declared after the attack roll was resolved instead of before, and Crane Riposte came into effect whenever Crane Wing let you avoid an attack, I believe people would be a lot less upset.
What if the bonus was scaling too, but it scaled faster with Monk levels? Like +1 AC per Monk level, +1/2 AC for any other? That would make Crane Wing less "broken" early on as you can't stop that T-Rex at level 2, but could still be useful against level appropriate foes. Scaling differences based on class would also make the MoMS dip less attractive.
Just a random thought.
|
Lead Designer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest I'm shocked (pleasantly) that you're giving it this much personal attention. Again, I think you guys made the right call (to errata CW in some way, at least- the specifics need work as you say). Now if I could just tug on your coat for a moment about Ricochet Shot, Clustered Shots, slumber, composite bows, dominate person... jk ;)
By the way, another thought I just had. You guys could probably save yourselves a lot of headaches by just acknowledging that casting is mo' better than martial stuff. You were willing to say explicitly that magic missile, while far overpowered, is a sacred cow that you simply weren't willing to sacrifice- why not state explicitly that that's basically the case with the casting classes in general? Then people could just get on with their lives and accept that the choice to play a martial class is about personal style, not optimization.
Anyway, thank you for, well, this game that we love. But more specifically, thanks for your time and attention to this issue.
I probably shouldn't be to be honest. I will end up having to work over the weekend to catch up on a few tasks, but that is all in a days work here in the rule mill. :)
As for magic missile.. it is good, and no we were never, in a million years, going to change it when we were developing pathfinder. That is a sacred cow I was not willing to slaughter. We had to ensure that the game was compatible with 3.5 both in terms of rules and tone. Who knows where we would be today if we had made a bunch of hamburger. Its left us with some inequities I wish I could resolve, but many of them are just to buried in the system engine to fix without pulling it all apart.
But anyway, thanks to all of you, even those of you who are really unhappy with us right now, for playing the game. We know your passion is coming from the right place...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
It would be a much better aproach. I will even be on favor of rising the dodge bonus.
If the +4 Dodge bonus was declared after the attack roll was resolved instead of before, and Crane Riposte came into effect whenever Crane Wing let you avoid an attack, I believe people would be a lot less upset.
What if the bonus was scaling too, but it scaled faster with Monk levels? Like +1 AC per Monk level, +1/2 AC for any other? That would make Crane Wing less "broken" early on as you can't stop that T-Rex at level 2, but could still be useful against level appropriate foes. Scaling differences based on class would also make the MoMS dip less attractive.
Just a random thought.
That is an interesting option, I could absolutely see that being a viable alternative - it should be noted though that the last time we started discussing alternate rulings or made suggestions those posts were deleted for being off-topic. Let's try to keep the admin activity in this thread to a minimum :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But anyway, thanks to all of you, even those of you who are really unhappy with us right now, for playing the game. We know your passion is coming from the right place...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
My passion is coming from all those NC-17 titles you guys are working on...
:P
But anyway, thanks to all of you, even those of you who are really unhappy with us right now, for playing the game. We know your passion is coming from the right place...
And thank you for helping make a game I feel passionate about. I didn't even feel this passionate about DnD, and I played that game for years. I just moved on when it changed to 4E.
So, I'm going to have you on the list of people I blame for a game I care about :P
By the way, pass the crane wings?
I probably shouldn't be to be honest. I will end up having to work over the weekend to catch up on a few tasks, but that is all in a days work here in the rule mill. :)
Happy to pick up the slack, if you're hiring. I'll drive there right now, tonight. I will work for miniatures ;) I'm only kind of joking...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jason, what would you think of making CW scale with BAB (and Monk level, so Monks are just as good at it as Fighters)?
Let it work like the pre-errata version (that is, on reaction and while fighting defensively instead of having to guess and during full defense) but if your BAB (or Monk level)is lower than say... 6 (?), the feat just gives you a +4 dodge bonus to AC. If your BAB is 6~12, it gives a +8, if it's higher than 12 it completely deflects an attack (except, maybe, natural 20 and touch attacks).
That would solve the PFS problem, since few scenarios go beyond 12th level, keep it balanced at low level and still useful at higher levels, when everything has multiple attacks and ranged options.
Even better, it would encourage designers to create more scaling feats, which is a good thing, since scaling feats tend to be useful and still balanced, like Power Attack, Arcane strike, Toughness, Defensive Combat Training, etc... (Combat Expertise too, I suppose, but it's kinda meh because of the Int prerequisite)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I figured I'd offer my own suggestion on a simple fix. The feat (Crane Wing) stays exactly as is, but you add the following text to the end: "This feat can only be used to deflect attacks from creatures of your size or smaller. If you have a ki pool, you may expend one ki point to use this feat against a creature one size category larger than yourself." Something like that.
If you wanted to go a little bit further, you could make it require Combat Reflexes and use up an attack of opportunity. Thoughts?
EDIT: I meant "as is" as in the way it is in Ultimate Combat, not after the errata.
Seriously? it is like the most on topic thing one can talk about, IMHO.
I think so, but there's at least four different Crane Wing threads going on at once now - I may have gotten the threads mixed up :)
8. Have a caster target him (you don't need to add more, but I assume you have some, sometimes).
Magic Missile was the nemesis of my MoMS. So much so that I eventually got a magic item that could cast shield 3 times a day (because the wizard claimed the amulet of shielding)
So, how would you guys feel if Crane Riposte allowed you to take an AoO when someone misses you that you gained your +4 AC against?
I have to say I feel that crane wing is a bit of a wasted feat now.
However I would still take the crane style overall for the fighting defensively with only a -1 on my attack rolls. Combined with some ranks in acrobatics a -1 on my attack rolls for a +4 dodge bonus is a decent deal for some characters.
The biggest annoyance of the feat for me right now is the extra paperwork and headache of designating one melee attack roll to get a +4 bonus against. I mean with the old mechanic it was one attack taken out move on. With this it is a single roll and I have to track/add to my AC and such on... it's just more math on top of math with a small outcome.
If it was a +2 dodge bonus against a single opponent or if the +4 could be added after the fact whatever, but as is... it just leaves the feeling of meh.
|
|
I would feel much better if a miss resulting from the +4 crane wing bonus was considered a deflection. Right now I see this as the single biggest problem with the errata.
But I still think it'd be too difficult to execute. The +4 window is small. I think it would be reasonable to allow retroactive use of crane wing given this small bonus.