Crane Wing Errata in latest printing


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1,851 to 1,900 of 2,304 << first < prev | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
Did you see any rules requiring you to make an attack roll to be defensive fighting (okay, I swing at the air)?

Yes, actually. I already quoted them.

Quote:
You can choose to fight defensively when attacking.

I'd totally let you get away with swinging at the air (IIRC there are even rules for that somewhere, that include attack rolls (and concealment rolls), probably as part of the rules that deal with fighting concealed opponents). You never know when an invisible wizard might be next to you, after all! But if you're spending your standard action in a corner punching the air, then you're giving up the opportunity to accomplish much with your turn, period.

Quote:
There are none. There's one line that says you have to commit to the attack action, i.e. not spellcast. That's it.

Hang on, though, that's nothing like what the text of the rules actually says. Unless you can find that bit about committing to an action somewhere in the rules, then you're making that up.

The rules say when attacking. That's frankly about as plain as one could wish for in the pathfinder rules. Not "when you're planning on attacking later" (when you take a move to be followed by a standard action attack) or "when you think you might attack if you get the opportunity," (when you ready an attack). Fighting defensively is clearly something that happens as part of the actual attack action, and there's no provision for starting to fight defensively before you attack something.

"When attacking." Not "before attacking."

This kind of suggests to me that the various doomsday scenarios that have been proposed about T rexes and such, compared to the old Crane Wing and level 2 monks and whatever, may have been founded on a serious misinterpretation of the rules? There doesn't seem to be any reason a T rex would lose out on its AoO when the monk runs up to it with his move action, for example, because the monk won't get to start fighting defensively until he takes his standard to punch the T rex. Which will be after the T rex got a chance to AoO for moving through its reach.

Again, Ael (or anyone) have things to cite on why this would not be so?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

Did you see any rules requiring you to make an attack roll to be defensive fighting (okay, I swing at the air)?

There are none. There's one line that says you have to commit to the attack action, i.e. not spellcast. That's it. What you do with your attack action is your own business. You can attack. You can not attack. You're in the attack action regardless of what you do.

==Aelryinth

The rule says "[y]ou can choose to fight defensively when attacking" (emphasis mine). If you are "attacking", that means you are making an attack roll. If you do not make an attack roll, you are not attacking anything. If you are not attacking something, you do not satisfy the "when attacking" requirement for fighting defensively.

"When attacking" is not passive, you must actively do it in order to trigger the fighting defensively option.

EDIT: Damn you, bird! You ninja'd me!


HangarFlying wrote:
EDIT: Damn you, bird! You ninja'd me!

*silent bow*


3 people marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
Against a high intensity opponent, Mirror Image will last one round.

To be fair, if it lasted one round, it deflected 6 to 8 attacks or so. With a PF combat very rarely lasting so much, it means it would had deflected as much as old CW could in the entire combat


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Against a high intensity opponent, Mirror Image will last one round.
To be fair, if it lasted one round, it deflected 6 to 8 attacks or so. With a PF combat very rarely lasting so much, it means it would had deflected as much as old CW could in the entire combat

If Mirror image deflected 6-8 attacks in a round and then expired, if you only had CW you'd be dead in the same situation.


Felix Gaunt wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Can also drink a Shield Potion for +4, and spend some Ki for +4 Dodge during one round.
There are no such things as Potions of Shield...

You are so right. I mixed things up.

That's what the abjurer's cloak was for.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Against a high intensity opponent, Mirror Image will last one round.
To be fair, if it lasted one round, it deflected 6 to 8 attacks or so. With a PF combat very rarely lasting so much, it means it would had deflected as much as old CW could in the entire combat

I did a long post about this math already, but suffice it to say: If you're getting swung at a lot and have good AC, chances are pretty high that you'll waste many of the images on near misses that still pop an image. Don't forget that little change in Pathfinder, as it makes a world of difference.

EDIT: That notwithstanding "6 to 8" is only a possible range or images at 15th caster level. When you first get it, it's 2 to 5, then 3 to 6 for a while, and so on. If you have 4 images and excellent AC, chances are extremely likely that the spell will block 1 attack only.


Rogue Eidolon wrote:
chances are pretty high

There's only 5 d20 results out of 20 that can pop an image in this way even under the most pop-likely circumstances (exactly natural 20 only AC) so it's not "pretty high," really. And likely not going to account for most of your images unless you were in a circumstance were you were under minimal melee threat to begin with. The number of images you will expect to pop on a miss in this way also decreases in either direction you go away from this ideal, towards higher or towards lower AC.

But yes, the defense ablating away and needing to be periodically renewed was part of the price you paid for some of the benefits Mirror Image offers compared to the old Crane Wing, such as a defense that functions in a much wider range of circumstances and that has much better burst protection potential.


Coriat wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
chances are pretty high

There's only 5 d20 results out of 20 that can pop an image in this way even under the most pop-likely circumstances (high AC but not natural 20 only high) so it's not "pretty high," really. And likely not going to account for most of your images unless you were in a circumstance were you were under minimal melee threat to begin with. The chance to pop an image on a miss in this way also decreases in either direction you go away from this ideal, towards higher or towards lower AC.

But yes, the defense ablating away and needing to be periodically renewed was part of the price you paid for some of the benefits Mirror Image offers compared to the old Crane Wing, such as a defense that functions in a much wider range of circumstances and that has much better burst protection potential.

Right, when I say that only 1 of 4 images being useful is most likely, I'm assuming that a defense focused character needs more than a 16 on average to be hit when they are doing their defensive thing. In order to get even approaching 50% efficiency from your images, you need it to be the case that the mean roll the enemy needs to hit you is a 16.

But here's the thing--even then it's more likely than half that you lose an image to a miss than a hit. This is because a hit might actually hit you.

So say you started with 4 images and the enemy always needed a 16 to hit you, which is pretty low AC for a highly defensive build, and if you're in a situation where you were being attacked a high number of times per round with a 16 needed to hit you, that's actually quite threatening, even if each one is unlikely to land.

First attack has a 50% chance of missing and not popping an image, 25% chance of missing and popping an image, 20% chance of hitting and popping an image and a 5% chance of hitting you for damage. These chances continue until you lose an image, at which point they change to a 50% chance of missing and not popping an image, 25% chance of missing and popping an image, 18.75% chance of hitting and popping an image and a 6.25% chance of hitting you for damage. Then after losing the next image, it becomes a 50% chance of missing and not popping an image, 25% chance of missing and popping an image, 16.666% chance of hitting and popping an image and a 8.333% chance of hitting you for damage. For that last image, it's a 50% chance of missing and not popping an image, 25% chance of missing and popping an image, 12.5% chance of hitting and popping an image and a 12.5% chance of hitting you for damage.

So how many images out of 4 are wasted in expected value? The first one has a 55.5% chance to be wasted. Then a 57.1% chance to be wasted. Then a 60% chance to be wasted. And finally a 2/3 chance to be wasted.

So expected value? About two and a half of those 4 will be wasted. So on expectation, every other casting for four images you will prevent one attack total or two attacks total. Not a very good use of your standard action!

Since I showed that them needing a 16 is halfway between 1 and 2 of your images foiling an attack, it's easy to see that if they needed a 17, then only 1 image actually foiling an attack would be the expected outcome. However, if you prefer I can work out the math there too.

Now if your AC is terrible (perhaps they only need a 6 to hit you), mirror image is going to negate a whole bunch of attacks, but then you're in big trouble anyway because your AC is terrible and you just got hit with a whole bunch of attacks that used up your standard action, and chances are they had more attacks left that hit you and grievously harmed you (since every swing is guaranteed to either hit you or pop an image at the point where they need a 6 to hit you).


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Felix Gaunt wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Can also drink a Shield Potion for +4, and spend some Ki for +4 Dodge during one round.
There are no such things as Potions of Shield...

You are so right. I mixed things up.

That's what the abjurer's cloak was for.

Wow, that is an underpriced item. Grants two 0-level spells at-will and two 1st level spells 1/day each.

The Apprentice's Cheating Gloves grants prestidigitation and mage hand at will and costs 2,200 gp.


Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Now if your AC is terrible, mirror image is going to negate a whole bunch of attacks, but then you're in big trouble anyway because your AC is terrible and you just got hit with a whole bunch of attacks that used up your standard action, and chances are they had more attacks left that hit you and grievously harmed you.

And that's also the case if your AC is significantly more awesome (like a lot of the Crane Wing characters referred to in this thread). You may well reach the point where you never waste mirror images on a miss at all, if you're sporting some of the ACs that people have claimed render Crane Wing broken (such as the previously mentioned AC 49 at 11th level).

You have a bit more choice as to how to maximize your value from mirror image, if you are a magus (who also doesn't need to spend a separate action to cast it, thus my original comparison of magus mirror image vs monk Crane Wing... you trade attack bonus for the defense, just like a monk, but via Spell combat). Compared to Crane Wing, at least, which is always going to encourage you to synergize it with a high AC.

Mirror Image allows going in either direction, and either way you'll eventually reach a point where you never waste mirror images on a miss (either because they need a 1 to miss AC or because they need a 20 to hit AC-5). You don't need to go all the way to get better, of course. It's pretty easy to see that there is a peak in mirror images wastage that occurs somewhere in the top quarter of the d20 (it's actually when your foe needs a 15 to hit AC-5), with decreasing miss losses on either side of the peak. Your analysis isn't at this peak, but it's not very far away from it.

But anyway, you could be that magus and spend the cash you would have spent on super AC to work with your Crane Wing, and instead go with pearls of power and have a full power Mirror Image (or two) going into every single encounter in a PFS scenario, I suspect. And not worry about your AC much. It might cost you sometimes (like against a foe with True Seeing or really tons of attacks), kind of like the Crane guy might get caught by an invisible foe or a foe with really tons of attacks or something.

Or you could go super AC like the Crane guys, and with a 49 AC at 11th (or even in the neighborhood), you'll probably need one mirror image to take away every natural 20 the scenario was going to tag you with, because if your foe can't hit AC-5 on a 19, you won't lose any images to misses.

Or you could go with the middle ground somewhere, and you'll probably be pretty well off with Mirror Image. The band of Crane Wing superiority is fairly narrow, and even within that band, actual superiority still relies on sharply limited ability to replenish your spell defenses.


Coriat wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Now if your AC is terrible, mirror image is going to negate a whole bunch of attacks, but then you're in big trouble anyway because your AC is terrible and you just got hit with a whole bunch of attacks that used up your standard action, and chances are they had more attacks left that hit you and grievously harmed you.
And that's also the case if your AC is significantly more awesome (like a lot of the Crane Wing characters referred to in this thread). You may well reach the point where you never waste mirror images on a miss at all, if you're sporting some of the ACs that people have claimed render Crane Wing broken (such as the previously mentioned AC 49 at 11th level).

And if you ever get that high, you can create the truly greatest monster possible by using both mirror image and Crane Wing to become statistically unhittable (this trick only works when you have your AC more than 5 above the point that they need a natural 20 to hit you).

Quote:
Mirror Image allows going in either direction, and either way you'll eventually reach a point where you never waste mirror images on a miss (either because they need a 1 to miss AC or because they need a 20 to hit AC-5). You don't need to go all the way to get better, of course. It's pretty easy to see that there is a peak in mirror images wastage that occurs somewhere in the top quarter of the d20 (it's actually when your foe needs a 15 to hit AC-5), with decreasing miss losses on either side of the peak. Your analysis isn't at this peak, but it's not very far away from it.

It's 4 away, and as anyone who builds AC can tell you (or you can see by how much people are willing to pay in actions and gold to get a shield spell up), despite some people on this thread saying that 4 AC is "nothing", 4 is actually a pretty big shift away because at the upper end, each point makes an enormous change in percentages. For instance, at the actual peak, you would need over 6 images to have an expected value of even 1 image protecting you instead of being wasted.


At the actual peak you probably don't care, very much, either, because it's not like you're getting hit a lot no matter which you have. It's likely the type of situation where you probably wouldn't have bothered to use mirror image at all, because it's not like you need to spend any resources establishing an additional layer of defense when you're only getting hit on a 20. So part of the observation is that at the peak Crane vs Mirror effectiveness, the encounter was already easy.

If a melee only encounter needs a 20 to hit, you likely have already won whether you have Crane, Image, or neither. Like I said, though, I feel like it's the crucible encounters that have more to say about mechanical balance. So the encounters where your AC specialist is getting hit on an 8 (and everyone else on a 2), quite possibly multiple times per round. And - again like I said - I feel like mirror image's greater burst potential in those sorts of situations is a major advantage. Just like Crane seems to offer an advantage over mirror image in being able to stave off the more pathetic encounters without consuming any resources. Things don't need to be the same to be balanced.

Anyway... clearly I am finding myself ending up saying things I've said before. Mostly doing this to kill time while I wait to figure out whether a) I'm missing something about fighting defensively, or b) a large portion of the guys complaining about Crane Wing were misapplying the fighting defensively rules all along.

(I'm not sure *either* would really surprise me :P )


Tels wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Felix Gaunt wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Can also drink a Shield Potion for +4, and spend some Ki for +4 Dodge during one round.
There are no such things as Potions of Shield...

You are so right. I mixed things up.

That's what the abjurer's cloak was for.

Wow, that is an underpriced item. Grants two 0-level spells at-will and two 1st level spells 1/day each.

The Apprentice's Cheating Gloves grants prestidigitation and mage hand at will and costs 2,200 gp.

That's because the cloack is CL 1, while the gloves are caster level 3. Which is of tremendouse value for mage hand, you know...


Magic Item Derail:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Tels wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Felix Gaunt wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Can also drink a Shield Potion for +4, and spend some Ki for +4 Dodge during one round.
There are no such things as Potions of Shield...

You are so right. I mixed things up.

That's what the abjurer's cloak was for.

Wow, that is an underpriced item. Grants two 0-level spells at-will and two 1st level spells 1/day each.

The Apprentice's Cheating Gloves grants prestidigitation and mage hand at will and costs 2,200 gp.

That's because the cloack is CL 1, while the gloves are caster level 3. Which is of tremendouse value for mage hand, you know...

When you use the magic item creation formula, even the gloves are under priced.

At-will 0-level spell = .5 * 1 * 1,800 = 900 gp
A second spell = (.5 * 1 * 1,800) *1.5 = 1,350 gp
Total cost is 2,250 and that's for a 0-level spell at caster level 1st. The cost of a 1st level spell once per day is 1 * 1 * 1,800 * 0.2 = 360 and then another 1st level spell would cost 360 * 1.5 = 540

Total cost of one of those cloaks should be 2,250 + 540 + 540 = 3,330 gp

Remember, each additional ability that isn't inherently similar to that of the original ability costs 1.5 times as much as normal, if it takes up a slot on the body.

You know, it just occurred to me, but the errata to Crane Riposte makes it easier for Snake Fang to trigger because it's an additional AC increase where as the previous one was a deflection and wasn't treated as a miss.


about prices of magic items:
Extra similar abilities (such as casting spells) in the same item cost half as much. You don't pay 1.5 per each spell in a Staff, you pay 50%. No matter how much spells you have there, you only have a single standard action. If they were continous effects, yes, you are right.


Acedio wrote:
Elaserdar wrote:
Stuff
Yeah, so RAW, you can apply Crane Wing to any attack, and if it misses you can Riposte it even if that attack would have missed normally. This is different than the old wording, and makes it significantly easier to get Crane Riposte to trigger than before. This is because you couldn't Crane Wing (and therefore could not Riposte) unless the attack would have hit you normally.

Ah, I see. It isn't giving more than one per round or anything, but if you use it on later iterative attacks or secondary attacks you have a much better chance to trigger an AoO. Where before you may go multiple rounds with nobody penetrating your already high AC.

Interesting.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Magic Items:
That's only for items where all the abilities dip from a limited pool of charges like staves.

So for instance, an item that could cast either shield or mage armor or magic missile 1/day at caster level 1 (and once you pick one of them to cast, it can't cast anything else that day) would cost 720 gp but Tels is correct for the items he priced.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ikarinokami wrote:
1. you can't say we nerfed the feat because of complaints by PFS and then say we didnt do it because of PFS.

Just so everyone is clear, this is not what the designers said.

They said that PFS was one of the factors that brought it to their attention (I suspect the sheer number of build advice threads recommending a MoMS dip to get it was another), and that they examined the effect of the feat in a "neutral" environment (ie not PFS) and decided that it needed rebalancing.

You can argue the degree of the change, and even the need for it, but you can't argue that PFS was the only factor in the change.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chemlak wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
1. you can't say we nerfed the feat because of complaints by PFS and then say we didnt do it because of PFS.

Just so everyone is clear, this is not what the designers said.

They said that PFS was one of the factors that brought it to their attention (I suspect the sheer number of build advice threads recommending a MoMS dip to get it was another), and that they examined the effect of the feat in a "neutral" environment (ie not PFS) and decided that it needed rebalancing.

You can argue the degree of the change, and even the need for it, but you can't argue that PFS was the only factor in the change.

Sorry, but that stopped being an acceptable answer two years ago.

Simply put, it's been too long that it's gone unchanged for anyone to feel like PFS GMs aren't entirely to blame here (regardless of who says what). Maybe that's not fair to the Devs, but it's the reality of the situation, far as I can tell.


5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 14 people marked this as a favorite.

All the talk about invulnerable fencers holding off armies (that line up in single file and melee attack exactly once per round) are a distraction.
Crane Wing wasn't nerfed because it was overpowered.
It was nerfed to protect the inherent imbalance in the system. Paizo are, by their own statement, opposed to the game being balanced.
As Jason said a few days ago, the goal is not for a game that is balanced, the goal is for a game that maintains the balance-state of the core rulebook (i.e. massively unbalanced).

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
The directive is to keep the game relatively stable and balanced, as defined by the core.

The distinction is massively important.

Setting out with the goal of keeping everything balanced around your starting point is a great idea, if your starting point is perfectly balanced.
In the case of Pathfinder, it isn't.
Not even close.
So we get the situation where your design philosophy is actively holding you back from addressing the problems with the game, in the name of warding against 'power creep'; not a good trade-off, to me that's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, refusing to even attempt to address the imbalance because you're terrified of making the game imbalanced?
When your starting point for some is so far behind others, you need a little power creep to even things out. That's how you improve balance over time.
And it's a design philosophy that has lost my gaming group as customers, and I'm certain we're not the only ones (because I'm certain we're not beautiful and unique slowflakes. We may not be a noticable portion of the customer base, but I'm sure we won't be the last, and it's not easy getting lost customers back, which tends to mean future customers that would have been introduced now won't be).
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Folks should recognize that there are some feats we expect to be common and should be pegged at the top of the power curve (or close to it). We expect to see a lot of people with Power Attack. Thats why its in the core rulebook. That is not to say other feats cannot be as good (or close to it), but if we are always putting out Feats (and other mechanics) that trump existing ones, we end up with power creep.

So, martials aren't allowed anything more powerful/useful than Power Attack for offense, and presumably then Combat Expertise for defense. Two feats which are often regarded as simply actions that should be a basic part of the combat rules.

Crane Wing was nerfed because it was better than Combat Expertise, that's all. Not because it was necessarily game-breaking, just a threat to the protected inbuilt imbalance.
Presumably that means casters are limited to.... probably about the power level of Miracle/Wish, so I guess it evens out, right? :-/

And that's is why claiming that the 'martials aren't allowed nice things' comments are off topic is so disingenuous. When that's the design philosophy being adhered to and exhibited in the nerf, of course it's on-topic.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
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.

These two statements are mutually exclusive. A directive to keep the game with the core-defined balance is an agenda to keep martials down.

Off-topic doesn't just mean 'painful truths we'd rather our customers didn't clue each other in on'.

Interesting, though, that while magic missile was such a sacred cow;

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
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.

Great Cleave, one of the most popular melee options, was smashed apart and buried 5 feat (and an extra 2 levels) deep, an example of the combat feat bloat (long trees of uninspiring feats necessitating massive investment for very little return) that meant the change from feats every 3 levels to every 2 benefited casters with their short, light-on-prereq 'trees' far, far more. Which I suspect was the intent, but I'm sure will be dismissed as just one more coincidence.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

"Relatively balanced, as defined by the core" is pretty funny to me. Relatively balanced compared to what, Legacy MTG? At least in MTG everyone can make a deck with Force of Will in it, lol.

Pathfinder is so hilariously unbalanced that it is mystifying (to me) that it took this long for there to be more outcry against it


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:

"Relatively balanced, as defined by the core" is pretty funny to me. Relatively balanced compared to what, Legacy MTG? At least in MTG everyone can make a deck with Force of Will in it, lol.

Pathfinder is so hilariously unbalanced that it is mystifying (to me) that it took this long for there to be more outcry against it

I don't know about anyone else, but this was the first time I've seen them come out and say 'we're actively opposed to fixing any balance issues, and will take drastic steps to undo any accidental balance improvements that slip through'.

I guess maybe for other people digging their heels in on that issue is finally eroding the goodwill they earned by 'saving' 3.5 as it's sinking in that improvements won't be forthcoming.


Throne wrote:
CWheezy wrote:

"Relatively balanced, as defined by the core" is pretty funny to me. Relatively balanced compared to what, Legacy MTG? At least in MTG everyone can make a deck with Force of Will in it, lol.

Pathfinder is so hilariously unbalanced that it is mystifying (to me) that it took this long for there to be more outcry against it

I don't know about anyone else, but this was the first time I've seen them come out and say 'we're actively opposed to fixing any balance issues, and will take drastic steps to undo any accidental balance improvements that slip through'.

I guess maybe for other people digging their heels in on that issue is finally eroding the goodwill they earned by 'saving' 3.5 as it's sinking in that improvements won't be forthcoming.

Honestly, I thought they were at least making steps at trying to fix balance issues. Archetypes, for example, were a big move, imo, to push up classes like the monk, which got a lot of more or less useless class features which could be traded away to get stuff that actually helped them out. Styles were a step in the right direction, as they were, in essence, intended to (or at least I thought so at the time) boost up the monk, without rewriting the class. My issue at the time was that they just weren't ambitious enough with it, but that had been my big thought about most of their martial stuff.

But for a while, I thought the issue was their ambition (which I sort of agreed with at the time; sure I didn't like the fact that very little was getting done to fix the martial-caster disparity, but it's generally better to err on the side of caution, after all, look what not doing so did to 3.5 and its power creep and class bloat did to the system), rather than some belief that they couldn't deviate from the disparity they set up in the CRB.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Throne wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but this was the first time I've seen them come out and say 'we're actively opposed to fixing any balance issues, and will take drastic steps to undo any accidental balance improvements that slip through'.

Yes, this is exactly how I feel about this whole mess.


Well, I won't go so far as to say that I think this nerf warrants walking away from Pathfinder. However, what still bothers me is that it doesn't in any way address the real issue. If GM's are complaining that they are only able to beat the PC's AC in roughly 1 out of every 5 attacks, and then it gets deflected, the problem isn't Crane Wing. It's the AC of the PC which previously, Crane Wing did not help.

All the change really does is pretty much make CW useless except for possibly being used as a prereq for Riposte . . . which ironically got stronger. PC's will continue to have insanely high ACs, only now they'll get to fight back more often. Its also funny that this doesn't even address the "problem" of the 2 level dip into MoMS as you can still take two levels in MoMS and get Crane Style and Riposte. If anything, it gives the player an extra feat. Anybody want to take odds on how long till GMs start complaining about Riposte?


Rogue Eidolon wrote:
So on expectation, every other casting for four images you will prevent one attack total or two attacks total. Not a very good use of your standard action!

I'm not sure that's a completely fair evaluation. There's a lot of conditions that the math doesn't take into account.

e.g.
-If you're buffing before an assault/ambush it's not a wasted standard action.
-Even if the spell completely fails to prevent damage this round, it's still up next round with the potential to nullify up to four attacks.
-Mirror image protects against maneuvers and ranged attacks.
-Mirror image is a class ability available to arcane casters and ninja.
It's not a 4-5 feat investment like the old CW/CR it is to other PCs.
-The additional attacks on the images, even if they just miss and pop the image, are attacks that aren't being sent at back line squishies.

That said even ignoring the above, at high AC's the damage prevented by the old CW and Mirror image starts to converge simply because you're not being hit in the first place, but when your AC is much lower (say 6 or even 10+needed to hit) the damage prevented by Mirror image is MUCH higher. While yes being hit at that low of a roll is a problem, it's not a problem that's actually relevant to determining which method of damage mitigation is better:

At low AC's Mirror image is better and even at high ones, it's arguably equal to or better than crane wing for reasons I outlined above. In short mirror image is better than the old CW at all AC ranges which to me still begs the question was the nerf necessary... (especially when most of the casters can also buff their AC up using shield.)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If you want "perfect" balance, go back to the early days of 4E. *shudders*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gargs454 wrote:
Well, I won't go so far as to say that I think this nerf warrants walking away from Pathfinder. However, what still bothers me is that it doesn't in any way address the real issue. If GM's are complaining that they are only able to beat the PC's AC in roughly 1 out of every 5 attacks, and then it gets deflected, the problem isn't Crane Wing. It's the AC of the PC which previously, Crane Wing did not help.

I don't think anyone's said they're going to quit playing over this. I haven't seen it (though I think a couple of days ago someone was trying to paint me saying I would sympathise if someone did as me saying I was).

Between us, we've spent quite a lot of money on pathfinder stuff. We're going to continue using it, and just ignore this errata.
But now that Jason's explained that the design philosophy is to work against solving the balance problems, we're not going to financially support the product anymore, just grab the useful bits of new releases off the PRD.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
If you want "perfect" balance, go back to the early days of 4E. *shudders*

4th edition is not the only way. I'm not sure if you're familiar with Starcraft, but it's an excellent example of designing three factions that are fun, diverse, and unique and still well balanced with one another.

For the 3.x equivalent, I'd suggest looking to the tier system for inspiration.


Petrus222 wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
So on expectation, every other casting for four images you will prevent one attack total or two attacks total. Not a very good use of your standard action!

I'm not sure that's a completely fair evaluation. There's a lot of conditions that the math doesn't take into account.

e.g.
-If you're buffing before an assault/ambush it's not a wasted standard action.
-Even if the spell completely fails to prevent damage this round, it's still up next round with the potential to nullify up to four attacks.
-Mirror image protects against maneuvers and ranged attacks.
-Mirror image is a class ability available to arcane casters and ninja.
It's not a 4-5 feat investment like the old CW/CR it is to other PCs.
-The additional attacks on the images, even if they just miss and pop the image, are attacks that aren't being sent at back line squishies.

That said even ignoring the above, at high AC's the damage prevented by the old CW and Mirror image starts to converge simply because you're not being hit in the first place, but when your AC is much lower (say 6 or even 10+needed to hit) the damage prevented by Mirror image is MUCH higher. While yes being hit at that low of a roll is a problem, it's not a problem that's actually relevant to determining which method of damage mitigation is better:

At low AC's Mirror image is better and even at high ones, it's arguably equal to or better than crane wing for reasons I outlined above. In short mirror image is better than the old CW at all AC ranges which to me still begs the question was the nerf necessary... (especially when most of the casters can also buff their AC up using shield.)

Hmm, I don't think your comparison between them is a fair one, if we are assuming the high AC condition. To wit--

Quote:
-If you're buffing before an assault/ambush it's not a wasted standard action.

But if you're trying to tank a large number of attacks with it, you will

lose all your images pretty often. You will then need to recast it over and over again, and that takes a standard action each time.

Quote:
-Even if the spell completely fails to prevent damage this round, it's still up next round with the potential to nullify up to four attacks.

No, if there's a large number of attacks, then it's pretty likely each round that you will lose plenty of the images to near-misses and maybe one or two to deflections.

Quote:
-Mirror image protects against maneuvers and ranged attacks.

Mirror image gives a % chance to avoid being hit that isn't 100%. Crane works against some maneuvers and can combine with Deflect Arrows (and at higher levels, freedom of movement if you have some support) to pretty much prevent the only maneuver left that really matters (grapple). In my case, I used Fighter Favored Class bonus to add huge CMD vs Grapple, so Grapple is a bad bet vs my guy.

Quote:
-Mirror image is a class ability available to arcane casters and ninja. It's not a 4-5 feat investment like the old CW/CR it is to other PCs.

It also costs a 2nd level slot or a ki point every time, and you likely have to put it up on a round-by-round basis if you're going to tank a large encounter with many attacks by yourself. Now, if wyroot (which is even more of something that needs to be nerfed or banned than Crane) is allowed so magi have infinite spells and ninjas have infinite ki for 1000 gp, that's one thing.

Quote:
-The additional attacks on the images, even if they just miss and pop the image, are attacks that aren't being sent at back line squishies.

This particular conclusion doesn't follow logically. You said that even if all the attacks miss by 5 or less and pop an image, it's still an attack that isn't being sent at back line squishies. However, if all the attacks miss by 5 or less and pop an image, then the casting of the spell didn't matter at all. You would have equally prevented all those attacks from going to the back line without casting it just by being attacked, since the images had no effect whatsoever (in fact, if anything, one could argue the attacks, particularly ranged attacks that can usually target whoever they want, are more likely to be aimed at your back line if you have up visible images that make it clear that you will be an annoying target to hit).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
If you want "perfect" balance, go back to the early days of 4E. *shudders*

So what're we calling this now? The 4E fallacy? Wizards fallacy? Hasbro fallacy?

4E took the 'balance through homogeneity' path, therefore homogeneity is the only route to balance?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It wasn't even THAT homogeneous. Only the power framework was, the results achieved through it were pretty different.

I don't want to parrot this stuff, but seriously, two core 4e fighters could be more different than most barbarians/rangers/paladins are after dozens of splats in PF.


Kudaku wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
If you want "perfect" balance, go back to the early days of 4E. *shudders*

4th edition is not the only way. I'm not sure if you're familiar with Starcraft, but it's an excellent example of designing three factions that are fun, diverse, and unique and still well balanced with one another.

For the 3.x equivalent, I'd suggest looking to the tier system for inspiration.

I dunno, the Terrans were pretty boss with those siege tanks. Once you got those things up and running, ground assaults became extremely difficult.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This far more insidious than the quest for perfect balance. This is PFS dictating the width and breadth of the pathfinder table top RPG.

no one would make the rules of the NFL based on what happens in touch football. Offended and dissapointed would be the words i would use to describe this debacle. I started playing pathfinder to avoid this nonsense, which led to another system of rules, i will not name.

This is supposed to be the pathfinder RPG, which is run by a GM can creates and modify encounters to suit and meet the needs his group and party.

If wanted to to play PFS i would play in PFS. I'm not buying another pathfinder book. I'm not paying money to play a game balanced by PFS which i consider more a "sport" than an actual table top RPG.

Liberty's Edge

Throne wrote:
Gargs454 wrote:
Well, I won't go so far as to say that I think this nerf warrants walking away from Pathfinder. However, what still bothers me is that it doesn't in any way address the real issue. If GM's are complaining that they are only able to beat the PC's AC in roughly 1 out of every 5 attacks, and then it gets deflected, the problem isn't Crane Wing. It's the AC of the PC which previously, Crane Wing did not help.

I don't think anyone's said they're going to quit playing over this. I haven't seen it (though I think a couple of days ago someone was trying to paint me saying I would sympathise if someone did as me saying I was).

Between us, we've spent quite a lot of money on pathfinder stuff. We're going to continue using it, and just ignore this errata.
But now that Jason's explained that the design philosophy is to work against solving the balance problems, we're not going to financially support the product anymore, just grab the useful bits of new releases off the PRD.

QFT, this is a great summary. I am extremely reluctant to continue to support this type thinking myself as well. I was originally thinking of renewing my pathfinder adventure path after the mythic series but now I am not sure. We have already decided to not use this errata in our current campaign as well.

As far as playing something else, we tend to do that on the occasional basis anyway, playing something different every once in awhile can be a nice change of pace.


"Hmm, I don't think your comparison between them is a fair one, if we are assuming the high AC condition. To wit--"

Why assume only the high AC condition? It falsely limits the comparison to a narrow range that isn't representative of the total possibilities.

"-If you're buffing before an assault/ambush it's not a wasted standard action.

But if you're trying to tank a large number of attacks with it, you will lose all your images pretty often."

I'd argue that those attacks were still tanked regardless of whether by AC or with 5 pt misses. True the 5pt misses limit the damage mitigation potential, but by your own math mirror image on average still mitigates more attacks than crane wing even at high AC.

"You will then need to recast it over and over again, and that takes a standard action each time."

What if you don't recast it after buffing? If most fights are only 2-4 rounds, then that one casting probably lasted 2 rounds or so depending on positioning etc and the need to recast it may not actually be there. Damage mitigation by killing the monster faster is still mitigation.

"No, if there's a large number of attacks, then it's pretty likely that you will lose plenty of the images to near-misses and maybe one or two to deflections."

If it completely failed to prevent damage none of the attacks were misses or near misses, meaning the spell is still in place next round. (Bad luck to have that happen to be honest, but possible nonetheless.)

"Mirror image gives a % chance to avoid being hit that isn't 100%."

Against the first attack each round it's close enough. Even with only one image you're still looking at having to hit AC followed by a 50% miss chance. At high attack rolls (eg needing 16+) even one image is equivalent to 87.5% chance of damage mitigation... more images just raise that up. At lower AC's the mitigation instead comes from the multiple images, but it's still mitigated and dramatically so in comparison to just AC alone.

"Crane works against some maneuvers and can combine with Deflect Arrows (and at higher levels, freedom of movement if you have some support) to pretty much prevent the only maneuver left that really matters (grapple)."

You've just given a couple of examples that emphasize how much better mirror image is than the old crane wing. The fact that you need an additional feat and/or a spell to replicate the same effects of mirror image is pretty telling, especially on top of the CW pre-reqs and limitations.

"-Mirror image is a class ability available to arcane casters and ninja. It's not a 4-5 feat investment like the old CW/CR it is to other PCs.

It also costs a 2nd level slot or a ki point every time, and you likely have to put it up on a round-by-round basis if you're going to tank a large encounter with many attacks by yourself."

And if the alternative is having been killed by the attacks, most people will cast the spell/spend the ki. Also keep in mind that for the casters, they have options to switch it out if an encounter doesn't require it. There are times when crane users would probably love to have dragon or snake or skill focus instead but they don't have that flexibility with feats.

"However, if all the attacks miss by 5 or less and pop an image, then the casting of the spell didn't matter at all."
Unless you're one of those back line squishies who's happy the archers focused on the guy with mirror image so the BBEG would have a clean shot instead of you.

I think the big difference in our approaches is you're looking at the old CW and mirror image in terms of efficiency where I'm looking at it for raw damage mitigation. From my side, mirror image comes out consistently ahead even using your numbers. I just don't see that the rationale for the nerf (from a gaming mechanic perspective) was needed.

(From a business sense it might have made more sense for PFS, but given the flash back on this thread, maybe not.)


Petrus222 wrote:
I think the big difference in our approaches is you're looking at the old CW and mirror image in terms of efficiency where I'm looking at it for raw damage mitigation. From my side, mirror image comes out consistently ahead even using your numbers.

I think I found the root of the disconnect. You believe that a near-miss that pops an image is damage mitigation for mirror image, as you said here:

Quote:
If it completely failed to prevent damage none of the attacks were misses or near misses meaning the spell is still in place next round.

In fact, that is inarguably not the case. Every image that is popped by a near miss might as well never have existed to begin with. It does not negate damage, period, compared to not having any images at all.

As an aside:

Quote:
Why assume only the high AC condition? It falsely limits the comparison to a narrow range that isn't representative of the total possibilities.

Crane is most effective for a tanky character. If you don't compare it for that kind of character, then the comparison is meaningless, as much so as if I claimed Power Attack needed a huge buff after analyzing how bad it is to use on a TWF Rogue. For a particularly tanky character, a mean 16 needed to hit is not particularly high and seemed like a fair medium, since Crane blows mirror image out of the water even moreso with just 4 additional AC (the rate of benefit of Crane comparatively more than quadruples and mirror image is basically worthless).


Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Crane is most effective for a tanky character.

Actually (old) Crane Wing, like miss chance and damage reduction, is most effective for a character with a low AC.


Rogue Eidolon wrote:


I think I found the root of the disconnect. You believe that a near-miss that pops an image is damage mitigation for mirror image, as you said here

Arguably it is. From an spent action standpoint, the attack was used to deplete the mirror images. That's mitigation of damage to the party. (i.e. the monster could have attacked someone else and may well have been tempted to if they weren't hitting because of AC alone... attacking the mirror image is still a depletion of party resources. Maybe not the best depletion possible, but I'd rather the GM have to make that decision than not.)

Quote:
In fact, that is inarguably not the case.

You missed a subtlety. If every attack hit the PC with Mirror image and caused damage, none of the images were hit. (I.e. they're still there next round... doesn't really matter though as the other arguments are far stronger than this one.)

Quote:
Crane is most effective for a tanky character. If you don't compare it for that kind of character, then the comparison is meaningless...

Depends how you define effective. Run the numbers on mirror image vs crane vs neither for someone with low AC. Mirror image is dramatically better than crane from a mitigation standpoint.


Spoiler:
The Rest of gustavo iglesias's Quote

gustavo iglesias wrote:

I was going to build a Crane Wing Dwarf monk (based on Warhammer's Troll-Slayers, none the less. Punkie monks for the win :P).

This was last week, before the Nerf. I'm not going to change my planned character because of this, so there I go. I'd be testing it this Sunday.

My Character will be built at 6th level (we wiped last sunday in Rise of Runelords being undermanned -3 guys- and rolling *horrible* against The Skinsaw and his retinue of ghasts).

gustavo iglesias wrote:
Right now it has, assuming 1 hour self-buffs, AC 32 (10 base, +2 Dex, +3 Wis, +1 Monk, +2 Luck, +1 Natural Armor, +3 Enhancement Natural Armor, +1 Deflection, +5 Dodge, +4 Armor) and 36 vs a single attack per round. Can also drink a Shield Potion for +4, and spend some Ki for +4 Dodge during one round. That's potentially 44 AC vs the strongest attack from the BAB, if such number would be needed. At level 6, that's fine enough I think. It's worth two feats (I don't have Riposte yet)

Can you break these ACs down for me?

Edit:

I get the Dex/Wis/Monk stats.

Confused on Luck?

Confused on Natural Armor? I think one of the Nat Armors are from Barkskin but I didn't think multiple natural armors stacked.

No idea where the Deflection is from, I tried looking for it too.

And no idea how there is +5 Dodge. I only thought there was the +1 from the Feat. Unless this is crane style again and it is +1 Dodge feat, +1 Crane feat (bonus) and +3 for fighting defensively.

And I think the +4 Armor is from Braces of Armor but unsure.

*the shield potion was clarified at a later post as Cloak of the Hedge w/ a Shield spell from that


Kudaku wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Crane is most effective for a tanky character. If you don't compare it for that kind of character, then the comparison is meaningless, as much so as if I claimed Power Attack needed a huge buff after analyzing how bad it is to use on a TWF Rogue. For a particularly tanky character, a mean 16 needed to hit is not particularly high and seemed like a fair medium, since Crane blows mirror image out of the water even moreso with just 4 additional AC (the rate of benefit of Crane comparatively more than quadruples).
Actually Crane, like miss chance, is most effective for a character with incredibly low AC.

This is a myth that has led to many people who make a low AC Crane character, see it isn't very good, and claim Crane is not so powerful. Except against those single attack dudes that everyone can just auto-block, Crane will give you a much higher % miss chance compared to not having Crane if you have high AC.

Consider being attacked 20 times per round by enemies that (Case 1) only miss you on a nat 1 or (Case 2) only hit you on a nat 20.

In Case 1, you expect 19 hits out of 20, Crane blocks one, and you get hit 18 times. Crane protected you from 1 of 19 hits, granting a 5.26% miss chance.

In Case 2, you expect 1 hit out of 20, Crane blocks that one, and you get hit 0 times expected. In actuality, though, there's a 26.5% chance to be hit more than once in a round, so really Crane took you from 1 hit to .265 hits, which is a 73.5% miss chance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Throne wrote:


Basically, you have to balance around the high-end of optimisation.

I guess my point is that this nerf isn't even that:

MI and high AC is equivalent to or better than old CW and high AC.
MI and low AC is dramatically better than old CW and low AC.

And both of those statements ignore the pre-reqs to get to be able to use each ability [u]and[/u] the limitations of CW against range.

In short, MI out classes old CW across the board. If the former didn't need to be nerfed, than arguably the old CW definitely didn't.


Petrus222 wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:


I think I found the root of the disconnect. You believe that a near-miss that pops an image is damage mitigation for mirror image, as you said here
Arguably it is. From an spent action standpoint, the attack was used to deplete the mirror images. That's mitigation of damage to the party. (i.e. the monster could have attacked someone else and may well have been tempted to if they weren't hitting because of AC alone... attacking the mirror image is still a depletion of party resources. Maybe not the best depletion possible, but I'd rather the GM have to make that decision than not.)

Huh? Given the choice between an easy-to-hit guy and a hard-to-hit guy either with or without images, you claim the images on the hard-to-hit guy make someone more likely to want to attack him? If that's the case, I think your monsters are run in a very different way from the baseline standard that I have ever seen. In general, images dissuade people from trying to hit you, not the other way around.

Quote:
Quote:
Crane is most effective for a tanky character. If you don't compare it for that kind of character, then the comparison is meaningless...
Depends how you define effective. Run the numbers on mirror image vs crane vs neither for someone with low AC. Mirror image is dramatically better than crane from a mitigation standpoint.

Yup, I don't think anyone ever claimed it wasn't. Low AC Crane was not a very good build, and Jason made it clear that high AC Crane was the problem in one of his posts.


Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
Actually Crane, like miss chance, is most effective for a character with incredibly low AC.

This is a myth that has led to many people who make a low AC Crane character, see it isn't very good, and claim Crane is not so powerful. Except against those single attack dudes that everyone can just auto-block, Crane will give you a much higher % miss chance compared to not having Crane if you have high AC.

Consider being attacked 20 times per round by enemies that (Case 1) only miss you on a nat 1 or (Case 2) only hit you on a nat 20.

In Case 1, you expect 19 hits out of 20, Crane blocks one, and you get hit 18 times. Crane protected you from 1 of 19 hits, granting a 5.26% miss chance.

In Case 2, you expect 1 hit out of 20, Crane blocks that one, and you get hit 0 times expected. In actuality, though, there's a 26.5% chance to be hit more than once in a round, so really Crane took you from 1 hit to .265 hits, which is a 73.5% miss chance.

I'm not arguing that a low AC Crane Wing character is the most effective character concept. I'm pointing out that the Crane Wing feat does more for you the lower your AC is.

If you're only getting hit on a natural 20, Crane Wing reduces the probability of a hit by 5% each round.

If you're getting hit on 2-20, Crane Wing reduces the probability of a hit by 95% each round.

Similarly DR is more useful the more you get hit (since it reduces more damage), and miss chance is more useful the more you get hit (since the miss chance will come into play more often).

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Crane RIPOSTE was more effective on a low AC character, since you got to use the Wing every round, and generated an attack.

Crane Wing works much better with high AC, since it turns a hit into a miss...therefore, the less you are hit, the greater the miss chance. If you only get hit once a round, that's a 100% miss chance, which is utterly awesome. And with tactics, positioning, and party help, you can almost guarantee the enemy only gets one attack against you, except in rare cases.

I mean, just SLOW them. They only get one attack, and so you're invulnerable. There's other conditions which do much the same. Anything that causes a To Hit penalty adds more layers.

==+Aelryinth


Kudaku wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
Actually Crane, like miss chance, is most effective for a character with incredibly low AC.

This is a myth that has led to many people who make a low AC Crane character, see it isn't very good, and claim Crane is not so powerful. Except against those single attack dudes that everyone can just auto-block, Crane will give you a much higher % miss chance compared to not having Crane if you have high AC.

Consider being attacked 20 times per round by enemies that (Case 1) only miss you on a nat 1 or (Case 2) only hit you on a nat 20.

In Case 1, you expect 19 hits out of 20, Crane blocks one, and you get hit 18 times. Crane protected you from 1 of 19 hits, granting a 5.26% miss chance.

In Case 2, you expect 1 hit out of 20, Crane blocks that one, and you get hit 0 times expected. In actuality, though, there's a 26.5% chance to be hit more than once in a round, so really Crane took you from 1 hit to .265 hits, which is a 73.5% miss chance.

I'm not arguing that a low AC Crane Wing character is the most effective character concept. I'm pointing out that the Crane Wing feat does more for you the lower your AC is.

If you're only getting hit on a natural 20, Crane Wing reduces the probability of a hit by 5% each round.

If you're getting hit on 2-20, Crane Wing reduces the probability of a hit by 95% each round.

Similarly DR is more useful the more you get hit (since it reduces more damage), and miss chance is more useful the more you get hit (since the miss chance will come into play more often).

I see, you are doing it arithmetically (expected number of hits prevented per round) whereas the analysis that matters more to the results of the feat is the geometric case (total percentage of hits negated).

I'll point out that even for the arithmetic case, your numbers are off--in the case of 20 attacks hitting you that only miss on a 1, in fact you are better than a 95% chance of blocking an attack each round. Your chance is so close to 100% that the amount that is missing is irrelevant (1/20^20). Your chance of blocking an attack from 20 attacks hitting you that only hit on a 20 is actually 64.2%. However, again, the actual power is far better measured by the percentage of total hits negated, not by the raw number of hits negated per round.


Rogue Eidolon wrote:

I see, you are doing it arithmetically (expected number of hits prevented per round) whereas the analysis that matters more to the results of the feat is the geometric case (total percentage of hits negated).

I'll point out that even for the arithmetic case, your numbers are off--in the case of 20 attacks hitting you that only miss on a 1, in fact you are better than a 95% chance of blocking an attack each round. Your chance is so close to 100% that the amount that is missing is irrelevant (1/20^20). Your chance of blocking an attack from 20 attacks hitting you that only hit on a 20 is actually 64.2%. However, again, the actual power is far better measured by the percentage of total hits negated, not by the raw number of hits negated per round.

Ah, I didn't assume 20 attacks. My numbers were purely based on the chance of Crane Wing stopping an attack each round assuming an attack was made.

Actually, raises an interesting question. What's the typical number of attacks an opponent faces in a single round?

@Aelryinth
So as long as the target is Slowed... Crane Wing makes you invincible. How is that different from taking a move action away and using a sling?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

It's a description of how party cooperation can really tie into the power of the feat with a core example spell given, not a declaration that every single combat starts with a slowed enemy, Kudaku. There's other conditions which also help out nicely, and other spells.

==Aelryinth


Kudaku wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:

I see, you are doing it arithmetically (expected number of hits prevented per round) whereas the analysis that matters more to the results of the feat is the geometric case (total percentage of hits negated).

I'll point out that even for the arithmetic case, your numbers are off--in the case of 20 attacks hitting you that only miss on a 1, in fact you are better than a 95% chance of blocking an attack each round. Your chance is so close to 100% that the amount that is missing is irrelevant (1/20^20). Your chance of blocking an attack from 20 attacks hitting you that only hit on a 20 is actually 64.2%. However, again, the actual power is far better measured by the percentage of total hits negated, not by the raw number of hits negated per round.

Ah, I didn't assume 20 attacks. My numbers were purely based on the chance of Crane Wing stopping an attack each round assuming an attack was made.

Actually, raises an interesting question. What's the typical number of attacks an opponent faces in a single round?

Against only a single attack per round, Crane Wing negates that attack and makes you automatically invincible (from a multiplicative percentile measure, it is as good as a 100% miss chance) regardless of your AC. It's one of the other myths of Crane that all the people who had issue with Crane were assuming such single-attack auto-deflect rounds (the myth was probably tied in with the same people who thought that Crane was good for low AC builds). I would say that if you want to tank an entire encounter by yourself, you should be prepared to find at least 12 attacks targeted at you per round (likely at low accuracy), even at low. levels, if the enemies have natural attacks. For instance, tanking 4 ghouls or 4 dretches was pretty typical for Iakhovas. I picked 20 in my post above for easier math. In truth, 12 attacks is far better than 20 for the Crane character's percentage miss chance due to Crane Wing (since 20 gives a lot more chances for two nat 20s).

1,851 to 1,900 of 2,304 << first < prev | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Crane Wing Errata in latest printing All Messageboards