| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Getting removed to one attack is NOT true, because of Riposte. He gets two attacks at full BAB because of the free AoO he was basically generating every round or two. So his base damage is going to be twice that of his opponent...or he gets a full attack, and his opponent gets less effective ones with bad chances to hit, and the rare one to get through is neutralized.
Wow this is so full of bias and untruths.
A Crane Wing that has his AC so high that enemies are unlikely to hit with any of his iteratives is not dealing double the base damage of the enemy. In all likelihood, two hits from such a defensive Crane Winger is only going to equal 1 hit (at best) of the non-Crane Wing enemy.
Your argument against Crane Wing stems from players that are inherently abusive of the game mechanics. This is not a good place to be arguing from. People that are going to be using bastard swords or longswords to 2-hand during attack, and then 1-hand at the end of the turn are abusing a mechanic of the game. These are probably the same people that would argue that their dual-shield wielding character can use Power Attack and Combat Expertise without penalty because they have Shield Master (RAW Shield Master allows twf with shields to ignore all penalties on the attack roll). Or they are going to argue for snow-cone wish machines, or the same people who intentionally used double-barreled pistols with weapon cords on gunslingers to double their attacks or any of the other abusive mechanics in the game.
Arguing that a feat is OP from the stance of abusive players that are abusing mechanics in the game is a poor place to be arguing from.
The people who actually used the feat, honestly, were not breaking the game. They were playing defensive characters, or emulating duelist-esque characters or swashbucklers or any other of the characters that use one weapon effectively.
Abusive characters are going to abuse the game no matter what you do. If you nerf everything on the account of abusive characters, then you just make it harder, and harder for everyone else to build fun characters that don't have to struggle for any chance of victory. Hell, if I wanted to do that, I'd go back to Core 3rd Edition.
With preregs Bab +6, 11 and 16, vs whatever Crane is supposed to have, and with IUS being basically free by ANY monk or UA fighter dip. So you're having a feat that's available at level 6 at worst nerfing a feat chain that ends at +16. Totally and completely. A feat chain whose only purpose is to make the huge annoyance of being continually forced into single attacks more effectiveVital strike is a single feat, crane wing/riposte is 3-4-5. If you want spring attack and all the other stuff you mention that the crane winger needs to "shut down an encounter" you are looking at about a 6 feat investment.
Even if you take the whole vital strike chain, it's only 3 feats.
If you want to make the argument MoMS dip is the problem, that's fine.
Nobody argues that Vital strike isn't horrible. Using it as a standard, you'll get a lot of horrible feats. Deflect arrow and Missile Shield also shut down Vital Strike for ranged characters.
Sure, Crane Wing can, with a feat, defeat a Tyrannosaurus, and that sounds powerful. So does Scribe scroll->fly.
The real problem was the MoMS dip, not the Crane Wing
|
With preregs Bab +6, 11 and 16, vs whatever Crane is supposed to have, and with IUS being basically free by ANY monk or UA fighter dip. So you're having a feat that's available at level 6 at worst nerfing a feat chain that ends at +16. Totally and completely. A feat chain whose only purpose is to make the huge annoyance of being continually forced into single attacks more effectiveVital strike is a single feat, crane wing/riposte is 3-4-5. If you want spring attack and all the other stuff you mention that the crane winger needs to "shut down an encounter" you are looking at about a 6 feat investment.
Even if you take the whole vital strike chain, it's only 3 feats.
If you want to make the argument MoMS dip is the problem, that's fine.
Nobody argues that Vital strike isn't horrible. Using it as a standard, you'll get a lot of horrible feats. Deflect arrow and Missile Shield also shut down Vital Strike for ranged characters.
Sure, Crane Wing can, with a feat, defeat a Tyrannosaurus, and that sounds powerful. So does Scribe scroll->fly.
The real problem was the MoMS dip, not the Crane Wing
I agree that the MoMS styles dip was the real issue. Fly shuts down every single ground based melee attacker in the game. Pretty powerfull ability possible for every 5th level+ wizard out there.
Trying to deflect attention away from the feat isn't going to work.
yes, a Crane Winger can fight 2Handed on his turn. No, his Attacks aren't going to take a 'massive hit' in the DPR. No, not having a shield isn't going to 'hurt' him until level 10 when his counterpart WITHOUT Crane Wing finally gets a shield+ 2 or 3 to equal the AC difference, and that only if the CW'er doesn't have feats or class abilities to raise Defensive fighting even further (like being an Aldori).
The only way he's going to take a massive DPR hit is if he CHOOSES to use a fighting style that is inferior, like finesse combat. That's a choice to suck. That's not a requirement. He'll still be doing more damage then a sword and board user regardless, and the riposte keeps him in the game regardless. It's better then getting an iterative, and doesn't lock him into needing a full attack.
A 2 level delay in his Weapon mastery isn't going to cost him more then +1 to hit, and a one level delay in Power Attack for a Monk Dip.
And if you want to crap all over the Vital Strike chain, then crapping all over the much better CW chain is completely up for grabs, too. It's a feat chain that is much more focused then CW, AND it's a monster standard chain, working excellently for them when PC's try to deny them full attacks. Except, you know, it doesn't work at all against CW.
And Scribe scroll to fly doesn't kill a T-Rex at all. You still have to either expend a lot of spell slots, shoot a lot of arrows, and you have to be at least level 5 and pay out the coin. It also doesn't keep the T-Rex from getting at the other PC's who are beyond you cheering you on.
And correctly it would be a potion of fly, so any class could do it, else we are talking major investment in UMD, as well. And you're not going to do that with every encounter, either because of coin or simply because fly won't get you out of reach of your enemies all the time.
It also makes you the preferred target of archers and casters, but that's a different topic.
And bringing up Arrow Deflection is just making everyone roll their eyes at this point. The two feats aren't remotely equal in strength, either. AD is auto-nerfed from the get go because it is very hard to deny an missile thrower a full attack, and they get so bloody many shots. Basically, AD is anti-Rapid Shot, and everything else gets through. And how many true missile guys do you know without Rapid Shot?
The arguments are getting increasingly repetitive and disproven many times over. The problem with Crane Wing was Crane Wing. Everything else just made it worse.
==Aelryinth
yes, a Crane Winger can fight 2Handed on his turn.
Do I really need to quote that acronym again already, Ryinth?
I wasn't the one who brought up the crazy interpretation again, Kudaku. Go lash Tels with it for trying to spread the weirdness.
==Aelryinth
I wasn't the one who brought up the crazy interpretation again, Kudaku. Go lash Tels with it for trying to spread the weirdness.
==Aelryinth
No. Tels is arguing, correctly, that not having a free hand and using Crane Wing is abusing the rules. You're the one pushing the "THFing and Crane Wing is totally cool" agenda.
So yet again, Ryinth: Please don't base your argument on RAITAYCPIWN. It looks ridiculous.
The arguments are getting increasingly repetitive and disproven many times over. The problem with Crane Wing was Crane Wing. Everything else just made it worse.
Repetitive? Yes. There is not much else to say by this point. You're not covering new ground either. Disproven? Hardly. You never proved anything here.
If being able to deflect a single melee attack per turn makes the character invincible, then the encounter is very poorly designed.
And BTW, BW doesn't stop the T-Rex from going after your friends either.
Bu you know what... I'm tired of this discussion. You're obviously not going to change your mind. So be glad that we have yet another horrible feat chain in the game. Yet another reason to never make any martial character that is anything other than a DPR-focused 2-handed/archery warrior.
Sure, we lose a lot of character variety and one of the very few useful and interesting feats in the game, but hey, at least encounters consisting of single enemy with a single attack is a very slightly less pathetic...
I'm out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I take it Aelryinth's two-handed fighter vital striker thought he was the big fish in the small martial pond, and then got his hulk smash deflected?
I guess it saves us asking him to show us on the doll where the bad monk touched him.
(And yes, I do think a guy with a feat with 3 feat and a +5 BAB prereq necessitating a guy with a feat with a +6 BAB and no feat prereqs to change tactics is just fine)
I think he played a Gendarme who kept trying to charge at a Crane Wing user named Strong Belwas.
Aelrynith you haven't disproven any of the arguments on behalf of the original Crane Wing. Contrary, your arguments are entirely focused around the idea that Crane Wing is solely responsible for characters being unhittable in melee. It wasn't the total defense, or Amulets of Natural Armor, or Rings of Protection, or Armor or Armor enhancements. No, it was Crane Wing. Crane Wing gave them +50 AC, and deflected melee attacks and gave them Damage Reduction and gave them Fickle Winds.
Crane Wing, based off your arguments, contributes more to defense than any other combination of items, feats or abilities.
Crane Wing was a powerful feat, no one is stating otherwise. Crane Wing, however, was not the problem. Dipping MoMS for early and, essentially, free Crane Wing was the problem.
Trying to deflect attention away from the feat isn't going to work.
yes, a Crane Winger can fight 2Handed on his turn
LOL
Let's assume for a moment that this is valid, and not an absurd interpretation of the rules (which is the truth).Then, again, it's not Crane Wing what's wrong. It's the ability to create 6 seconds bubles where you can do your full round and then go back to normal time, which is indeed powerful, not only because of Crane wing, but also because of Aldori swordlords, spellstrike, and other stuff.
What you have said is "hey, look, if we have the portable-hole-into-bag-of-holding nuclear weapon, Crane Wing is really powerful, because a Crane Winger can throw a portable-hole-into-bag-of-holding and provoke a nuclear explosion. So let's nerf Crane Wing".
And if you want to crap all over the Vital Strike chain, then crapping all over the much better CW chain is completely up for grabs, too. It's a feat chain that is much more focused then CW, AND it's a monster standard chain, working excellently for them when PC's try to deny them full attacks. Except, you know, it doesn't work at all against CW.
It's crap, and once CW is nerfed, it's crap too. Being a slighthly better smelling piece of crap doesn't remove it from the crap pool. It's crap, and it'll always be, because of this game fatal flaw about full round actions and movement. The only way Vital Strike isn't crap, is if you rename it "pounce"
And Scribe scroll to fly doesn't kill a T-Rex at all. You still have to either expend a lot of spell slots, shoot a lot of arrows, and you have to be at least level 5 and pay out the coin. It also doesn't keep the T-Rex from getting at the other PC's who are beyond you cheering you on.
Crane Wing haven't defeated the T-Rex either. You still have to kill it, and it doesn't stop him and his gargantuan reach to go against others in the party.
It also makes you the preferred target of archers and casters, but that's a different topic
No no no, this. Exactly this. I like this topic, let's talk about this topic, don't diss it out.
YES, it's not overpowered because it makes you the preferred target of archers and casters. And that's what balance it.
Now... in that sentence, were we talking about fly? Or... Crane wing?
If the party has a uber-defending Crane Wing specialist, switch up tactics. Have the uber-grapple huge-size monster go for the archer or wizard, while the bad guy's spellcaster flies up and starts blasting the Crane Wing sob. He can't "deflect" a spell with no attack roll, can he? And most martial builds have crap Will saves.
Making DMs think and adjust tactics is a privilege reserved for spellcasters, and clearly OP in the hands of a dex-based martial.
Aelrynith you haven't disproven any of the arguments on behalf of the original Crane Wing. Contrary, your arguments are entirely focused around the idea that Crane Wing is solely responsible for characters being unhittable in melee. It wasn't the total defense, or Amulets of Natural Armor, or Rings of Protection, or Armor or Armor enhancements. No, it was Crane Wing. Crane Wing gave them +50 AC, and deflected melee attacks and gave them Damage Reduction and gave them Fickle Winds.
Crane Wing, based off your arguments, contributes more to defense than any other combination of items, feats or abilities.
Crane Wing was a powerful feat, no one is stating otherwise. Crane Wing, however, was not the problem. Dipping MoMS for early and, essentially, free Crane Wing was the problem.
oh, my, such a cogitent argument.
Completely forgetting that everyone buys the armor, and the amulets and the rings, and therefore establishes a baseline of equality. Variation exists the realm of the feats and possibly ability scores, and + or - a shield.
But no, only Crane Wingers bother to take AC buffing gear. Therefore, every other combination is the suck, because they don't have Crane Wing.
Is that what you just said there? Because I know I certainly never said that.
I presume that you take the best AC buffs you can for your level, and the only variation is going to be whether or not you have feats. A Crane Wing will probably have a decent Dex score, it's thematic.
Therefore, the only difference between effectiveness on the defensiveness is the presence of the Crane Series of feats. Which impart a +4 dodge bonus to AC, a complete annulment of a hit that gets past that +4 bonus to AC, and an extra AoO if that hit is annulled. I presume nothing more, and nothing less.
It is an extremely powerful combination of effects that good players can manipulate excessively well...a fact that is repeatedly overlooked and ignored by most of the posters.
Your qualification of 2h'ing on the character's turn is 'rules abuse' flies in the face of combat for every class and style for 15 years.
Is the wizard who takes a hand off his staff to cast, then puts it back on at the end of his turn engaging in rules abuse?
Is the rogue throwing things with one hand while he grips a short sword in the other guilty of rules abuse if he has his hand empty at the end of his turn?
Is the cleric letting go of his holy symbol that he just channeled with at the end of his turn to grip his mace stronger engaging in rules abuse?
Is the archer who does not have an arrow fit to his bow at the end of his turn so he has a hand free to UA something trying to get past him doing rules abuse? What if he actually has Quick Draw to put a weapon in his hand?
What about the polearm user who has a spiked gauntlet to threaten near spaces while wielding his pike? Is that rules abuse, too?
No? Because it's the exact same bloody thing.
A fighter gripping his sword at the start of his turn, and then letting it go at the end is perfectly logical. He is varying between an offense and defense just like the others are. Unlike the spiked gauntlet guy, he's just being OBVIOUS about it to gain the benefits of the feats he took to gain the benefits of doing so.
Trying to say that the Crane Wing user MUST engage in a suboptimal weapon style is an attempted diversion from the fact that Crane Wing does not have the 'crappy attack' drawback. He does not have to choose to be poor on offense simply because you WANT him to be. He can choose to be awesome at both...and there have been examples for just that made multiple times in multiple places that you are conveniently ignoring because it hurts your view of a Crane Stylist being 'all-defensive'. I particularly like the example of the Aldori swordlord cohort who was doing better then the falchion 2h'er.
And all the arguments that the feat is fine if the GM's just change the game to accommodate this one feat doesn't mean it's not broken...it means you're changing the game to accommodate one feat and effect, which is pretty much the 'definition' of a problem. The feat is supposed to fit in the game, not make the GM jump through hoops to solve the problems it creates.
The fact, Lemmy, that you keep saying you simply adjusted your campaign is not proof it's not a problem, it was repeated proof that it was. Which is why I'm not giving your words to the contrary here a lot of weight. The feat should not take that level of customization from a GM to offset it. I admire you for taking the time and effort to make it fit into your game.
But it should not have forced you to do that, and many GM's simply do not have the time, energy, or even the ability, if they are Society, to do the same.
And Kudaku, your acronym applies to you and Les, because everything you argued for defensive fighting is located absolutely nowhere, spun out of thin air from one sentence, and is nowhere backed in rules or game play. You have no proof, and unlike me, you don't even have logic or history to back the fact. The idea that you can't declare defensive fighting without actually making an attack was born completely out of the limits on the Defender Enhancement on weapons, and exists NOWHERE in the game outside of that. This thread is the first time I've EVER seen such a weird argument in fifteen years of 3E+ play, and it came up solely as a desperate grab 'out of nowhere' to cast Crane Wing as something less powerful then it is. The only people who've latched onto the argument are those who keep wanting to say Crane Wing wasn't powerful.
People have argued repeatedly about how powerful the feat is. GM's have chimed in about it. It's bad enough that Paizo had to come forward and change it to bring it in line with the rest of the game...NOT bring the rest of the game in line with it. Not change Riposte, not change Crane Style. Not change early entry reqs.
Crane Wing.
The amount of adjustment it takes from a GM to compensate for the one feat is pretty much unparalleled in the current game, and so it had to be adjusted.
And a handful of people are going to argue the same points which have been repeatedly shot down, and expect the broad mass that knows better to return it to the way it was?
It's not going to happen, folks.
==Aelryinth
|
People have argued repeatedly about how powerful the feat is. GM's have chimed in about it.
And people have chimed in about it being balanced, or at least it not being as OP as some people claim by basically saying you are immune to melee. GMs included. I personally have played and ran for PFS characters with Crane Wing. Some of them even got it via MoMS. It never seemed that OP, even with the single attack theme of PFS, and with my 2 Crane-Wing users, it was actually not powerful enough to keep them alive. Oddly enough though, the 8CON one lived longer than the 14CON one. It is still usable, but it still is pretty weak.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And all the arguments that the feat is fine if the GM's just change the game to accommodate this one feat doesn't mean it's not broken...it means you're changing the game to accommodate one feat and effect, which is pretty much the 'definition' of a problem. The feat is supposed to fit in the game, not make the GM jump through hoops to solve the problems it creates.
Keep repeating the same wrong argument doesn't stop it being wrong.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with DMs adjusting encounters to take party composition and ability into account. I do it with every game I've ever run. Every DM I've played with bases the challenges they throw at the group, around the group. It's mind-boggling to hear someone trying to argue that that's bad and wrong, and everyone here is dumber for having suffered through reading it.| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
yes, a Crane Winger can fight 2Handed on his turn.
Let's see if I can break it down for you:
Once per round, when fighting defensively with at least one hand free, you can designate one melee attack being made against you before the roll is made.
...when fighting defensively with at least one hand free...
When you're fighting with a two-handed weapon, unless you have more than two arms, you do not have at least one hand free while fighting defensively.
Much like Spell Combat, RAI the feat is clearly not intended to work with a two-handed weapon.
Now, I'm sure you have a convoluted RAW argument detailing how free action weapon gripping lets you cheese your way around that limitation.
This is where RAITAYCPIWN, "The Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, Nyeah", comes in.
For instance I could argue that Dervish Dance gives me dexterity to damage with unarmed strike flurry of blows, because the feat provides me the bonus as long as I have a free hand and I'm holding a scimitar in the other. RAW there's a sound argument to be made.
I could argue that Shield Master lets me ignore TWF, Power Attack, Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively attack penalties because the feat stipulates that I ignore attack penalties while wielding a shield and a weapon in the other hand. Again, RAW is ok with this.
I don't make these arguments, nor do I play these feats this way, because RAW aside the RAI is perfectly clear and any reasonable GM is going to see that is not the intended function of the feat, and shut it down.
When debating a build or a feat, don't base your argument on whatever pretzel shape you can twist the rules into. Base the argument on how the feat functions. If you believe the function is unclear, make a FAQ thread on it or ask your GM.
Crane Wing is clearly intended to limit the user by requiring at least one free hand.
Ryinth, If you were to apply more common sense to your arguments, people might treat them with more respect - at the moment I personally have a hard time taking them seriously. More troublingly, these assumptions you're making hurts your overall credibility since you're essentially debating an entirely different feat from the rest of the thread.
P.S. You Favorited your own post? Really?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, based on your previous arguments, your claim is that Crane Wing is solely responsible for 'invincible melee characters'. You have out right stated that Crane Wing makes people invincible. Based off your statements, a level 2 MoMS is invincible because he has Crane Wing. He can take on every damned enemy in the entire game because he has Crane Wing.
It has nothing to do with him taking Crane STYLE and Fighting Defensively.
It has nothing to do with him sinking feats in to Doge, or Combat Expertise.
It has nothing to do with him blowing his WBL on Amulets, Rings, Armor, Ioun Stones, Hats or items to increase his AC modifying stats.
It has nothing to do with him using tactical positioning to gain cover.
It has nothing to do with him using spells to further boost AC.
No, it has nothing to do with that. You have claimed, repeatedly, that Crane Wing makes characters invincible.
This. Is. Wrong.
Crane Wing does nothing more than make characters defensively stronger. Period.
Your qualification of 2h'ing on the character's turn is 'rules abuse' flies in the face of combat for every class and style for 15 years.
Is the wizard who takes a hand off his staff to cast, then puts it back on at the end of his turn engaging in rules abuse?
Is the rogue throwing things with one hand while he grips a short sword in the other guilty of rules abuse if he has his hand empty at the end of his turn?
Is the cleric letting go of his holy symbol that he just channeled with at the end of his turn to grip his mace stronger engaging in rules abuse?
Is the archer who does not have an arrow fit to his bow at the end of his turn so he has a hand free to UA something trying to get past him doing rules abuse? What if he actually has Quick Draw to put a weapon in his hand?
What about the polearm user who has a spiked gauntlet to threaten near spaces while wielding his pike? Is that rules abuse, too?
The Wizard isn't 2-handing his staff, he's holding it in one hand. He doesn't need ot 2-hand it to use it.
Neither the Rogue or Cleric are using a Short duration Time Stop to use one mechanic during their turn, and then another mechanic during another persons turn.
The Archer doesn't need to have hands free to make an unarmed strike. You can't Quick Draw during another's turn because Quick Draw is not an immediate action. *I'll get back to this.
Based off the fact you can't use Armor spikes while 2-handing a weapon, regardless of where those armor spikes are located, then No, you can't do that.
Fact is, if you could use Free Action mechanics outside of your turn (like Quick Drawing a blade for the archer) then one could 2-hand a sword, then free hand let go, then Crane Wing/Riposte and free hand during the AoO to re-grip the sword. This too is abuse of the turn system
Fact is the game is not an accurate depiction of real life. Every round is six seconds. The actions taken during that round all happen at the same time.
Imagine if you will, 1 round of combat.
The Fighter moves forward and engages the enemy.
The Wizard casts a buffing spell (say Haste).
The Enemy uses a full attack on the Fighter.
The Rogue moves behind the enemy and flanks.
The Cleric casts his own buffing spell and moves forward to support.
Now translate that into a flowing scene. The Fighter rushes forward as the Wizard and Cleric begin casting their spells and the Rogue moves off on a circular route. The fighter arrives into the waiting claws of the monster he's facing, taking a claw and getting bite on the shoulder. Shrugging off the pain, he slashes his sword down on the beast causing it to roar and let go. As the monster roars, the Wizard finishes his spell and the Rogue, empowered by the Wizard during his movement reaches his destination and attacks as well, using the distraction of the monster attacking the fighter and being attacked to land a grueling blow. Meanwhile, the Cleric has finishes his brief chant to his God for aid and has moved forward into position.
What you are talking about is something wholly different. Imagine, instead, the Fighter had Crane Wing.
Same actions as above, but here's how it would play out if Pathfinder combat mechanics were how real life functioned.
The Monster, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric all stand still, frozen in time as the Fighter rushes forward. He 2-handed chops the beast, and then lets go of his sword with one hand.
Now, the Fighter, Rogue, Monster, an Cleric are all frozen in time as the Wizard casts his spell.
The Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric are now all frozen in time as the Monster attacks the Fighter. But! The Fighter has Crane Wing active and deflects that Claw attack, and then goes back to being frozen in time.
The Rogue, now buffed by the Wizard, moves around and attacks the Monster, as the Fighter, Monster, Wizard and Cleric are all frozen in time.
Now that the Fighter, Rogue, Monster, and Wizard have all gone, it's the Cleric's turn and the other's are all frozen in time. He casts his spell, and then moves.
Do you see the problem here?
As for not gaining benefits if you don't attack, you're wrong. True, there is the Defender Enhancement, but there's more. For example, Combat Expertise:
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every +4 thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the dodge bonus increases by +1. You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon. The effects of this feat last until your next turn.
Total Defense and Fighting Defensively are two completely separate actions. Fighting Defensively is not a 'weaker' version of Total Defense, if it were, they would be listed together in the Combat Section. Instead, it's listed separately.
Why can you not use Fighting Defensively while using Total Defense? Because Total Defense prevents you from attacking, and Fighting Defensively states you only gain the benefit while attacking. If you don't attack, you don't gain the benefit just like Combat Expertise, just like the Defender enhancement.
Oh! Look! Another hole in your argument!
You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's Armor Class bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's Armor Class bonus until your next turn. You can't make a shield bash with a buckler.
You can't 2-hand a Longsword and still gain the benefit of a buckler by letting go for the sword as a free action, because it still counts as being 2-handed!
If you can't let go of your sword to gain the benefit of the buckler, why can you let go of the sword to gain the benefit of Crane Wing? Oh wait, remember, Core Rule Book is Sacred Cow and all must conform to the Core Rule Book. Since using a Buckler is like using Crane Wing (sort of), the Crane Wing must conform to the same limitations of the buckler, I.E. if you hand is not free for the entirety of your turn, then your free hand does not gain the benefit.
Your qualification of 2h'ing on the character's turn is 'rules abuse' flies in the face of combat for every class and style for 15 years.
This part and...
And a handful of people are going to argue the same points which have been repeatedly shot down, and expect the broad mass that knows better to return it to the way it was?
this part, are put together for comic relief I guess.
If the way to "shot down" the points argued are backed with your 6 second time bubble, well, then your point is incredibly weak. Like "I wanna to spell-combat with 2h weapon" weak.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A well-made argument.
And the Choir sang AAAAAAAAA-MEN!
MA
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yes, a Crane Winger can fight 2Handed on his turn.Let's see if I can break it down for you:
Once per round, when fighting defensively with at least one hand free, you can designate one melee attack being made against you before the roll is made.
...when fighting defensively with at least one hand free...
When you're fighting with a two-handed weapon, unless you have more than two arms, you do not have at least one hand free while fighting defensively.
RAI, much like Spell Combat the feat is clearly not intended to work with a two-handed weapon.Now, I'm sure you have a convoluted RAW argument detailing how free action weapon gripping lets you cheese your way around that limitation.
This is where RAITAYCPIWN, "The Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, Nyeah", comes in.
For instance I could argue that Dervish Dance gives me dexterity to damage with unarmed strike flurry of blows, because the feat provides me the bonus as long as I have a free hand and I'm holding a scimitar in the other. RAW there's a sound argument to be made.
I could argue that Shield Master lets me ignore TWF, Power Attack, Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively attack penalties because the feat stipulates that I ignore attack penalties while wielding a shield and a weapon in the other hand. Again, RAW is ok with this.I don't make these arguments, or play these feats this way, because RAW aside the RAI is perfectly clear and any reasonable GM is going to see that is not the intended function of the feat, and shut it down.
When debating a build or a feat, don't base your argument on whatever pretzel shape you can twist the rules into. Base the argument on how the feat functions. If you believe the function is unclear, make a FAQ thread on it or ask your GM.
Crane Wing is clearly intended to limit the user by requiring at least one free hand.
Ryinth, If you were to apply more common sense to your arguments, people might treat them with more...
Yes, I also explicitly noticed you absolutely failed to address every counter-example (half a dozen) that is a perfectly valid system of normal play, 2h'ing a weapon on your turn being absolutely identical to all of them...'common sense' examples that didn't fit your paradigm, and so you ignored them to press an argument in your favor.
I am going to copy and paste the relevant section you ignored:
Your qualification of 2h'ing on the character's turn being 'rules abuse' flies in the face of combat for every class and style for 15 years.
Is the wizard who takes a hand off his staff to cast, then puts it back on at the end of his turn engaging in rules abuse?
Is the rogue throwing things with one hand while he grips a short sword in the other guilty of rules abuse if he has his hand empty at the end of his turn?
Is the cleric letting go of his holy symbol that he just channeled with at the end of his turn to grip his mace stronger engaging in rules abuse?
Is the archer who does not have an arrow fit to his bow at the end of his turn so he has a hand free to UA something trying to get past him doing rules abuse? What if he actually has Quick Draw to put a weapon in his hand?
What about the polearm user who has a spiked gauntlet to threaten near spaces while wielding his pike? Is that rules abuse, too? He'd have to take his hand off his weapon when it's not even his turn...and it works perfectly well according to the rules. For YEARS. It's a RECOMMENDED TACTIC.
No? Because it's the exact same bloody thing as I'm saying.
A fighter gripping his sword at the start of his turn, and then letting it go at the end is perfectly logical. He is varying between an offense and defense just like the others are. Unlike the spiked gauntlet guy, he's just being OBVIOUS about it to gain the benefits of the feats he took to gain the benefits of doing so.
Trying to say that the Crane Wing user MUST engage in a suboptimal weapon style is an attempted diversion from the fact that Crane Wing does not have the 'crappy attack' drawback, no more, no less. He does not have to choose to be poor on offense simply because you WANT him to be. He can choose to be awesome at both...and there have been examples for just that made multiple times in multiple places that you are conveniently ignoring because it hurts your view of a Crane Stylist being 'all-defensive'. I particularly liked the example of the Aldori swordlord cohort who was doing better then the falchion 2h'er.
And you're saying I'm the one who is in error? You even attempt to slap a label on me, when it should be pasted on your forehead in the mirror for what you're pressing with that really dumb acronym you trotted out just for belittling purposes?
You are the one who conjured a new rule out of thin air. You are the one that is trying to twist the rules to justify your viewpoint of things by trying to explain that a perfectly normal style of fighting is SUDDENLY NOT VALID because it would mean a Crane Wing stylist doesn't suck at melee, AND that defensive fighting doesn't work the way it has for fifteen years so that a CW stylist is suddenly more vulnerable then it seems, all so CRane Wing doesn't seem so bad. Despite the fact that no one ever played or plays that way.
And that is why I'm not taking you seriously. There isn't any 'common sense' in what you are posting. It completely flies in the face of common sense.
Common sense says that people don't all have the time, energy, or even the right to adjust every encounter on the fly to compensate for this one feat. Yet you seem to expect everyone to do so. Bizarre.
Common sense says that if you HAVE to adjust fights continuously to adapt to the one feat, something is off about that feat. Yet instead you claim it as 'normal play'. Equally strange.
The fact that it completely nerfs an entire style of play? Totally unimportant. That style of play sucked anyways. Unlike, say, Finesse Combat or something. Yeah. Not seeing the even-handedness.
Common sense is not what I'm seeing on YOUR side of the argument, Kudaku. I'm just seeing a lot of angst over a favorite thing being taken away and replaced with something more even-handed, whose OTHER benefits are being ignored for various reasons, the biggest of which seems to simply be 'Crane Wing was sooooo easy to use, and now its not' behind all the defensive talk about how un-powerful it actually was.
And for the people hyperboling and throwing out 'invincibility' exaggerations, well, hey, I don't have any respect for what they are posting as soon as they start doing that. I've already explained the foundation I'm arguing from, and 'invincibility' is not it. I've freely admitted that if you use non-melee tactics that will work against any melee character, they work just fine against the Crane user, and if you play a campaign that's all ranged combat, Crane Wing is useless, too.
But if Crane Wing is FORCING you into a campaign where it's all ranged combat, and there's been at least two people who have basically admitted that on this thread, just to try and deal with the feat, that's saying something.
And I didn't make up the stop T-Rex did. Multiple posters have said they've seen the same thing or equivalents. A great melee encounter reduced to a joke. ANd suddenly, the DM can never use a T-Rex again. Not a problem in a dinosaur heavy campaign at all, I'm sure.
But hey, if you say it loudly enough and often enough, I guess people will think its true, so keep on with it if it makes you feel better.
===Aelryinth
Ryinth, If you were to apply more common sense to your arguments, people might treat them with more respect - at the moment I personally have a hard time taking them seriously. More troublingly, these assumptions you're making hurts your overall credibility since you're essentially debating an entirely different feat from the rest of the thread.To be honest, I'm more turned off by his condescending attitude than the actual arguments he's making, some of which are quite valid.
P.S. You Favorited your own post? Really?*checks* ... *sighs* Wow.
I favorite my posts so they are easier to find to go back and see them, NOT to say someone is cheering me on. In case you didn't notice, I have a LONG posting history.
The 'favorite' posts I use the most are: people asking about blaster caster builds; AC by level that people should buy; sorc vs wizard comparisons; and the costs of spells. I favorite them all so I have a MUCH shorter range to go looking through, and I post them for the benefit of other people asking for such information.
So, no, you're not going to rile me that I'm trying to insinuate that I have outside support. I do it for a reason, not to try and make myself look good.
What I DO see is a subtle smear campaign, by insinuating such, and trotting out a dumb acronym label to pigeonhole an opinion you don't like.
I'm going to call for the thread to be locked.
==Aelryinth
A bunch of inaccuracies and exaggerations.
And as soon as you put the words down that I said CW makes you 'invincible', this entire mess became invalid.
Congrats on a wasted effort.
Please lock the thread.
==Aelryinth
|
When did AC become OP? Rediculous AC has ''always'' existed. I could house rule PCs cannot be hit by attacks vs AC and not break anything. There is always a spell or swarm or touch attacks and traps to kill the players.
Just use a different attack, move on to a different target or get on with the plot.
Edit: hazards are fun too. Also having goals in a fight besides fighting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Locking down well over two thousand posts worth of debate on a controversial topic because one poster is feeling upset strikes me as overkill.
Ryinth, clearly you are upset. Maybe you should take a time-out and take a few hours to cool off before revisiting the thread?
When did AC become OP? Rediculous AC has ''always'' existed. I could house rule PCs cannot be hit by attacks vs AC and not break anything. There is always a spell or swarm or touch attacks and traps to kill the players.
Just use a different attack, move on to a different target or get on with the plot.
I'm not sure what you're commenting on here, GD.
The argument isn't that a high AC is overpowered. Primary attacks can usually and regularly overcome a high AC.
The problem is that a high AC invalidates secondary and iterative attacks, and the attacks of multiple mooks. That's actually the JOB of a high AC, stop the lesser attacks, and make crits harder to confirm.
But Crane Wing then makes the primary attacks nigh unto worthless, including the major damage Vital Strike attacks for big damage that many larger monsters use (A Greater Vital Striking Dragon can easily bite you for over 100 hp damage), as well as neutralizes crits that somehow manage to get past the high AC.
And it just DOES it, without an action cost or anything.
The combination of the two factors is the problem, and most Crane Wing builds are made specifically to take advantage of the combination.
And now you've focused on the primary problem. Crane Wing and the high AC will always be there, and now you can't use your melee encounters anymore. You've got to change everything to satisfy the ability to do damage against the guy who has the feat, i.e. the game now is forced away from melee encounters because of the feat.
And that's the flag that caught Paizo's eye after all the complaints about it.
==Aelryinth
Locking down well over two thousand posts worth of debate on a controversial topic because one poster is feeling upset strikes me as overkill.
Ryinth, clearly you are upset. Maybe you should take a time-out and take a few hours to cool off before revisiting the thread?
Clearly, Kudaku, you attempting to put a label on me that you should be applying to yourself didn't help matters.
Then attempting to insinuate that I favorite my own posts just to show I have support. Yeah, that goes over well. Not. It's an insult.
I suggest you ponder your own posting style instead of being condescending and trying to seem like a peacemaker. You are attempting to stir the pot, and I'm calling you on it.
==Aelryinth
How is this thread still going....
I'm willing to defend Paizo, the decision they made, and the very large silent majority who compelled them to act, in the face of those who thought nothing was wrong with the feat whatsoever.
And that's why its still ongoing. Although I do believe they should lock the thread.
==Aelryinth
|
|
When did AC become OP? Rediculous AC has ''always'' existed. I could house rule PCs cannot be hit by attacks vs AC and not break anything. There is always a spell or swarm or touch attacks and traps to kill the players.
Just use a different attack, move on to a different target or get on with the plot.
I'm not sure what you're commenting on here, GD.
The argument isn't that a high AC is overpowered. Primary attacks can usually and regularly overcome a high AC.
The problem is that a high AC invalidates secondary and iterative attacks, and the attacks of multiple mooks. That's actually the JOB of a high AC, stop the lesser attacks, and make crits harder to confirm.
But Crane Wing then makes the primary attacks nigh unto worthless, including the major damage Vital Strike attacks for big damage that many larger monsters use (A Greater Vital Striking Dragon can easily bite you for over 100 hp damage), as well as neutralizes crits that somehow manage to get past the high AC.
And it just DOES it, without an action cost or anything.
The combination of the two factors is the problem, and most Crane Wing builds are made specifically to take advantage of the combination.
And now you've focused on the primary problem. Crane Wing and the high AC will always be there, and now you can't use your melee encounters anymore. You've got to change everything to satisfy the ability to do damage against the guy who has the feat, i.e. the game now is forced away from melee encounters because of the feat.
And that's the flag that caught Paizo's eye after all the complaints about it.
==Aelryinth
Melee encounters will be fine unless everyone has the feats, monsters don't have a ton of attacks (might need reach and pounce but they are common), or you have just one monster capable of hitting. I guess I am not seeing your problem as a problem.
Edit: would blindess/flat footed (after combat started) matter?. Can't get to my books right now. - just a thought of more things that don't care about the feats.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just weighing in here (good lord there have been a lot of posts), but there are a couple things I have noticed regarding posters and their interpretations:
From what I've read so far, Aelryinth is of the belief that a written-up Adventure Path requires no changing or adjustments whatsoever, not giving a damn of whatever party composition his players are. They could be all Commoner classes and he wouldn't bother to tone down the campaign, and when they die after the first few encounters due to scaling and being so weak, he'd just say "Well, that's just how the game is, and it always has been for over a decade now." Or if he runs into an Adventure Path that falls into the category of "Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies," he'd roll with it and just tell his players to suck it up or find another game they enjoy.
I have just one question on this matter: Do you really think people want to play a game where you take what's written for granted, regardless of what impact it may cause both you or your players, just to follow the concept of tradition? The answer to that is pretty obvious, as well as your ridiculous extrapolation of "moderate tailoring" to mean "complete makeover." All that was brought up was some changes in some encounter designs. Wherever you're getting this "Crane Wing = Forced Ranged Combat Campaign" only proves that, as a GM, you can't handle PCs having powerful options at their disposal, and that you should simply ban such things and expectations from your own games, nevermind saying that your standards of playing the game is more important than somebody else's.
At any rate, Tels is of the belief that the Crane Style feat chain is only useful for defenses.
My question for you is this: Do you think the only reason people take the Crane Style feat chain is to be more defensive? Several Magus and Monk builds would disagree with you greatly. While it's true that it may be one reason, it's not like Magi or Monks can't turn the opportunities created into fatal flaws of their own defenses/offenses. And believe me, 1 attack of opportunity per round at worst leads to some fairly quick mook/BBEG clearing. And it doesn't really cost you a thing action-wise.
Crane Style has proven that not only can it be a good lock-down mechanic, but that it can easily go unchecked early-game, as well as late game too in regards to Single Natural Weapon/Vital Strike enemies. It has quite a bit a power because of that, and while I personally was fine with it, doesn't subtract from the fact that there can be several game-breaking discrepancies made with it.
I suggest you ponder your own posting style instead of being condescending and trying to seem like a peacemaker.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is this thread still going....I'm willing to defend Paizo, the decision they made, and the very large silent majority who compelled them to act, in the face of those who thought nothing was wrong with the feat whatsoever.
And that's why its still ongoing. Although I do believe they should lock the thread.
==Aelryinth
...silent majority? Wasn't it a vocal minority (of PFS GMs) who got this banned in the first place? Sorry, I mean errated, it only feels like it was banned because it was made worthless. This is a PFS problem, I don't see why it wasn't kept to PFS. They saw people liked the synth (not opening that can of worms now), but the rules were hell to adjudicate in PFS, so they ban it, everyone's happy since they didn't modify the core game to satisfy the PFS crew. It's amazing that they didn't take the same foresight this time.
Ah! So, you aren't seeing the problem.
The problem is that the one character isn't going to be challenged in melee. Redirecting all melee attacks to non-melee characters when the primary melee is still wreaking havoc means you are changing the monsters to compensate for the feat...they are useless against the melee.
The non-melees will pick up on the invincibility of their melee and will shift tactics to hang back and either use missile weapons or spells. They will also attempt to support the nigh-invulnerability of the CW user against melee attacks, by use of spells to limit foes to standard actions, or worsen their to hit rolls. This makes the AC/CW combination even more effective.
Being back from melee, and using tactics to stay that way, they will then be in position to deal with non-melee threats that might actually threaten the melee, like swarms and the like.
You need to look at it from the standpoint of the GM and his monsters. Every monster he sends against you has to deal with Crane Wing. At low levels, the fighter can simply dominate by himself. At mid levels, with clever tactics and some party support, it continues. At higher levels, additional feat combinations and stronger spell support can keep it totally viable.
And every single monster the party fights has to have multiple attacks or not use melee to deal with him, while his build and tactics are keeping pace to shore up his weaknesses and build on his strengths. You know, like PC's tend to be built.
Unless the CW deliberately chooses a lousy fighting style, his offense is not significantly impaired, but his defense tends to be impressively higher then pretty much any other melee build, especially if he can control the action economy.
he's not invulnerable or invincible, but played smart and wise, he can be nigh-untouchable in melee combat, and it SUCKS for the GM to have to deal with it because of one feat.
==Aelryinth
...silent majority? Wasn't it a vocal minority (of PFS GMs) who got this banned in the first place? Sorry, I mean errated, it only feels like it was banned because it was made worthless. This is a PFS problem, I don't see why it wasn't kept to PFS. They saw people liked the synth (not opening that can of worms now), but the rules were hell to adjudicate in PFS, so they ban it, everyone's happy since they didn't modify the core game to satisfy the PFS crew. It's amazing that they didn't take the same foresight this time.How is this thread still going....I'm willing to defend Paizo, the decision they made, and the very large silent majority who compelled them to act, in the face of those who thought nothing was wrong with the feat whatsoever.
And that's why its still ongoing. Although I do believe they should lock the thread.
==Aelryinth
No. It was multiple sources, including some PFS GMs, and it was the single most common complaint they received and observed from all sources.
Saying PFS was the only ones complaining is a complete cop-out, and utterly wrong, as they've said multiple times.==Aerlyinth
How is this thread still going....I'm willing to defend Paizo, the decision they made, and the very large silent majority who compelled them to act, in the face of those who thought nothing was wrong with the feat whatsoever.
And that's why its still ongoing. Although I do believe they should lock the thread.
==Aelryinth
Claiming that the silent majority is on your side? The same silent majority that silently compelled Paizo to nerf a decent (for a change) combat feat, that was only a problem because PFS DMs can't change encounters to fit the party? You're reaching now, if you haven't been this entire time.
But yes, the thread is going around in circles:
"Design encounters to challenge your particular party of players."
"I shouldn't have to!"
If you're that dead set on defending "My developers, right or wrong" there's nothing anyone can say to change your mind. Implacable faith.
***Signed Athaleon***
Just weighing in here (good lord there have been a lot of posts), but there are a couple things I have noticed regarding posters and their interpretations:
From what I've read so far, Aelryinth is of the belief that a written-up Adventure Path requires no changing or adjustments whatsoever, not giving a damn of whatever party composition his players are. They could be all Commoner classes and he wouldn't bother to tone down the campaign, and when they die after the first few encounters due to scaling and being so weak, he'd just say "Well, that's just how the game is, and it always has been for over a decade now." Or if he runs into an Adventure Path that falls into the category of "Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies," he'd roll with it and just tell his players to suck it up or find another game they enjoy.
I have just one question on this matter: Do you really think people want to play a game where you take what's written for granted, regardless of what impact it may cause both you or your players, just to follow the concept of tradition? The answer to that is pretty obvious, as well as your ridiculous extrapolation of "moderate tailoring" to mean "complete makeover." All that was brought up was some changes in some encounter designs. Wherever you're getting this "Crane Wing = Forced Ranged Combat Campaign" only proves that, as a GM, you can't handle PCs having powerful options at their disposal, and that you should simply ban such things and expectations from your own games, nevermind saying that your standards of playing the game is more important than somebody else's.
You're reading too much of Tels, and exaggerating with him. You're also going way far into hyperbole with mention of commoners and the like.
It's blatantly untrue, a horrible example, and I'm calling you on it.I've already iterated my foundation. Normal melee characters of similar purpose, stats, and wealth, one with the feat chain, one without. Sit back and watch the effect on the campaign JUST from having the one feat.
No single attack monster is dangerous. Any monster you can restrict to a single attack action is useless. And it is the players, not the GM, that can force that condition on the monster.
in short, if the monster doesn't have multiple attacks, it's absolutely worthless in melee, the CW guy can tank the T Rex forever and kill it. If it doesn't have multiple attacks, it either has to ignore melee combat, or use spells or ranged attacks to be effective.
This rapidly becomes the quintessential case of the high attack, multiple attacks as you pounce monster being deployed to challenge the CW guy, or a non-melee encounter where it's all decided with ranged attacks or spells, because the normal monsters are nigh useless.
In short, you have to change up everything to challenge the one character, which has been proven over and over to be deeply unsatisfying to everyone involved, particularly overworked GM's who don't want to have to be forced to alter every encounter in an AP to deal with a feat that isn't in Core.
THAT is what I'm talking about. The idea that every GM has the time and energy to make the alterations necessary to compensate for the feat is pure hubris. I'm not saying some can't do it. But the posters here seem to think EVERY GM should do it. And that's not the case.
==Aelryinth
How is this thread still going....I'm willing to defend Paizo, the decision they made, and the very large silent majority who compelled them to act, in the face of those who thought nothing was wrong with the feat whatsoever.
And that's why its still ongoing. Although I do believe they should lock the thread.
==Aelryinth
Claiming that the silent majority is on your side? The same silent majority that silently compelled Paizo to nerf a decent (for a change) combat feat, that was only a problem because PFS DMs can't change encounters to fit the party? You're reaching now, if you haven't been this entire time.
But yes, the thread is going around in circles:
"Design encounters to challenge your particular party of players."
"I shouldn't have to!"
If you're that dead set on defending "My developers, right or wrong" there's nothing anyone can say to change your mind. Implacable faith.
***Signed Athaleon***
(Yawn) attempting to blame it all on PFS is getting a little old, Athaleon. Sure, they're a convenient whipping boy, but it being blatantly untrue and all isn't helping you.
==Aelryinth
I suggest you ponder your own posting style instead of being condescending and trying to seem like a peacemaker.I'm sorry you feel that way.
Indeed. I also notice a distinct lack of an apology, too, so don't post false condolences, please.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Each creature should have its own tactics and react to the players in combat. I do not see how the feat changes that. it does not have to escalate an arms race. How the encounter is reacted to is the fun part.
I guess it comes to that I have always thought a good encounter, that was intended to be tough, needed an interesting array of abilities. a well equipped Npc should have means to deal with the feat even if it doesn't exist. There is plenty of reason to want diversity.
I would be dead so fast if my pc thought he was [edit: invincible] because of crane wing.
Edit: I had a ninja with great AC who used crane wing while invisible, and he still got beat up a lot. This was in the Cthulhu book of an AP, (replaced my dead god wizard).
Ah! So, you aren't seeing the problem.
The problem is that the one character isn't going to be challenged in melee. Redirecting all melee attacks to non-melee characters when the primary melee is still wreaking havoc means you are changing the monsters to compensate for the feat...they are useless against the melee.
The non-melees will pick up on the invincibility of their melee and will shift tactics to hang back and either use missile weapons or spells. They will also attempt to support the nigh-invulnerability of the CW user against melee attacks, by use of spells to limit foes to standard actions, or worsen their to hit rolls. This makes the AC/CW combination even more effective.
Being back from melee, and using tactics to stay that way, they will then be in position to deal with non-melee threats that might actually threaten the melee, like swarms and the like.
You need to look at it from the standpoint of the GM and his monsters. Every monster he sends against you has to deal with Crane Wing. At low levels, the fighter can simply dominate by himself. At mid levels, with clever tactics and some party support, it continues. At higher levels, additional feat combinations and stronger spell support can keep it totally viable.
And every single monster the party fights has to have multiple attacks or not use melee to deal with him, while his build and tactics are keeping pace to shore up his weaknesses and build on his strengths. You know, like PC's tend to be built.
Unless the CW deliberately chooses a lousy fighting style, his offense is not significantly impaired, but his defense tends to be impressively higher then pretty much any other melee build, especially if he can control the action economy.
he's not invulnerable or invincible, but played smart and wise, he can be nigh-untouchable in melee combat, and it SUCKS for the GM to have to deal with it because of one feat.
==Aelryinth
Explain how and why he isn't going to be challenged. Crane Wing only works against 1 attack for deflection. When faced against several mooks (who shouldn't be too challenging in the first place; they're called mooks for a reason), or a couple BBEG's, the Crane Wing will only do so much. Even if we take the Crane Wing feat out, he's still going to be very damn hard to hit, since it's Crane Style gives a +1 Dodge Bonus to Fighting Defensive/Full Defense AC.
And that's not discounting the factor that you're not throwing enemies who don't use Feint (makes target flat-footed) or uses Touch Attacks to target the AC levels that aren't as strong.
So wait; the PCs can buff and debuff? And the Creatures/BBEGs can't do the same sorts of things? Just what exactly do you throw at the PC's, flower petals?
And it's not like the GM can't fight fire with fire every now and then. What if the party has a Wizard? Just because he casts 9th level spells means you can't throw a Wizard back at them who casts 9th level spells too? Logic these days.
Not targeting straight up AC is bound to be more effective regardless of Crane Wing's presence, since targeting Touch AC or Flat-Footed AC generally leads to differences of additions to those numbers, something which Crane Wing does not directly affect, though is much more useful towards.
As a 9th level Two-Hander Mobile Fighter who uses a Buckler and Full Plate for defenses, chilling at a base 29 AC, with +1 armor/shield enhancements, +4 Dex/Dodge, and +1 Luck, most creatures at my level who aren't a complete joke at melee combat will have a 50% chance of hitting me. Creatures who are fairly optimized at melee combat will have that same percent chance to hit me when I go Full Defense. And that's just my base AC. My Flat-Footed AC is much lower, and my Touch AC is absolutely abysmal. When fighting Incorporeals with Touch Attacks that drain stats, Crane Wing would probably be the only good means to protect myself outside of a potion of Mage Armor. Same can be said when fighting a bunch of Outlaw Gunslingers.
It's quite clear that the problem isn't the feat being broken. It's the fact you're trying to throw tiny toy tanks at the real thing and expecting them to destroy a real world tank.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really think it's productive arguing with Aerlyinth anymore because he's pretty dead set on his hatred for the old Crane Wing even though plenty of other people have expressed evidence that it wasn't as powerful as he claims it was. And he and others are becoming hostile about it.
We should just go back to using this thread to discuss potential improvements for the errata for when the developers decide to revisit it and leave it at that. The old crane wing is gone now so arguing about it is more or less a waste of time.
Each creature should have its own tactics and react to the players in combat. I do not see how the feat changes that. it does not have to escalate an arms race. How the encounter is reacted to is the fun part.
I guess it comes to that I have always thought a good encounter, that was intended to be tough, needed an interesting array of abilities. a well equipped Npc should have means to deal with the feat even if it doesn't exist. There is plenty of reason to want diversity.
I would be dead so fast if my pc thought he was invisible because of crane wing.
THe CW guy doesn't want to be invisible. He wants to be in the monster's face, taking its big attack and reducing it to nothing, and dodging the secondary attacks, getting his free AoO per round, and butchering it. If all goes halfway well, he can do it while taking no damage.
Wanting to be invisible is for rogues.
The problem with the feat is that melee monsters can't usually compensate for it. Certainly not as well as the PC can compensate for them. So you end up using non-melee over and over to deal with the character. Which is grandly frustrating on all sides. If you as a GM throw a melee monster at the CW guy, you can expect it to do almost nothing, and you wonder why you bother.
==Aelryinth