And the PRD was mis-updated. Crane Riposte has the new Crane Wing text while Crane Wing still has the old text.
Oops, that would be my bad. I'll see if we can get that fixed up asap.
On the upside, at least the errata was posted to the prd. Last time I looked, the errata for wordcasting from ultimate magic hadn't been applied yet.
Hm, that would be a problem. Could you let me know in this thread what bit is missing? I'll see if I can give that a prod when I push the PRD update.
Lead Designer
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there everyone,
I can understand why some folks are upset with this change. It was a very good feat. The sheer amount of passion in this thread demonstrates that fact.
Part of our process of updating a book involves talking to various departments to see if there is anything that is causing them problems or needs a second look. In this particular case, Crane Wing was the #1 problem child on the list from the PFS folks. Without much work you could build a character with an incredibly high AC that could still make attacks, and if a foe would happen to get lucky and score a hit, deflect it. This build, which was not really all that difficult to setup, was all made possible by Crane Wing.
So...
We took a look and changed it to something a little more balanced. You can still play that game, you just can't take your full boat of attacks at the same time. You may not agree with the decision. That's fine. We knew this would ruffle some feathers (crane feathers even), but it was a call we had to make. We could not just put this in the bin of "let PFS ban it". That solution is generally reserved for rules that by there very concept, have trouble being implemented in PFS, or would require significant GM oversight to make viable.
So, there you have it. Now on to a couple of other issue.
1. The tone in this thread is entirely inappropriate. I have not seen so many pulled posts in one thread in a long time. You can choose to disagree with the decision, but insulting the staff, your fellow posters, and trolling is just not allowed folks. If it continues, this thread will be closed and some folks will be getting timeouts. No one deserves the sort of vitriol I have seen here over a feat.
2. The Crane Riposte feat still works just fine. It ALLOWS you to take an AoO in that specific circumstance (even though you normally could not). It could perhaps use a callout specifically to that effect, but the wording is pretty plain.
3. Lets not drag the martial vs caster canard into this. Start another thread if you feel the need to continue that topic.
That is all for now folks.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there everyone,
I can understand why some folks are upset with this change. It was a very good feat. The sheer amount of passion in this thread demonstrates that fact.
Part of our process of updating a book involves talking to various departments to see if there is anything that is causing them problems or needs a second look. In this particular case, Crane Wing was the #1 problem child on the list from the PFS folks.
I was right then. I'm sorry to hear that actually. I really hoped that it wasn't the case.
Should we be expecting changes to other abilities, classes, archetypes, and feats that PFS deems too powerful?
|
Lead Designer
|
Hey there everyone,
I can understand why some folks are upset with this change. It was a very good feat. The sheer amount of passion in this thread demonstrates that fact.
Part of our process of updating a book involves talking to various departments to see if there is anything that is causing them problems or needs a second look. In this particular case, Crane Wing was the #1 problem child on the list from the PFS folks.
I was right then. I'm sorry to hear that actually. I really hoped that it wasn't the case.
Should we be expecting changes to other abilities, classes, archetypes, and feats that PFS deems too powerful?
Not necessarily, although we do take their opinion into consideration, as we do all departments here at Paizo.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there everyone,
I can understand why some folks are upset with this change. It was a very good feat. The sheer amount of passion in this thread demonstrates that fact.
Part of our process of updating a book involves talking to various departments to see if there is anything that is causing them problems or needs a second look. In this particular case, Crane Wing was the #1 problem child on the list from the PFS folks. Without much work you could build a character with an incredibly high AC that could still make attacks, and if a foe would happen to get lucky and score a hit, deflect it. This build, which was not really all that difficult to setup, was all made possible by Crane Wing.
So...
We took a look and changed it to something a little more balanced. You can still play that game, you just can't take your full boat of attacks at the same time. You may not agree with the decision. That's fine. We knew this would ruffle some feathers (crane feathers even), but it was a call we had to make. We could not just put this in the bin of "let PFS ban it". That solution is generally reserved for rules that by there very concept, have trouble being implemented in PFS, or would require significant GM oversight to make viable.
So, there you have it. Now on to a couple of other issue.
1. The tone in this thread is entirely inappropriate. I have not seen so many pulled posts in one thread in a long time. You can choose to disagree with the decision, but insulting the staff, your fellow posters, and trolling is just not allowed folks. If it continues, this thread will be closed and some folks will be getting timeouts. No one deserves the sort of vitriol I have seen here over a feat.
2. The Crane Riposte feat still works just fine. It ALLOWS you to take an AoO in that specific circumstance (even though you normally could not). It could perhaps use a callout specifically to that effect, but the wording is pretty plain.
3. Lets not drag the martial vs caster canard into this. Start another thread...
So a low level exploit in the Crane Style chain caused you to make Crane Riposte useless at higher levels when people can't run around using Total Defense and single attacks? Once again those of that play to higher levels and want to follow the rule set as is get dinged while you shore up the low level game.
You have to know that Total Defense single AoO move around is not at all effective at higher levels when full attacks do much more damage and hit points are much higher.
Unreal that this style is ruined for long-term play to keep it from being exploited by low level combinations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh. What a ridic nerf. I dont post often but i do lurk these and many other forums. I always see Paizo get ripped apart and i dont know why. But this right here... this thermonuclear nerf to a marginal playstyle anyway because some PFS dms felt in invalidated the scenarios paizo approves just strikes me as not knowing proper game design techniques.
Powerful options are not inherently broken options.
Another reason for the negativity is of all things you nerf you choose THIS? I mean maths show that monks are meh. Yet gunslinger touch ac shenanigans; rogues being garbage and paragon surge remain untouched.
In short; I wish this was better handled... and it may be time to start looking at alternate systems if this one keeps getting sillier and sillier.
I support this change, no ability ever should function 100% automatically, even defensive or specialised clutch ones.
I do however not approve of the low Dode benefit it was replaced with, iI would have though it'd look more like +3 dodge bonus +1 per 3 character levels.
Martials could use some scaling feats y-kno
Terrible decision. It even slows down game management- now Crane Wing users have to tell the GM which attack they were blocking, make sure that the GM is rolling against the right situational AC....wow, I can't believe any thought was put into this.
|
Lead Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Folks, regarding PFS.. let me state this again...
The rules of the game are not subject to the limits of PFS. PFS is a valuable tool for us, giving us feedback on how the rules are working in a structured and even environment. We don't take our rules cues from them, but we do listen when a particular rule is causing a problem. Its generally a good indicator of an underlying issue that needs to be addressed. In this way, it is the same when the AP team comes to us with a rule that is giving them problems, or when the web team notices an issue with wording. The final say and decision lies with me and my team, but we take feedback from a wide variety of sources, including these boards.
Lets just drop the ranting against this particular point. We are not going to ignore our org. play campaign, nor are we going to let them dictate the rules.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there everyone,
I can understand why some folks are upset with this change. It was a very good feat. The sheer amount of passion in this thread demonstrates that fact.
Part of our process of updating a book involves talking to various departments to see if there is anything that is causing them problems or needs a second look. In this particular case, Crane Wing was the #1 problem child on the list from the PFS folks. Without much work you could build a character with an incredibly high AC that could still make attacks, and if a foe would happen to get lucky and score a hit, deflect it. This build, which was not really all that difficult to setup, was all made possible by Crane Wing.
So...
We took a look and changed it to something a little more balanced. You can still play that game, you just can't take your full boat of attacks at the same time. You may not agree with the decision. That's fine. We knew this would ruffle some feathers (crane feathers even), but it was a call we had to make. We could not just put this in the bin of "let PFS ban it". That solution is generally reserved for rules that by there very concept, have trouble being implemented in PFS, or would require significant GM oversight to make viable.
So, there you have it. Now on to a couple of other issue.
1. The tone in this thread is entirely inappropriate. I have not seen so many pulled posts in one thread in a long time. You can choose to disagree with the decision, but insulting the staff, your fellow posters, and trolling is just not allowed folks. If it continues, this thread will be closed and some folks will be getting timeouts. No one deserves the sort of vitriol I have seen here over a feat.
2. The Crane Riposte feat still works just fine. It ALLOWS you to take an AoO in that specific circumstance (even though you normally could not). It could perhaps use a callout specifically to that effect, but the wording is pretty plain.
3. Lets not drag the martial vs caster canard into this. Start another thread if you feel the need to continue that topic.
That is all for now folks.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
First, let me thank you for that clarification on Crane Riposte. And thank you for your effort to reply.
That said, there are areas of your reply that are problematic; I bolded these so I could address them. I will be going in order of their appearance.
First, the PFS people... I was not aware, when I started to get into this game, that PFS was the main balancing area. In fact, I had thought that PFS was intended to be a modification of the main rules, with adjustments being made as necessary. Balancing the feat around PFS, which even from what I have seen has problematic areas in which it focuses primarily on low-level characters facing off against what are primarily humanoids. That requires a different balance approach than the majority of the game rules, as the majority provide for the characters facing off against a lot of different lifeforms, and even going most of a campaign without even encountering a humanoid. Thus, the idea that PFS complaints are being used for balance purposes sends messages to players like me, who do not like the way the PFS system is set up and purchase the game with the idea that the game is intended to be a general rules set, that the game is really there primarily for the PFS people and the complaints and issues of those outside PFS are not as important.
I will continue to purchase Pathfinder materials, but at this point I can say that if the pattern continues, I will eventually stop because I won't see a point in paying for a game the designers themselves are, from what I can see, telling me I am using wrong. And if I ever came to that decision, I would not stick around; I do not feel welcome in a community for a game system I do not even play.
The issue of a high AC with deflection... Isn't that how Deflect Arrows works, in essence? A person with that feat can have an incredibly high AC, still make attacks, and deflect an attack when it comes their way. Top it all off, I am certain the deflection bonus built into the game system is about deflecting attacks. So, I must admit that the reasoning given for it does not make any logical sense to me. Please elaborate further?
I will admit that some of my confusion comes from the part about rules that require significant GM oversight. The reason why this is confusing is that some of the rules allowed in PFS, such as alignment, are written in such a way that significant GM oversight is the only way they operate at all. So it confuses me that alignment, which requires as much oversight as crafting does, is allowed while crafting is not; I had assumed crafting was not allowed due to balance issues. Could you please elaborate for me on this one as well and how it relates to this feat getting nerfed?
Folks, regarding PFS.. let me state this again...
The rules of the game are not subject to the limits of PFS. PFS is a valuable tool for us, giving us feedback on how the rules are working in a structured and even environment. We don't take our rules cues from them, but we do listen when a particular rule is causing a problem. Its generally a good indicator of an underlying issue that needs to be addressed. In this way, it is the same when the AP team comes to us with a rule that is giving them problems, or when the web team notices an issue with wording. The final say and decision lies with me and my team, but we take feedback from a wide variety of sources, including these boards.
Lets just drop the ranting against this particular point. We are not going to ignore our org. play campaign, nor are we going to let them dictate the rules.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
And now I am even more confused. But I am going to drop it. I just wanted you to get feedback from my perspective.
I wish you luck in your efforts to explain this, and want you to know I am still a customer. Just one who doesn't understand this decision.
|
Hey there everyone,
I can understand why some folks are upset with this change. It was a very good feat. The sheer amount of passion in this thread demonstrates that fact.
Part of our process of updating a book involves talking to various departments to see if there is anything that is causing them problems or needs a second look. In this particular case, Crane Wing was the #1 problem child on the list from the PFS folks.
I was right then. I'm sorry to hear that actually. I really hoped that it wasn't the case.
Should we be expecting changes to other abilities, classes, archetypes, and feats that PFS deems too powerful?
While I understand that PFS is the "official" Pathfinder playing group, I don't really think they should have a strong say in what gets written into the rules that everyone else is supposed to build their game upon. Just because they consider something to be a problem doesn't mean that it actually is one. They already have an extensive list of house rules which cover various feats, traits, archetypes, and even spells. It's something that you tend to expect when it comes to organized play of any game, so one more house rule to cover something that they perceived to be imbalanced should have done the job. Why does the rest of the playerbase, which I'm guessing outnumbers PFS rather greatly, have to suffer mediocrity because PFS decides they don't like something?
As it is, if I were just getting into Pathfinder, and picked up this latest printing of UC, I'd never know what Crane Wing was like beforehand, and I would most likely dismiss the Crane Style feats as mostly worthless. I now have to include yet another house rule in my games, and I really don't like having a long list of them. Which is a large part of the reason I won't play PFS.
I really don't get why this is a big deal. Most "real games" of pathfinder use arbitrary banning of materials and changes to the rules whenever they feel like doing so anyways....lovingly referred to as "homebrew"
Is it that big of a deal to just keep the original printing of the rule in a home run game? I mean you don't even have to print out the changes if you don't like them.
Also there are a lot of other game systems out there, if you find yourself at odds with a company over the choices they are making for their product you are in luck in that there are several alternatives to choose from. Not to sound like a jerk but am simply pointing out the obvious.
And the PRD was mis-updated. Crane Riposte has the new Crane Wing text while Crane Wing still has the old text.Oops, that would be my bad. I'll see if we can get that fixed up asap.
On the upside, at least the errata was posted to the prd. Last time I looked, the errata for wordcasting from ultimate magic hadn't been applied yet.Hm, that would be a problem. Could you let me know in this thread what bit is missing? I'll see if I can give that a prod when I push the PRD update.
Chris, can I please know what I did wrong to get the poll thread I started locked down and then moved to another board entirely? The one you referenced seemed to be more about discussing ways to fix the errata for actual play, rather than simply getting a consensus on the community's overall feelings re: the change. Also, I'm 99.9% sure I started that on the General board, yet it's now showing in Suggestions/House-Rules/Homebrew. That I just don't get at all. Am I missing some guidelines or what?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of our process of updating a book involves talking to various departments to see if there is anything that is causing them problems or needs a second look. In this particular case, Crane Wing was the #1 problem child on the list from the PFS folks. Without much work you could build a character with an incredibly high AC that could still make attacks, and if a foe would happen to get lucky and score a hit, deflect it. This build, which was not really all that difficult to setup, was all made possible by Crane Wing.
Jason, I'm going to buy you a drink at Paizocon for looking at Crane and coming up with a solution because it can't be an easy thing to do, especially when you probably expected all this blowback.
But it's definitely the #2 PFS problem child from Ultimate Combat, by a longshot, based on postcount, number of threads, and amount of evidence. If you also do something about double-barreled no-misfire (because of archetypes) pistoleros and musket masters (particularly pistoleros since they can do Up Close and Deadly as a Signature Deed on every attack), which is the #1 PFS problem child from UC, I will buy you a whole bottle of whatever you want.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't get why this is a big deal. Most "real games" of pathfinder use arbitrary banning of materials and changes to the rules whenever they feel like doing so anyways....lovingly referred to as "homebrew"Is it that big of a deal to just keep the original printing of the rule in a home run game? I mean you don't even have to print out the changes if you don't like them.
Also there are a lot of other game systems out there, if you find yourself at odds with a company over the choices they are making for their product you are in luck in that there are several alternatives to choose from. Not to sound like a jerk but am simply pointing out the obvious.
It's a huge deal. People had a problem with it in PFS. People who mentioned the problem on the general boards were shown all the things that avoid it.
It was changed based on being the "#1 Problem Child in PFS"
It showed us that Paizo considers PFS to be a better balancing board than other games. That their official homebrew is a metric they will use for rules balancing for everyone.
People want to play what is official. The Core Rulebook is officially Pathfinder. So this change effects everyone who wants to play Pathfinder as the designers intend for it to be played.
And yeah. Thanks for telling me to go play a different game since they decided to balance rules according to the Official homebrew you play.
I really don't get why this is a big deal. Most "real games" of pathfinder use arbitrary banning of materials and changes to the rules whenever they feel like doing so anyways....lovingly referred to as "homebrew"
Is it that big of a deal to just keep the original printing of the rule in a home run game? I mean you don't even have to print out the changes if you don't like them.
It's a problem when the official and non-official but easier to use (and more expansive) online databases for that game update off of the original text within 24 hours. There aren't any other online resources I use mid-game to reference things like this sides Paizo's SRD and the d20pfsrd. Now, I'm mostly sure I have the rule text of the original Crane Wing correct, but those who haven't looked at it in detail yet, or are just getting into the game, what if they don't have Ultimate Combat? What if they buy it now and they never see the original, arguably better feat description? How will they know there's an earlier version to homebrew in in the first place?
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK a lot of what I feel has been said, so I'll just cover what I think has been missed (or not clarified enough):
* I still feel linking Crane Wing to Total Defense is a joke.
Total defense mean no attacks, you no longer threaten (or enable flanking) and cannot use the expertise feat.
unless there is a ruling on attacks of opportunity I'm not aware of, you cannot take them when you do not threaten.
Crane Riposte: "Whenever you use Crane Wing to deflect an opponent’s attack, you can make an attack of opportunity against that opponent after the attack is deflected."
this effect will never trigger even if if is reworded to give a exception on the attack of opportunity.
When is it a good idea for a DPS / Tank / CM Spec to "curl up in a ball" with total defense and not contribute to a group? As I do not know of a way to force a creature to attack you while in total defense I believe A 5x6 stone statue is a better party member then a "crane wing" total defense spec as at least it can't be tripped or re-positioned! (and both of them you can simply walk by)
* Errata re-opened a potential exploit
"An attack so deflected deals no damage and has no other
effect (instead treat it as a miss)"
There are a few class features / feats that trigger on a miss, Snapping Turtle Style for example. (unless it is re-worded or re-clarified again to be the attack deals no damage and inflicts no effects)
If PFS GMs were annoyed at crane wing now, imagine a MOMs Monk 2/ Unarmed Fighter 8 practicing Crane Style, Crane Wing, Snapping Turtle style, Snapping Turtle Clutch, Improved Grapple, Greater Grapple,Rapid Grappler, Body shield and a few more (read the feats to understand, yes there is a bottleneck in swift/immediate actions and yes crane could be replaced with snake style but crane wing may work out more often with the +4 dodge without an action on one attack)
(A burly man shatters a pot of oil overhead, then rubs his exposed hairy chest with a smile. " Welcome to the ring, Let me sing the song of my people.")
* As a home game DM and PFS player, I'm really frustrated at the remake of this feat chain. Having to announce the +4 dodge bonus on every use will bring us back to how the old dodge feat wasted so much time, and will cause arguments with DMs that want to roll multiple attacks at the same time with different "weapons".
If I had a character in PFS that used crane style I would probably be remaking it now.
Please Errata this Errata post haste!
If you found someone with the old crane feat chain you either hit him with will saves, fort saves, or with ranged attacks with the errata as it is now who would want to attack a total defensed character? You could simply trip, bullrush, overrun, or simply go around him and completely ignore him (he doesn't threaten so even if you don't have the improved form of the combat maneuver he cannot take that AoO). This makes it so that crane riposte will never be used again because unless you are fighting a creature that has an int of 2 or 1 it simply will ignore the person who cannot harm them.
Chris, can I please know what I did wrong to get the poll thread I started locked down and then moved to another board entirely? The one you referenced seemed to be more about discussing ways to fix the errata for actual play, rather than simply getting a consensus on the community's overall feelings re: the change. Also, I'm 99.9% sure I started that on the General board, yet it's now showing in Suggestions/House-Rules/Homebrew. That I just don't get at all. Am I missing some guidelines or what?
And the PRD was mis-updated. Crane Riposte has the new Crane Wing text while Crane Wing still has the old text.Oops, that would be my bad. I'll see if we can get that fixed up asap.
On the upside, at least the errata was posted to the prd. Last time I looked, the errata for wordcasting from ultimate magic hadn't been applied yet.Hm, that would be a problem. Could you let me know in this thread what bit is missing? I'll see if I can give that a prod when I push the PRD update.
Oops, that was my bad. Should be corrected now.
I really don't get why this is a big deal. Most "real games" of pathfinder use arbitrary banning of materials and changes to the rules whenever they feel like doing so anyways....lovingly referred to as "homebrew"Is it that big of a deal to just keep the original printing of the rule in a home run game? I mean you don't even have to print out the changes if you don't like them.
Also there are a lot of other game systems out there, if you find yourself at odds with a company over the choices they are making for their product you are in luck in that there are several alternatives to choose from. Not to sound like a jerk but am simply pointing out the obvious.
It's a huge deal. People had a problem with it in PFS. People who mentioned the problem on the general boards were shown all the things that avoid it.
It was changed based on being the "#1 Problem Child in PFS"
It showed us that Paizo considers PFS to be a better balancing board than other games. That their official homebrew is a metric they will use for rules balancing for everyone.
People want to play what is official. The Core Rulebook is officially Pathfinder. So this change effects everyone who wants to play Pathfinder as the designers intend for it to be played.
And yeah. Thanks for telling me to go play a different game since they decided to balance rules according to the Official homebrew you play.
My last one got deleted so ill be a bit more PC:
Telling people to play a different game is counterproductive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jason, on the off chance you're still reading, let me just put a word on.
If you have to nerf it, then you have to nerf it. Nerfing it to this level was too much. Is it possible to have a middle ground?
|
Lead Designer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jason, on the off chance you're still reading, let me just put a word on.
If you have to nerf it, then you have to nerf it. Nerfing it to this level was too much. Is it possible to have a middle ground?
Not at the moment. We plan to let it stand for a while and look at it as we go along (as we do all of our rules). Nothing is ever set in stone, but we are not going to change it based on 24 hours of messageboard posts.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
@Unruly: Agreed, too many house-rules gets confusing. Hell, PFS itself is a house-ruled system. Being told we have to play by the minorities house-rules instead of Paizo's, "Here's the basic, modify as you please" philosophy is really disheartening.
@ChrisLambertz: You rock. I would have PMed you or whatever, but if this website has such a feature, I suck at finding it.
@JessicaPrice: Apologies, I was certainly not attempting to 'derail' anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jason, on the off chance you're still reading, let me just put a word on.
If you have to nerf it, then you have to nerf it. Nerfing it to this level was too much. Is it possible to have a middle ground?
Not at the moment. We plan to let it stand for a while and look at it as we go along (as we do all of our rules). Nothing is ever set in stone, but we are not going to change it based on 24 hours of messageboard posts.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
For the sake of those of us who have PFS characters who are affected by this change, and who are not allowed to retcon their decisions if Crane Wing changes again...
Can you give us a date for when the feat's text will be set in stone? What about a date for when the rules change takes effect for purposes of PFS? I would hate to retrain Crane Wing (Osyluth's Guile and Offensive Defense do what New Crane Wing does but better, in my case) then be unable to reverse the decision if it changes again.
-Matt
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why the change was desired
-Crane Wing was a powerful option that could be gained as low as level 1 through Master of Many Styles. It was the crux of builds that could only be hit on 20s to avoid being hit. Most likely had a lot to do with the Magus whom is already poorly balanced.
Why the Nerf was too much
-Crane Wing grants a superficial +4 to AC to a user who is most likely already incredibly defensively oriented. If I can already only be hit on a 20, it makes no difference to the Crane Style user if he gets a +4 or not. The Total Defense option is completely worthless as taking a Total Defense means you contribute nothing to the party that turn. Thus making Crane Wing a drag on the party.
"An attack so deflected deals no damage and has no other
effect (instead treat it as a miss)"
Jason, how is this intended to interact with Snake Fang for a MoMS?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can just ignore this errata but it honestly turns me off of further purchases when I need to run a game I feel I have to edit to stay fun and balanced. Not that I am cancelling my subscription yet. I just don't get the reasoning behind this, we still have save or die spells in the game don't they ruin single creature encounters far more often?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't get why this is a big deal. Most "real games" of pathfinder use arbitrary banning of materials and changes to the rules whenever they feel like doing so anyways....lovingly referred to as "homebrew"Is it that big of a deal to just keep the original printing of the rule in a home run game? I mean you don't even have to print out the changes if you don't like them.
Also there are a lot of other game systems out there, if you find yourself at odds with a company over the choices they are making for their product you are in luck in that there are several alternatives to choose from. Not to sound like a jerk but am simply pointing out the obvious.
It's a huge deal. People had a problem with it in PFS. People who mentioned the problem on the general boards were shown all the things that avoid it.
It was changed based on being the "#1 Problem Child in PFS"
It showed us that Paizo considers PFS to be a better balancing board than other games. That their official homebrew is a metric they will use for rules balancing for everyone.
People want to play what is official. The Core Rulebook is officially Pathfinder. So this change effects everyone who wants to play Pathfinder as the designers intend for it to be played.
And yeah. Thanks for telling me to go play a different game since they decided to balance rules according to the Official homebrew you play.
My last one got deleted so ill be a bit more PC:
Telling people to play a different game is counterproductive.
You're right it is counter productive but then again so is raging on an Internet forum (well in general but obviously not always lol). I guess my major argument came from what seems to be a different perspective then most people on the forum today.
I started with d&d advanced 2nd, played 3.0/3.5 until 4e was released, lots of experience with old world of darkness, some lord of the five rings, some Heroes unlimited, some war hammer rpg, some new world of darkness, some battletech rpg, and lots of various interpretations of pathfinder (half homebrew, as published, current errata, obviously PFS {as I have already so sneeringly been called out for by others} , and 3rd part source heavy.
I guessing also disagree with a lot of "craft-theory" and optimization builds that so many forum posters hold as ultimate truth as I have seen time and again a "build that should suck" complete own everything it has been stated to be terrible at. I don't see this as a devastating change like so many others do but I also don't consider the monk a mediocre class as much as I consider that they are often played ineptly.
This may also come from a strong held belief that DPS is not the keystone of a good class. I mean it's one feat. That's what the stink is about. One feat. One build for (a/some) class(es) thst relies on that feat.
Idk I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion but just don't understand the extreme reaction
"An attack so deflected deals no damage and has no other
effect (instead treat it as a miss)"Jason, how is this intended to interact with Snake Fang for a MoMS?
It probably triggers Snake Fang, based on RAW. The old version of Crane Wing wasn't treated as either hit OR miss, so Snake Fang wasn't automatically set off.
|
|
I really don't get why this is a big deal. Most "real games" of pathfinder use arbitrary banning of materials and changes to the rules whenever they feel like doing so anyways....lovingly referred to as "homebrew"Is it that big of a deal to just keep the original printing of the rule in a home run game? I mean you don't even have to print out the changes if you don't like them.
Also there are a lot of other game systems out there, if you find yourself at odds with a company over the choices they are making for their product you are in luck in that there are several alternatives to choose from. Not to sound like a jerk but am simply pointing out the obvious.
It's a huge deal. People had a problem with it in PFS. People who mentioned the problem on the general boards were shown all the things that avoid it.
It was changed based on being the "#1 Problem Child in PFS"
It showed us that Paizo considers PFS to be a better balancing board than other games. That their official homebrew is a metric they will use for rules balancing for everyone.
People want to play what is official. The Core Rulebook is officially Pathfinder. So this change effects everyone who wants to play Pathfinder as the designers intend for it to be played.
And yeah. Thanks for telling me to go play a different game since they decided to balance rules according to the Official homebrew you play.
PFS? Yes, on top of the butt ton of other RPGs I play (including variations if pathfinder outside of PFS)
Hmm, now I don't know if I want to pick up the new printing or go find a 1st printing of UC.
Neither seems like a good idea at the moment.
|
|
I'm not attempting to continue the rant against PFS with this first bit, simply explaining why I, and probably some others, are going to blame PFS for this change.
I know that the plural of anecdote is not data. I also know that forum stories are anecdotes, and that the closest thing you get to hard data on how things perform is from PFS by virtue of it being structured and semi-controlled. But from what I've read on here, there are fewer people outside PFS that have had actual, serious, problems with Crane Wing than inside it. By saying that they came to you with it as their #1 concern, and then the change being such a drastic one, you give the impression that the largest part of the decision to change the feat came from the PFS experience with it. And I think a lot of people, myself included, are going to find that as something that gets under their skin.
Is it that big of a deal to just keep the original printing of the rule in a home run game? I mean you don't even have to print out the changes if you don't like them.The issue, as with all errata, is in dealing with multiple people having multiple printings of the same book. Some people won't bother with errata at all, while others will jump on it as soon as it gets posted. Then, as a group, you have to decide which changes you're going to actually implement and which you aren't. In all honesty, I typically prefer to go by whatever the current errata is, because I tend to use the PRD as a reference more often than not. Every time there's a change that I strongly disagree with, such as this one, I have to add yet another house rule to my games. And I don't like to do that.
I actually try to house rule rather sparingly, because the fewer extra things that my players and I have to remember, the better. Especially when you're playing in multiple games, under different GMs, and with different house rules in each. The more standardized the rules are between games, the better. And the best ways to do that are to either force...
This is a respectful response I can understand and your perspective is well articulated.
I play in a lot of games as well so I can relate to not always being able to keep track of everything
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jason, I can understand the desire to take the feat back a notch, but this is too far. This ruling will most likely push the entire Crane Style feat chain into the category of "feats no one uses."
There is already a mechanic in the game that does essentially the same thing, but requires more of an action investment on the part of the player.
Duelist's Parry.
Why not just use that as a mechanical foundation for the feat, altered so that it could only be used with an empty hand (instead of a one handed piercing weapon)?
I seems to me that would keep the original flavor and intent of the feat.
This entire change seems like a huge overreaction to one of the few choices that make a dex-based martial character viable at all.
You're right it is counter productive but then again so is raging on an Internet forum (well in general but obviously not always lol). I guess my major argument came from what seems to be a different perspective then most people on the forum today.
I started with d&d advanced 2nd, played 3.0/3.5 until 4e was released, lots of experience with old world of darkness, some lord of the five rings, some Heroes unlimited, some war hammer rpg, some new world of darkness, some battletech rpg, and lots of various interpretations of pathfinder (half homebrew, as published, current errata, obviously PFS {as I have already so sneeringly been called out for by others} , and 3rd part source heavy.
I guessing also disagree with a lot of "craft-theory" and optimization builds that so many forum posters hold as ultimate truth as I have seen time and again a "build that should suck" complete own everything it has been stated to be terrible at. I don't see this as a devastating change like so many others do but I also don't consider the monk a mediocre class as much as I consider that they are often played ineptly.
This may also come from a strong held belief that DPS is not the keystone of a good class. I mean it's one feat. That's what the stink is about. One feat. One build for (a/some) class(es) thst relies on that feat.
Idk I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion but just don't understand the extreme reaction
The extreme reaction isn't about just the feat. Some of the removed posts were, sadly, actually key to showing what the extreme reaction is actually about.
There are three items... first is the caster/martial disparity. This was a good feat for martials, especially for ones who don't play in PFS and find themselves potentially useless in high-level games. It got nerfed, while the caster options have not. Quite a bit of rage was over the fact that one of the rare options that could bring some balance between martials and casters was, ultimately, nerfed.
Second is related to class balance issues. Mainly, how it is that, from what some have said (this relates to things before my time), animal companions were nerfed because of Cavaliers and it is possible this feat was nerfed because of that. I don't know either way, but given then the developers are saying otherwise, I doubt it.
Third is the issue of PFS dictating game balance. Despite what Jason Bulmahn is saying, it is still coming across as PFS balance being more important. Especially considering that, outside of PFS, Pathfinder has some pretty serious balance issues, most of which it inherited from 3.5 (and some of which it actually made worse or, as in the case of rogues, outright created). These balance issues typically don't come up at the levels PFS plays at, but become rather obvious at higher levels. So balancing anything for PFS, instead of just having a separate rule for PFS, actually potentially worsens the imbalance for high level non-PFS games... which, to be blunt, this change does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guessing also disagree with a lot of "craft-theory" and optimization builds that so many forum posters hold as ultimate truth as I have seen time and again a "build that should suck" complete own everything it has been stated to be terrible at. I don't see this as a devastating change like so many others do but I also don't consider the monk a mediocre class as much as I consider that they are often played ineptly.This may also come from a strong held belief that DPS is not the keystone of a good class. I mean it's one feat. That's what the stink is about. One feat. One build for (a/some) class(es) thst relies on that feat.
Idk I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion but just don't understand the extreme reaction
Theres a lot of misconceptions built in here.
A terrible build mathematically only functions at low levels due to the die roll being the main contributor of success. Also theres a difference between should and does.
Damage most definitely plays a large portion on whether a class is good or not. Failing that, some kind of versatility in combat that allows you to benefit your allies making them better at fighting. Combat is the one sure thing we can count on to involve all members of the party.
The one feat stink. The Crane chain was held up to be what feats should aspire to. Feats should have synergy with one another and validate builds. Especially chains that require many prerequisites. It was also one of the few ways to build a cool defensively oriented character. The biggest deal here is that a chain that requires many prerequisites should have powerful effects. The counter to this was the Master of Many Styles who avoided those.
The extreme reaction is due because essentially the largest proponent of the change was PFS. This meant that Paizo considers those games to be of greater worth when taking game balance into account. This disgusts me as a whole because I don't play PFS and don't consider their games to be any more valid than my own.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think most people are annoyed at the very notion that the MONK was being so brokenly OP that it needed a nerf.
Makes people question the devs decisions and how relevant those decisions should be to their own games.
The rage directed at the devs is because no one here wants to abandon them and their decisions. Because why are we even playing pathfinder if we don't trust the devs to balance the game correctly?