Crane Wing nerf


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 365 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Lead Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
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.
Not one person who isn't you has said in any of the threads on this errata that I've read that they thought Crane Riposte still worked. If the wording is plain it's plainly not saying what you intended.

Feats allow you to do things that you could not otherwise do based on the rules all the time. That is the entire point of them. Like I said, it could probably have used a parenthetical stating "(even though you could not normally do so)", but I think the wording is still plain enough.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Jason I'm sorry but I can't help but be angry about this.

What was done wasn't a rebalance. That isn't what came of the Errata. It was deliberate(Since this was apparently thought through despite the obvious ramifications it had on Crane Riposte, yet Riposte lacks any clarifying phrase) nerf of the feat to a degree below useful.

A simple clause stating a natural 20 cannot be deflected in Crane Wing would have solved the problem. A clause that said it couldn't be used while your dexterity bonus is denied would also be wonderful and make sense.

This ruling only made the people who wanted to see this feat gone happy. And it shows! Good gods it shows. A simple click on the name of folks who've said they were happy with the change indicates they're PFS GMs.

People who care about balance are angry. Rogue Eidolon supported the change and he's unhappy with the change.

We don't want to see a feat nerfed into obscurity. If there must be a change it should be slight. The FAQ increasing it's effectiveness earlier didn't help.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Raith Shadar wrote:


Honestly, this change was the first time I decided to take a look at D&D Next. I had ignored the new D&D. This change to Crane Wing without properly making it work with Crane Riposte was such a slap in the face as a Paizo customer that it opened the door to a change of games for me.

It's not the change that bothers me. I think Crane Wing was too good for the level you can obtain it at. I don't disagree with the change. It was the way it was changed behind everyone's back out of the blue without any concern for Crane Riposte that made me feel like the Paizo game designers think of their customers as nothing more than people who have no choice but to accept every change they make because they're smarter than all of us.

I don't like that attitude from any company.

I am not sure where this is coming from. We have never vetted all of our rules alterations with the community, nor are we doing things "out of the blue". This is the way we work with the game. If we slowed down to consult with the community about every single alteration, our productivity would slow down to a stand-still. I am sorry you don't like the way this was handled, but we are really just trying to make the game the best it can be. You are not required to agree with us, and you can feel free to play however you like in your home game.

We make these changes because it is our job to do so, not out of some sense of self-righteousness or arrogance. Our job is to make a fun and balanced game. It might not be right for everyone, but we endeavor to do the best we can. I hope you understand that.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

If this was your intent, I feel you would have taken more time to ensure Crane Riposte functioned with Crane Wing past the level where moving around deflecting single attacks was a useful strategy.

I play the game past level 10 often. I buy your adventure paths and run the modules past the 2nd or 3rd module. Crane Wing and Crane Riposte are no longer worthwhile feats to take in the long-term.

Crane Style by itself will make Fighting Defensively viable without the other two feats. This change ruins the entire feat chain on a cost-benefit analysis all because you were stopping a low level exploit that allowed players to take Crane Wing at 1st level.

How can I feel about game designers that don't take into account changes that affect players like myself and my group that play the higher level game more often than not?

Are you going to attempt to tell me that Crane Wing and Crane Riposte are any more of a problem than Come and Get Me and Greater Beast Totem at level 10 plus? I know you have to know that isn't true.

The main problem with Crane Wing and Crane Riposte was in the early levels of the game because you allowed that series of feats to be taken far too early. So those of us that play at higher levels now have to pay for a low level exploit that exists due to poor early desigh choices.

How can I not feel extremely frustrated? Make Crane Riposte a viable style again working in conjunction with Crane Wing while removing the automatic deflection while fighting defensively and I'll be ok. Why? It will make the Crane Style useful long-term rather than take the first feat and forget the others. That is what is that style is right now.

Crane Wing/Riposte went from everyone should take it to don't bother taking anything but Crane Style. You're done after the first feat. Was that really your intent? I seriously doubt it, but that is what the change did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
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.
Not one person who isn't you has said in any of the threads on this errata that I've read that they thought Crane Riposte still worked. If the wording is plain it's plainly not saying what you intended.

Feats allow you to do things that you could not otherwise do based on the rules all the time. That is the entire point of them. Like I said, it could probably have used a parenthetical stating "(even though you could not normally do so)", but I think the wording is still plain enough.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Don't feats that let you break the rules (not an addition or expansion) have a

Quote:
Normal: This is how the rules normally work.

Line?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Petrus222 wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:


No specifically, but mirror image is a known quantity for us. It is range personal, easily foiled by some relatively common spells, brought down on a miss, and generally limited to a pair of character classes that are not exactly known for rushing into combat.

Lets stay on topic.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

[Friendly teasing] Ninjas and Maguses aren't meant to go into combat?[/friendly teasing]

Anyways I'd argue that it is on topic since as a second level spell it becomes available in the same time/level frame, has far fewer pre-requisites and has very good potential to eliminate far more damage from both ranged and melee attacks without forcing you to fight defensively. As a baseline, the new crane wing (heck even the old one) seems to pale in comparison.

That said, did you consider allowing the +4 AC against all melee attacks in a round?

Also does this suggest that snake fang will be similarily adjusted down the road (given that the new crane wing would stack with mobility and snake fang even for at least one attack a round.)

The crucial thing about mirror image is that they go away when they block an attack and they often go away on misses too.

Let's consider my baseline Crane guy with 18 AC who is going up against either 4 CR 1 critters with three primary natural attacks and high to-hit for a CR 1 or 1 CR 5 critter with four primary natural attacks and high to-hit for a CR.

So we saw in that other thread, the AC 18 dude was sometimes using wand of shield charges to get AC 22, both in and out of crane (I did the numbers for both ACs). Let's pretend he uses a mirror image wand instead, and always rolls above average and gets 4 images. Seem fair?

So here's the stuff without mirror image

Old Stuff:
o at level 1 (with that starter equipment and 18 base AC), based on the chart, those 4 CR 1 dudes have +2 to hit. They flank, making 12 attacks a round at +4 to hit. Without shield wand precast that'll be 4.2 hits per round. With the wand, it's 1.8 hits per round. Killing them will drop this as time goes by.

The boss monster has four attacks at a +10, no flanks. That's 2.6 hits per round. Shield makes that 1.8. This will not drop as time goes by.

OK, so Crane time.

Those 4 mooks will hit .8 times per round (so they aren't quite expected to get in even a single hit each round) without shield and expected value of 0 hits per round with shield (it's not that the probability is 0, but the expected value is less than 1 before deflection--It's actually not negligible that you will still be hit by a freak string of 2 nat 20s in the same round, about 12%).

For the boss, you expect .8 hits per round without shield, or expected value 0 hits per round with shield (the boss still hits on a 16 or higher, so has exactly expected 1 hit before deflection. The actual probability of the boss hitting you in a given round is about 26%).

So against the 12 attacks of the mooks, Crane chain is worth better than an 80% miss chance if you had 18 AC (no shield) or about a 91% miss chance if you had 22 AC (with shield).

Against the boss it's worth a 70% miss chance with 18 AC (no shield) and an 85% miss chance with 22 AC (with shield).

With mirror image instead of shield, here's how it changes:

Mooks used to hit 4.2 times per round. Now you have mirror image. On the first round, you will probably lose all your images. If mirror image was an automatic deflection so long as you have an image, the expectation is that you will lose 8/13 of them to ruining successful attacks and 5/13 of them to near misses. However, in reality, the first image is 56% likely to negate a hit as opposed to just pop on a near miss, then the next is 54%, then the next is 52%, and then 44% for the last. All told, you will probably lose half of them to near misses, and block attacks with the others. OK, so that means you block two attacks. You still get hit expected 2.2 times. That's more than with Crane Style and no wand at all by almost 3x, even assuming you cast mirror image every single round.

You do better against the boss because he has fewer attacks per round and is more accurate. You wind up have about a 2/3 chance that your mirrors actually block one of the bosses attacks instead of pop on a near miss. I'll round that up since we are doing 4 images to say you block 3 attacks per casting. You will still have a 94.77% chance to lose all 4 images in one round unless the boss hits you instead of an image, so you would need to recast nearly every round. And it doesn't actually provide as much hit prevention as the full crane did even if you did, since you have a 20% chance to be hit with 4 images, then a 25% chance to be hit with 3, then a 33.3% with 2, and a 50% with 1, and that degrades every time they block a hit and then also on near misses.

So no, a single casting of mirror image has nowhere near the sustainable protection of Crane (even though in assuming I always roll a 3 on 1d4, I'm overvaluing mirror image, since it's MUCH MUCH worse if I roll a 2, the other number on the other side of average). If the images stayed out even when the blocked an attack, then they would be better.


Caedwyr wrote:
I feel that the nerfing to the point of uselessness and the breaking of Crane Riposte is the correct course of action and should not be a surprise to any forumgoers.

how so? You are saying that purposefully ruining an entire feat line is the correct course of action? I do not see how you can logically come to this conclusion at all.

Paizo Employee Lead Designer

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Caedwyr wrote:

Don't feats that let you break the rules (not an addition or expansion) have a

Quote:
Normal: This is how the rules normally work.
Line?

Frequently, but not nearly always. Its rather unevenly applied, which has always bothered me to be honest, but that is a subject for another day.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:


People who care about balance are angry. Rogue Eidolon supported the change and he's unhappy with the change.

Oh, I'm not unhappy. I am very very happy. This change is much better than the old status quo. However, I do agree that it could use some small tweaks (in the direction of strengthening slightly). If you declare the +4 after seeing the roll and that could trigger riposte, that would be perfect for me.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Why is a chunk of player base who doesnt play PFS and wants to play a defensive character to do now? Ide love to see some developer made builds to see how much system mastery they actually have.

Basically you are forced to listen to a small group because that is the project or task you are given but it pigeonholes design policy. Its myopic to think that Crane wing is so powerful that it needed the nerf bat this hard if you actually played the game. Or the need to bog combat down with this exchange:

"Ghoul is going to claw claw bite"
"OK i have +4 ac against the bit because im Crane wing"
"so your at 26 with crane wing against the bite only?"
"yes"
::some dice rolling ensues::

And as i said in another topic you hit the already bleeding monk while IGNORING the more egregious examples of broken like gunslingers and Paragon Surge

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Frequently, but not nearly always. Its rather unevenly applied, which has always bothered me to be honest, but that is a subject for another day.

Pathfinder second edition, baby. ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sub_Zero wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:
I feel that the nerfing to the point of uselessness and the breaking of Crane Riposte is the correct course of action and should not be a surprise to any forumgoers.
how so? You are saying that purposefully ruining an entire feat line is the correct course of action? I do not see how you can logically come to this conclusion at all.

He's saying most feats are bad so it makes sense to nerf this one too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:

Don't feats that let you break the rules (not an addition or expansion) have a

Quote:
Normal: This is how the rules normally work.
Line?

Frequently, but not nearly always. Its rather unevenly applied, which has always bothered me to be honest, but that is a subject for another day.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

When you are issuing an errata for a feat that is changing how it functions, would it not be an appropriate time to add such a line?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Jason. No clue what happened with the name thing other than I am a twit. Sorry about that.

I get that you guys are fed p with the martial vs caster thing, but I think a good portion of your players are fed up with the problem and its continued existence. That may or may not be important to you, I'd have thought it was.


Jason,
When the update was added to the prd, the new Crane Wing description was placed in the Crane Riposte feat description in error.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Raymond Gellner wrote:

Jason,

When the update was added to the prd, the new Crane Wing description was placed in the Crane Riposte feat description in error.

This was brought up in the other thread (seriously, can we merge these or something?) and the web team is working on fixing it already.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 8 people marked this as a favorite.

Incredibly disappointed by this change. I've been rooting for Paizo for a good while now but "erratas" like these make it hard.

Crane Wing was an outlier not because it was too good but because most other feats are atrociously bad. PF needs more feats like Crane style chain, not less.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Sorry read the entire thread and did not find a clarification. Maybe I missed it in the sea of posts... :)

If Crane Riposte triggers on a deflection from Crane Wing...and Crane Wing no longer deflects...how do you Riposte?

Thanks!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Feats allow you to do things that you could not otherwise do based on the rules all the time. That is the entire point of them.

In that case you need to review the feats you're publishing - most of them singularly fail to live up to that notion.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I gotta say, people are taking this a bit too seriously. If you don't like the change, keep it the old way, I think it's great, so I will use the new version. But maybe everybody should take a minute to chill and check your attitude.


Rogue Eidolon - Respectfully I think you may have flubbed the interpretation of your results. Unfortunately right now, I don't have the time to redo the calculation including the impact of fighting defensively on AC, but I think it's a bad assumption to limit the range to creatures with numerous natural attacks. 4 Flanking orcs would have +7 to hit and have a very different interpretation over whether mirror image or the new crane wing is better.

Rogue you might also want to look at the actual damage taken in comparing mirror image to the new crane wing.


Rerednaw wrote:

Sorry read the entire thread and did not find a clarification. Maybe I missed it in the sea of posts... :)

If Crane Riposte triggers on a deflection from Crane Wing...and Crane Wing no longer deflects...how do you Riposte?

Thanks!

Crane Wing has the option of deflecting if you're taking a full defense action. So Crane Riposte would activate if you took a full defense action and your enemy still hit you despite your new +6 AC - judging by the wording you can't choose to deflect an attack that missed. Then Crane Riposte would come into play, offering you an attack of opportunity.


Petrus222 wrote:

Rogue Eidolon - Respectfully I think you may have flubbed the interpretation of your results. Unfortunately right now, I don't have the time to redo the calculation including the impact of fighting defensively on AC, but I think it's a bad assumption to limit the range to creatures with numerous natural attacks. 4 Flanking orcs would have +7 to hit and have a very different interpretation over whether mirror image or the new crane wing is better.

Rogue you might also want to look at the actual damage taken in comparing mirror image to the new crane wing.

Oh, the new crane wing is way weaker. This was all compared to the old crane wing. As for using numerous natural attacks, well, people always tell me that those are the things that Crane is weakest against. Against those four orcs, old Crane would reduce their chance to hit to even lower than the boss with four attacks at +10 to hit, and that's before you start killing the orcs to lower the chance each round. But it's true that mirror image would be pretty good against those orcs--roughly similar to the +10 to hit boss with 4 attacks (actually a bit worse, since you are more likely to lose the images to near misses with the orcs), so you can use that sample fight to represent the orcs too if you like.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squeakmaan wrote:
I gotta say, people are taking this a bit too seriously. If you don't like the change, keep it the old way, I think it's great, so I will use the new version. But maybe everybody should take a minute to chill and check your attitude.

Agreed. The guy that actually designs the stuff is taking time to explain his rationale, and you have people responding like he shot their grandma or something.

I understand taking a game seriously, but TTRPGs has always been about using the rules that make sense to you, and discarding the ones that don't. If your group really likes the old Crane Wing, then use it. No one from Paizo is going to knock down your door and tell you you're playing wrong.


Rogue Eidolon wrote:


This was all compared to the old crane wing. As for using numerous natural attacks, well, people always tell me that those are the things that Crane is weakest against.

True, but I was interested in showing that a comparatively obtainable ability (mirror image) is equivalent to or better than the old crane wing. (Which would in turn imply that it didn't need nerfing.)

Another interesting test case would be versus 4 goblin warriors with bows.

Also how did you calculate the impact of the crane block exactly? (If you calculated 1.8 hits per round for a given AC (including fighting defensively) you did you just assume that crane reduced it to 0.8 (1.8 -1?)


Tormsskull wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
I gotta say, people are taking this a bit too seriously. If you don't like the change, keep it the old way, I think it's great, so I will use the new version. But maybe everybody should take a minute to chill and check your attitude.

Agreed. The guy that actually designs the stuff is taking time to explain his rationale, and you have people responding like he shot their grandma or something.

I understand taking a game seriously, but TTRPGs has always been about using the rules that make sense to you, and discarding the ones that don't. If your group really likes the old Crane Wing, then use it. No one from Paizo is going to knock down your door and tell you you're playing wrong.

what about when the rationale is horribly uneven given other egregious examples of broken overpoweredness?


I think lumping everyone in with the worst offenders is likely to have the exact opposite effect you're looking for Tormskull. Also, exaggerating seems to be frowned on here as I've noticed in the past. I could care less about my grand mother as she's been dead longer than I've been alive, but if someone shot someone I actually cared about I imagine I'd be handling this in a different manner.


I think Crane Wing had this coming. There were enough threads popping up about it to show that whether or not it was actually balanced Crane Wing was a problem. I've seen an issue revolving around Crane Wing destroy friendships drive players to avoid PFS and go down in flame wars, once involving literal and actual fire. This is not what I would have nerfed it to, but the nerf was coming if just to shut down the daily threads about it.


Master of Many Styles is the primary reason why Crane Wing is considered broken and was also published in Ultimate Combat - was that 'errataed' by any chance? I can't access the PDF at the moment.


Petrus222 wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:


This was all compared to the old crane wing. As for using numerous natural attacks, well, people always tell me that those are the things that Crane is weakest against.
True, but I was interested in showing that a comparatively obtainable ability (mirror image) is equivalent to or better than the old crane wing. (Which would in turn imply that it didn't need nerfing.)

And I showed that it isn't.

Quote:
Another interesting test case would be versus 4 goblin warriors with bows.

Any serious crane character also has deflect arrows, just saying. Certainly both of my crane playtest characters (one homegame and one PFS) did.

Quote:

Also how did you calculate the impact of the crane block exactly? (If you calculated 1.8 hits per round for a given AC (including fighting defensively) you did you just assume that crane reduced it to 0.8 (1.8 -1?)

This is correct for expected values, which I was using. However, when expected value dropped below 0, I instead calculated the probability of a hit, rather than expected value, because in that case expected value was unfairly beneficial to Crane and I wanted to be absolutely fair,


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kudaku wrote:
Master of Many Styles is the primary reason why Crane Wing is considered broken and was also published in Ultimate Combat - was that 'errataed' by any chance? I can't access the PDF at the moment.

Of course not. Why take a scalpel to something delicate as game balance with what you could do with a Hacksaw?

But yes. Master of Many Styles is the primary reason why Crane Wing was so good.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
Master of Many Styles is the primary reason why Crane Wing is considered broken and was also published in Ultimate Combat - was that 'errataed' by any chance? I can't access the PDF at the moment.

Of course not. Why take a scalpel to something delicate as game balance with what you could do with a Hacksaw?

But yes. Master of Many Styles is the primary reason why Crane Wing was so good.

You have that backwards. Crane Wing was the primary reason Master of Many Styles was so good.

No one was ever saying, "You can dip MoMS to grab Dragon Fury."


Shisumo wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
Master of Many Styles is the primary reason why Crane Wing is considered broken and was also published in Ultimate Combat - was that 'errataed' by any chance? I can't access the PDF at the moment.

Of course not. Why take a scalpel to something delicate as game balance with what you could do with a Hacksaw?

But yes. Master of Many Styles is the primary reason why Crane Wing was so good.

You have that backwards. Crane Wing was the primary reason Master of Many Styles was so good.

No one was ever saying, "You can dip MoMS to grab Dragon Fury."

I've actually seen a MoMS dip that was mainly to bypass Snake Sidewind, since Snake Sidewind is a really really weak feat (way worse than the nerfed Crane Wing) because it uses up the same immediate action that the other Snake feats use, and Snake Fang is very very good.


Shisumo wrote:

You have that backwards. Crane Wing was the primary reason Master of Many Styles was so good.

No one was ever saying, "You can dip MoMS to grab Dragon Fury."

I'd disagree with that - as has already been pointed out, Snake Style was a popular reason to go MoMS. However the main reason MoMS and Crane Wing made for good partners is because MoMS lets you pick up a mid-level feat (Crane Wing) at level 1, where most opponents only have one attack.

Crane Wing has an expiration date. The more attacks your opponent can field (which increases markedly by CR/level) the less impressive it gets.

MoMS let you jump the line and bring that feat to the front lines four levels earlier than intended.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Any serious crane character also has deflect arrows, just saying. Certainly both of my crane playtest characters (one homegame and one PFS) did.

a-HEM. Are you saying that my 12th level MoMS wasn't serious ? In my experience, there was rarely one lone sniper. If there was one bowman, there was half a dozen (too many to deflect) because they'd all focus fire on the deflecting guy after the first round when everyone in the party drew one or two shots. That, or one round was all you needed to close with them.

That's rather off topic anyway. I'll just say that in my experience even a MoMS wasn't overpowered with Crane Wing. With this nerf, I'll not likely play another one. Thank goodness my PFS monks is a Maneuver Master and not a MoMS, or I'd have to retrain or abandon it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I disagree with the manner of the adjustment of the power of Crane Wing. That so many have so much to say on the question proves the answer is important. Observing Kudaku's 'expiration date', I wonder if language like:

This block can only be made against attacks of opponents smaller than the character's size. For every 3 BAB of the character, one size category larger can be blocked. An unusually-large weapon for a wielder (does|does not) affect this limit.

...might serve well. Too late? Sure. But offered with hope.


Rogue Eidolon wrote:
And I showed that it isn't.

Like I said I need to revisit the math. I suspect I might end up with a different result and I'd like to be sure that I'm right..

Quote:
Any serious crane character also has deflect arrows, just saying. Certainly both of my crane playtest characters (one homegame and one PFS) did.

Needing that additional feat is actually an argument that crane wing didn't need to be nerfed. (...and further evidence that mirror image is superior to the feat chain.)

Quote:
However, when expected value dropped below 0, I instead calculated the probability of a hit, rather than expected value, because in that case expected value was unfairly beneficial to Crane and I wanted to be absolutely fair,

Can you explain how you calculated expected values for the number of hits? I don't see any way it could ever be less than zero. (At a minimum it would be 5% for each attack i.e. rolling a nat 20)


Caedwyr wrote:
Well, the important thing to remember is that people who push the caster vs. martial disparity are people with agendas. It's also important to remember that magic is supposed to be better and balance is done under this paradigm. Keeping these facts in mind, the only surprising thing is that an overpowered option for monks has lasted as long as it has. I feel that the nerfing to the point of uselessness and the breaking of Crane Riposte is the correct course of action and should not be a surprise to any forumgoers.

I cannot read this post as anything but satire.

At least I hope that is the case...


Petrus222 wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
And I showed that it isn't.

Like I said I need to revisit the math. I suspect I might end up with a different result and I'd like to be sure that I'm right..

Quote:
Any serious crane character also has deflect arrows, just saying. Certainly both of my crane playtest characters (one homegame and one PFS) did.

Needing that additional feat is actually an argument that crane wing didn't need to be nerfed. (...and further evidence that mirror image is superior to the feat chain.)

Quote:
However, when expected value dropped below 0, I instead calculated the probability of a hit, rather than expected value, because in that case expected value was unfairly beneficial to Crane and I wanted to be absolutely fair,
Can you explain how you calculated expected values for the number of hits? I don't see any way it could ever be less than zero. (At a minimum it would be 5% for each attack i.e. rolling a nat 20)

Expected value of 0 or lower after subtracting 1, is what I mean. I recalculated if that ever happened using chance to hit instead of expected value. I completely agree with what you say above about .05 expected value per attack.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a terrible change to the rules. This a patch I'm not applying and it goes right up there with Windows 8 and IOS7.


Not sure why my thread got moved to GD; I was originally wanting a discussion about how, or if, the new Crane Wing could be effectively useful. Admittedly, that's not what I wound up with - may as well merge the remaining comments to the existing GD thread.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I keep looking at this and I don't see the change to the feat ruining what my character did.

My character's point was to be nigh unhitable. She used the Crane feat chain to do this.

They nerfed Crane wing so I no longer get my free deflection unless I give up attacking on my turn. I still get the enhanced AC boost for fighting defensively. I can also take a total defense action if I really think that deflection is going to be super important. My earlier example of standing up from prone is a great example of this.

Also for those saying that my need to know how likely a roll is to hit really limits these feats all I can say is that it really isn't that hard to figure out approximately what a monster's to hit is after he has been wailing on you for one round. The higher your AC the easier this is to figure out.

Ex: GM: "ok so on the boss hit you two times out of his three attack."
Me: "which of the three attacks hit?"
GM: "the first and the last."
Me: "wow he hit my 32 AC with a -10 penalty. He didn't crit so that means he has to have at least a +23 to hit with his primary. I think next round I'm going to back into a hallway and take a total defense action. That way our ranger can do some good damage while I try and survive."

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
That's the thing about these ridiculous nerfs - the only people happy, the only people celebrating, the only people even approving of this change are the people who have never had any intention of actually using these feats. They're people who looked across the table, didn't like that someone was having fun with their build and campaigned against it in some misanthropic version of schudenfreud. Balance at all costs has ever been a fool's errand, but can somebody please explain to me exactly what 'problem' this crushing nerd fixes?

Yeah, this poorly thought out nerf pretty much ruins a character I had. I have just lost a lot of desire to play the game for a while.

Liberty's Edge

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
That's the thing about these ridiculous nerfs - the only people happy, the only people celebrating, the only people even approving of this change are the people who have never had any intention of actually using these feats. They're people who looked across the table, didn't like that someone was having fun with their build and campaigned against it in some misanthropic version of schudenfreud. Balance at all costs has ever been a fool's errand, but can somebody please explain to me exactly what 'problem' this crushing nerd fixes?
I'm pretty happy, and I played a Crane/Snake guy from level 1 to 7 in PFS (and was signed up to play him in Bonekeep 2 next month, which I'll have to reconsider) as well as having an Aldori Duelist cohort with Crane in a home-game Kingmaker from cohort level 5 to 12 (one time, she got into a fight with a mythic enemy where one attack provoked a chain of I think 20 AoOs between the two!). The guy I know with a Crane Soundstriker is actually even more OK than I am with the exact choices of the errata (I want to change it a little bit to make Riposte work again and give a minor buff).

I believe that Riposte still works.

Remember, specific trumps general. Just like Precise Shot negates the -4 for shooting into melee, and there are feats that stop you from provoking if you stand up from prone and others.

The precedent of feats is that they break the rules. In this case, Crane Riposte allows you to take an AoO under a very specific set of circumstances (you choose a specific attack before the dice rolls, it normally hits, and you deflect it with Crane Wing) while in Total Defense.

It didn't make it so that Crane Riposte doesn't work anymore.

Edit: Jason Buhlman confirmed


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Petrus222 wrote:
Rogue you might also want to look at the actual damage taken in comparing mirror image to the new crane wing.
Oh, the new crane wing is way weaker. This was all compared to the old crane wing.

I can comment on the mirror image thing a little bit I guess from a different perspective than Rogue (that of the player facing a given defense in enemies, rather than the GM facing a given defense in PCs). Which probably does have a fairly different perspective to offer. Our party has occasionally encountered both mirror image and style feats in enemies.

Our party that I discuss is also level 15, so the different level range compared to the PFS one and to RE's very low level analysis may also be a factor in the drastically different opinion to follow.

In my actual game, though, Mirror Image has been several times the barrier to my fighter that the old Crane Style ever was or that I suspect it would ever have become. Crane Style has been rare to encounter (probably due to the relatively harsh prerequisites and usage restrictions) and a moderate annoyance when it has been encountered. As a simple low level spell, Mirror Image has been frequently available to a wide range of enemies, and when available has proved itself a significantly more potent defense even comparing to the few enemies who possessed the style feats. It's less of a moderate annoyance and more of a recurring nemesis :p


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Mh, i think people should not blame the designers or Paizo for what their homegame GM´s make out of the game.

With the confirmation that the AoO still works those feats are still really good and powerful builds possible.

I would rather see a natural 20 always be a hit and true strike too.


First problem was the Crane Style feats were a little too good. Everyone was trying to get them. This was made possible because of MoMs, which was the real problem.

Second problem is that it should have been a monk only buff, because monks desperately need it.

But the nerf was completely too harsh. Crane Style has gone from one of the best feat chains in the game to something no one will use. They did a poor job at redesigning it imo, they should have selected something in between the extremes.


Hayato Ken wrote:

Mh, i think people should not blame the designers or Paizo for what their homegame GM´s make out of the game.

With the confirmation that the AoO still works those feats are still really good and powerful builds possible.

I would rather see a natural 20 always be a hit and true strike too.

Crane Style is a good feat still, Crane Wing and Crane Riposte are now traps due to the revision.


I honestly feel you took too much from it. You unbalanced it trying to make it balanced.

FOr example if you added this blurb. When in total defense you may take attacks of oppotunity with the fighting defensive penalty.

I think it was too nerfed without blanace brought back into it to make it a worthwhile feat.

This way a character with this feat can still use it, and serve a purpose to his team.

Right now the only use I see is blasting yourself with aura effects and then walking into the middle of bad guys and total defense.

151 to 200 of 365 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Crane Wing nerf All Messageboards