The original claim was essentially, level 5 characters are invulnerable to the mighty T-Rex and can kill them. They can do it at level 1 as a Human MoMS or level 2 as a MoMS of any race. Why? Because, eventually, the Crane Winger will roll enough natural 20s to hit the T-Rex and kill him.
Which is kinda dumb, because even if that were true, it means absolutely nothing. There will always be enemies who can be easily defeated by a particular tactic or ability.
Level 1 Strix with a Crossbow can also kill a T-rex... regardless of class....I think the T-Rex might be the problem...
Scavion, I was not the one that stated level 5. I am dealing with the idea that a monk cannot keep up fighting defensively and thus block the T-Rex's one attack per round.
so the monk should be able to have the lunge feat
Basically the thing is,
1. Without Lunge AND Enlarge, our Monk is getting wrecked before making it to melee.
2. If the Monk is already fighting defensively or using Total defense, the T-Rex can ready an action to bite you at the start of your turn before you're able to re-enable it.
The T-Rex is a s%$*ty example. The Monk does not invalidate it nor is immune to it by virtue of having Crane Style.
It's a one dimensional encounter that gets shut down by a billion tactics. Displacement effectively nullifies it 50% of the time all the time. Crane Style MAY negate it or not at all once the T-Rex realizes that it should wait for you to drop your guard like most animals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The t-Rex is the main example because it's really big and only has one attack. It's the poster child of the " crane wing is broken" people.
The t-Rex is the main example because it's really big and only has one attack. It's the poster child of the " crane wing is broken" people.
It should also be the poster child of the "I don't know how to design CR-appropriate encounters" people. Then again, those two groups seem to be pretty damn similar to one another...
Scavion, I am curious how the T-Rex is readying an action to bite me before I can re-enable it. It is a stupid animal and most readied actions would be beyond it's tactical abilities.
As for the lack of Lunge, that isn't really a problem. Im sure someone can come up with a number of ways to deal with that. In fact, a very good tactic would be a potion of Vanish or Invisibility followed by charging the T-Rex and fighting defensively.
In short, it is really not difficult to negate the 20' reach element and maintain fighting defensively all while whittling this thing down.
With that said, this is a contrived example at best. Most creatures do not have a 20 foot reach and most creatures are not going to be this stupid. But, the old version Crane Wing still had a disproportionate effect on combat and was due for a nerf.
It only had a disproportionate effect on encounters that consisted of a single creature with a single melee attack and no ability to adapt. i.e.: Really easy encounters.
The t-Rex is the main example because it's really big and only has one attack. It's the poster child of the " crane wing is broken" people.It should also be the poster child of the "I don't know how to design CR-appropriate encounters" people. Then again, those two groups seem to be pretty damn similar to one another...
It would depend entirely on the party, I think. Some might gave trouble taking on a t-rex, while for some it's a cake walk. Yeah, it's no BBEG, but sometimes you don't need one.
No, Crane Wing didn't need a nerf, the idiots designing encounters with 1-big-hit enemies needed a buff.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't see why one monster holds more value and needs to be protected more than a PC playstyle...
It would depend entirely on the party, I think. Some might gave trouble taking on a t-rex, while for some it's a cake walk. Yeah, it's no BBEG, but sometimes you don't need one.
I honestly can't think of a single reasonably balanced 8th~9th level party who would have trouble killing a T-Rex... It's a joke of an encounter, it's basically a trap of the most boring kind: Waste some time. Spend a few charges of your wand of CLW. move on.
You don't need any strategy other than "hit it repeatedly" to kill it. Hell, you don't even have to worry about it going after your casters first. The only reason a T-Rex is not a CR 2 monster is because its damage and hp are too high.
You don't send it against 8th-9th level characters. 5-6 are perfectly fine targets. :)
Anyway, this probably isn't the thread for this discussion.
It would depend entirely on the party, I think. Some might gave trouble taking on a t-rex, while for some it's a cake walk. Yeah, it's no BBEG, but sometimes you don't need one.I honestly can't think of a single reasonably balanced 8th~9th level party who would have trouble killing a T-Rex... It's a joke of an encounter, it's basically a trap of the most boring kind: Waste some time. Spend a few charges of your wand of CLW. move on.
You don't need any strategy other than "hit it repeatedly" to kill it. Hell, you don't even have to worry about it going after your casters first. The only reason a T-Rex is not a CR 2 monster is because its damage and hp are too high.
Party of rogues.
To me the disproportionate effect is that you raise your AC by +4 with only a small -1 or -2 penalty to attack and if an enemy actually manages to hit you in melee then you can automatically negate that hit.
If you were not also raising your AC by 4 then maybe I could see this being ok. But, because it is stacking a defense onto another defense it becomes a disproportionate effect.
Scavion, I am curious how the T-Rex is readying an action to bite me before I can re-enable it. It is a stupid animal and most readied actions would be beyond it's tactical abilities.
As for the lack of Lunge, that isn't really a problem. Im sure someone can come up with a number of ways to deal with that. In fact, a very good tactic would be a potion of Vanish or Invisibility followed by charging the T-Rex and fighting defensively.
In short, it is really not difficult to negate the 20' reach element and maintain fighting defensively all while whittling this thing down.
With that said, this is a contrived example at best. Most creatures do not have a 20 foot reach and most creatures are not going to be this stupid. But, the old version Crane Wing still had a disproportionate effect on combat and was due for a nerf.
Effects that last a round end at the start of your turn. Even animals know how to wait for you to let down your guard if the neighborhood stray dogs are any evidence.
A readied action to bite you before you can spend the action to fight defensively gets through Crane Wing.
Party of rogues.
Even then would do okay. Their awful saves mean nothing against a T-Rex and the creature is simply not smart enough to avoid being flanked, nor does it have anything other than melee strikes to use against the PCs.
A party composed of 4 8th level Rogues could easily stab a T-Rex to death. The monster's tactics are barely different from those of a brain-damaged 1st level Warrior with a ordinary sword...
To me the disproportionate effect is that you raise your AC by +4 with only a small -1 or -2 penalty to attack and if an enemy actually manages to hit you in melee then you can automatically negate that hit.
If you were not also raising your AC by 4 then maybe I could see this being ok. But, because it is stacking a defense onto another defense it becomes a disproportionate effect.
Raising AC is really, really easy... In fact, it's cheaper than raising damage output. I don't see anyone claiming characters with Combat Expertise and a shield are OP.
If a player invested that much in defense (and CW takes quite a investment) let the player have good defenses! That's the whole point of his build!
Besides, Crane Style's not raising your AC, it's lowering an attack penalty!
Scavion, there is no mechanic for knowing that a creature is or is not fighting defensively so we are firmly in GM fiat territory at that point.
Scavion, there is no mechanic for knowing that a creature is or is not fighting defensively so we are firmly in GM fiat territory at that point.
Readied action to hit them at the start of their turn. Readied action to hit them if they try to take an action.
But hey if you want to save grace by calling GM Fiat that's cool too.
I'm fairly sure I can tell the difference between someone whose fighting is defense oriented and one that isn't.
Scavion, there is no mechanic for knowing that a creature is or is not fighting defensively so we are firmly in GM fiat territory at that point.
Or maybe it simply realizes it can't hit the Monk after 3 rounds and goes for an easier target... If a party could kill it in 2 rounds, despite the Monk doing nothing but a single AoO every round (probably not even that, since the T-Rex has reach), the creature was never a threat. CW or not.
Lemmy, perhaps you should re-read the old version of the feat tree. It does in fact raise the bonus you gain from Fighting Defensively by +1 in addition to reducing the attack penalty. Thus, you go from almost never using Fighting Defensively to almost always using it.
The reason you do not see anyone claiming Combat Expertise is OP is because it is a -1:+1 exchange. Fighting Defensively becomes a -1:+4 exchange due to the Crane style tree.
Oh, right because that +1 to AC is so broken... ¬¬'
A Ranger with Shield Bash and Barkskin could easily reach AC 30+ and still be much more of a threat to the T-Rex (or any other enemy) than a Monk with CW.
Lemmy, please try to understand the point here is the exchange. -1 attack for +1 AC (increased every 4 levels) is a poor exchange.
However a -1attack for +4AC is a much better exchange rate.
Most people would not use the -1:+1 exchange rate. Most people would use the -1:+4 exchange rate. Next, add on that if you do manage to hit the guy then he will negate that hit.
That is what makes the entire package flawed. It is not any single element that is flawed, it is the entire thing combined.
Oh, and remember that many monks have barkskin too. At a higher caster level than the Ranger.
Anyhow, you guys have your beliefs and I have mine. Debating this further is pointless. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what? Let the guy have his AC. AC never breaks any game past level 3, unless the GM is really, really bad at designing encounters.
Does it really matter if you have the ability to deflect a single hit when that hit only happens once in a blue moon?
Really, if you have AC 30+ at 8th level, it doesn't matter if you take 1 attack out of 8 or 1 attack out of 10. The difference is too small. CW is just gravy. And it also stops you from using 2-handed weapons (including longbows) and making AoO with it.
CW is balanced by the investment necessary and the restrictions imposed to your character's combat style.
I GMed for 3 different players with CW. Never had any problem dealing with any of them.
High ACs do not break the game past level 3? Interesting point of view. Guess all of the APs have badly designed encounters and any GM which doesn't revamp the AP must be a bad GM?
High ACs do not break the game past level 3? Interesting point of view. Guess all of the APs have badly designed encounters and any GM which doesn't revamp the AP must be a bad GM?
I haven't played many APs. I just started RotRL, so I can't comment on them. But if a single character with high AC is enough to completely bypass an encounter, then I'm fairly sure that encounter was never a real threat.
We are talking about High ACs in general, not a single character with high ACs. Your premise was that "AC never breaks any game past level 3, unless the GM is really, really bad at designing encounters." Nothing in that premise regarding a single character.
So again I ask: Do all of the APs have badly designed encounters and if a GM doesnt revamp the AP he must be a bad GM?
If AC never breaks the game (your premise) then you should be able to max out all of a party's AC (we can use WBL as a baseline for this) and toss them into an AP without modifying the AP right?
Ill answer it for you, no, you would be required to modify the AP. Thus, there is clearly a disconnect between your statement and the expected values a party should have. Ergo: yes, high ACs can break the game unless the GM modifies it to suit.
Now, since we have established that a GM has to modify the game to suit the ACs why not just modify the ACs by limiting them to something reasonable instead? Why make the GM do all of that extra work? Then it follows further that even for one attack per round having an unbeatable AC should also be limited.
Clearly, you can handle anything your players should decide to put together and that is fine for you. Heck, I have OP groups more often than not and have to ramp up my encounters by 1 or 2 CR. But, it is not always easy to rebuild creatures without handing out extra treasure. So instead of playing an unlimited arms race with my players I place limits on how far I am willing to go. This is one such limit.
Paizo should not expect every GM to have to modify the published APs just to deal with one element of the game that will break the unmodified APs. It should instead fix the broken element.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We are talking about High ACs in general, not a single character with high ACs. Your premise was that "AC never breaks any game past level 3, unless the GM is really, really bad at designing encounters." Nothing in that premise regarding a single character.
So again I ask: Do all of the APs have badly designed encounters and if a GM doesnt revamp the AP he must be a bad GM?
If AC never breaks the game (your premise) then you should be able to max out all of a party's AC (we can use WBL as a baseline for this) and toss them into an AP without modifying the AP right?
High damage and/or optimization in general causes the need for modification as well. This argument isn't a great one. A Wizard can break a ridiculous number of the APs out there.
And yet we aren't altering the base rules of the game to nerf the Wizard yeah?
APs aren't a great indicator of balance. They're built to challenge a very low amount of optimization and crumble without modification against any veteran player.
"High AC wrecks the easy on purpose APs. Clearly we need to ban high AC."
"But you can wreck APs easily through a number of means."
"NO. High AC is clearly the worst offender."
Scavion, I did not say high ACs are the only means to break the game. Lemmy's premise is that high ACs do not break the game and so I addressed that premise. Lets not play "move the goalposts". :)
I was not the one that stated level 5. I am dealing with the idea that a monk cannot keep up fighting defensively and thus block the T-Rex's one attack per round.
<_<
I guess if you want to take my comment to absurd lengths I'm wrong, after all, if the whole party has infinity AC, the campaign is indeed "broken". (Well... Unless the GM simply uses his literally infinity resources to create other ways to challenge the party).
Let me rephrase it, then... "A few characters having high AC never breaks any game". It really doesn't matter if all your front-liners are almost impossible to be hit, they can't force enemies to attack them, and their AC doesn't help their allies to stay alive.
But again, my point is... Crane Style is not a problem. It has never been a problem. It could give the character a +8 to AC and it still wouldn't be a problem. It has steep prerequisites and imposes quite a few restrictions on the character's combat style.
Other than the "Deflect 1 melee attack" thing, you can reach very similar results with a simple buckler.
A party composed exclusively of Monks and/or Fighters/Rangers who dip MoMS for CW is not a party I'd consider particularly powerful.
Scavion, I did not say high ACs are the only means to break the game. Lemmy's premise is that high ACs do not break the game and so I addressed that premise. Lets not play "move the goalposts". :)
Do you not see how silly it was to bring up the argument that high AC breaks APs then?
So what? So does a ton of other things.
APs are not a good indicator of balance.
Lemmy, please try to understand the point here is the exchange. -1 attack for +1 AC (increased every 4 levels) is a poor exchange.
However a -1attack for +4AC is a much better exchange rate.
Most people would not use the -1:+1 exchange rate. Most people would use the -1:+4 exchange rate. Next, add on that if you do manage to hit the guy then he will negate that hit.
That is what makes the entire package flawed. It is not any single element that is flawed, it is the entire thing combined.
Oh, and remember that many monks have barkskin too. At a higher caster level than the Ranger.
Anyhow, you guys have your beliefs and I have mine. Debating this further is pointless. :)
I agree with everything your saying. I waned to add though that reading this thread I think alot of players do not actually understand how fighting defensively works. That may have confused the whole issue with crane wing.
To be honest, i think the -1 +4 to ac option is the stronger benefit of crane wing and the fact that people are wining that the hit negation is gone Shows how narrow these builds were.
They should work perfectly fine with the existing options.
To be honest, i think the -1 +4 to ac option is the stronger benefit of crane wing and the fact that people are wining that the hit negation is gone Shows how narrow these builds were.
They should work perfectly fine with the existing options.
The attack negation thing was really the whole reason to take it though.
High AC is easy to get. Any Tower-Shield using fighter, or dex based Kensai can tell you that, but against enemies who have to 20 to hit you your AC doesn't matter if it's 40 or 80. Wing's deflection was the means of ensuring survivability for Gish/martials who can't afford magical means of protection, it was the safety net they needed. Sure there are other options, but it turns out Dr is harder to come by and fortification is expensive, so now there just Isn't another option that fills that niche.
I think they just need to offer a melee negation feat, not tied to Crane ala deflect arrows. Then retool crane to be a bit more forgiving with the AC boost or something.
And where does it say if you're fighting defensively, that it goes away at the beginning of your next round? Because there's nothing in the rules that sets you back to 'normal mode' as far as I can tell. That's really someone reading into something.
Not that not being able to fight defensively until you swing at an enemy you picked out makes any sense...
==Aelryinth
At this point, those still arguing that Crane Wing provides any way to completely shutdown a T-Rex are either being willfully ignorant or lack reading comprehension, at which point further communication in this medium on the matter serves no purpose.
Anyone who thinks they can build a monk, level 1-5, with Crane Style and beat a T-Rex is welcome to have their delusion disabused. Get the build, set a time, download Maptool v77. I'll run a by the book T-Rex with monk on the menu for lunch. It has a built in die roller, we can use that so no shenanigans can be called on DM or player.
Until such a time that one has actually beaten a T-Rex with a low level Crane Styler, you are engaging in armchair quarterbacking and theorycrafting of the weakest nature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And where does it say if you're fighting defensively, that it goes away at the beginning of your next round? Because there's nothing in the rules that sets you back to 'normal mode' as far as I can tell. That's really someone reading into something.
Not that not being able to fight defensively until you swing at an enemy you picked out makes any sense...
==Aelryinth
You can its called full defense. However from th core rulebook.
Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.
I can't agree that the rules for Fighting Defensively are a waste of paper. With 3 ranks in Acrobatics, an already useful skill, you can get +3 to AC and perhaps more importantly CMD in exchange for -4 to attacks. That's great against opponents with low AC but powerful attacks, a description that a lot of melee foes match. I've also found it useful when combined with Smite Evil since the primary foe is often very easy to hit but getting a little extra AC against his or her allies can be nice. Crane Style takes the situationally useful Fighting Defensively and makes it into something you might want to use all the time. Both versions of Crane Wing add something on top of that, but Crane Style seems like a pretty good feat and the beginning of a decent feat tree.
Going back to the +3/-4 trade off anybody with 3 ranks in Acrobatics can get from Fighting Defensively and considering the +4/-1 for Crane Style I think it would make more sense to have a thread complaining about Combat Expertise being subpar. That seems like a bigger problem to me since it has an inconvenient Int 13 prerequisite and serves as the crappy gateway feat to a lot of situationally useful but potentially fun combat maneuver feats which I rarely see used since a lot of players apparently think Combat Expertise is a bad investment for their melee PC. That said, I've recently seen it used pretty effectively by a dragon.
I doubt that the complaints Paizo got from the PFS GMs were based primarily around T-Rex battles. I kind of want to make some t-shirts with a bird beating up a T-Rex though. Maybe there should be an Awakened T-Rex who becomes King of his kind, the T-Rex-Rex, by learning Crane Wing. He probably wasn't using his hands for much anyhow.
The Crane Wing -1/+4 is there because you can't use a shield in your off hand. It's there to sub for not having a shield.
Of course, you get it a bit faster then you get a +3 Shield, but that's a different story.
--------
And the standard process with an action that lasts until the start of your next turn is that you can choose to continue it or end it at the start of your turn, NOT that it suddenly ends (ala Rage, etc other examples).
So, no, there's no 'dead space' in between the start of your round and having to attack again. You just continue to fight defensively by not letting it go, just like you'd continue to spend a rage round.
==Aelryinth
And the standard process with an action that lasts until the start of your next turn is that you can choose to continue it or end it at the start of your turn, NOT that it suddenly ends (ala Rage, etc other examples).So, no, there's no 'dead space' in between the start of your round and having to attack again. You just continue to fight defensively by not letting it go, just like you'd continue to spend a rage round.
Nothing in the rules for fighting defensively suggest this. To benefit from Fighting Defensively you must reuse the action every round. There is a moment of defense downtime that occurs at the start of your turn before you can reuse that action. This is reflected in the rules.
When the rules refer to a "full round", they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.
Fighting Defensively and Total Defense end at the start of your turn because they only last until the start of your next turn. It is not like Rage which lasts for a variable number of rounds for the Barbarian. There is no option to continue the bonus without spending an action.
I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion.
Change was not needed, it was fine the way it was before
I agree with everything that Scavion and and Stark_ have mentioned in the 2nd and 3rd posts of this thread. I also heavily agree with what Bardic Dave said in the 7th post.
I should point out that you can't take Attacks of Opportunity while taking total defense, so as written the second part of Crane Riposte doesn't even work anymore.I hate to say it, but Paizo has a pretty long record of missing stuff like this and accidentally writing rules that don't work / are completely useless.
Also, why is it that melee cannot have nice things? So what if a Master of Many Styles Monk can have both Crane Wing and Deflect Arrows by level 2? Monks (and any other character who decides to pick up these feats the hard way) should be threatening when you face them head on, even if there's an army of them!
|
I don't think it needed to be nerfred.
To answer the questions if the encounters in APs are badly designed. Having played and running a ap I can say without hesitation that imo the encounters are badly designed. Unoptmized npcs. Strange feat sand spell choices. Assuming the pcs are non-optimized even to a small degree. I find myself having to rewrite too many encounters to ensure the npcs survive.
Why are people saying that fighting defensively with Crane Style only gives a -1 to hit? Crane style reduces the penalty from -4 to -2.
Fighting defensively: -4 to hit, +2 to AC
Fighting defensively w/ 3 ranks in acrobatics: -4 to hit, +3 to AC
Fighting defensively w/ Crane Style: -2 to hit, +3 to AC
Fighting defensively w/ Crane Style and 3 ranks in acrobatics: -2 to hit, +4 to AC
Why are people saying that fighting defensively with Crane Style only gives a -1 to hit? Crane style reduces the penalty from -4 to -2.
Fighting defensively: -4 to hit, +2 to AC
Fighting defensively w/ 3 ranks in acrobatics: -4 to hit, +3 to AC
Fighting defensively w/ Crane Style: -2 to hit, +3 to AC
Fighting defensively w/ Crane Style and 3 ranks in acrobatics: -2 to hit, +4 to AC
The Crane Style tree reduces the penalty to -1 because of Crane Riposte.
Why are people saying that fighting defensively with Crane Style only gives a -1 to hit? Crane style reduces the penalty from -4 to -2.
Fighting defensively: -4 to hit, +2 to AC
Fighting defensively w/ 3 ranks in acrobatics: -4 to hit, +3 to AC
Fighting defensively w/ Crane Style: -2 to hit, +3 to AC
Fighting defensively w/ Crane Style and 3 ranks in acrobatics: -2 to hit, +4 to AC
When they talk about this they are talking about he whole package. Additionally everone who picks this fighting style likely also takes the trait that reduces fighting defensively.
Lemmy, perhaps you should re-read the old version of the feat tree. It does in fact raise the bonus you gain from Fighting Defensively by +1 in addition to reducing the attack penalty. Thus, you go from almost never using Fighting Defensively to almost always using it.
The reason you do not see anyone claiming Combat Expertise is OP is because it is a -1:+1 exchange. Fighting Defensively becomes a -1:+4 exchange due to the Crane style tree.
Crane Wing does none of those things. Literary, none.
Crane Style is the feat that gives the bonus and most of the reduction on the penalty, and it wasn't errataed and noone ever complained about it or decided to make a build around it. Combat Expertise was never claimed to be OP because it's usually described as crap. Being loads better than Combat Expertise is not being OP, is being decent and not-crap. And even IF it was too good, it is no excuse for nerfbombing Crane Wing.
(...)Additionally everone who picks this fighting style likely also takes the trait that reduces fighting defensively.
What's the name of this trait? The only one I know about is Threatening Defender, which improves combat expertise.