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
Crane Riposte used to diminish the penalty by another one. Not sure what it does now,never downloaded the errata.
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.
Pretty easily. There's nothing that says it ends at the start of your turn, only that it continues, and you can't change it, until the end of your turn.
That language is in there to make sure it affects AoO's.
I'd love to think why you think you can't choose to continue to fight defensively and instead are forced to start over every round, because there's no other identical system in the rules that I can think of.
It's as illogical as thinking that I can't be on the defensive while moving through a press of minions to engage the BBEG, but at least this form has precedent.
I'm curious as to where you got this 'gap' thinking from. I can see the whole precedent of starting a round to round action with a specific action (that's what spellcasting is, after all), but having to RESTART it each round? Where'd that come from? The only thing I can think of that is remotely comparable is rage cycling on a no-fatigue build, which is plainly considered total cheese. This is just the same thing from the opposite direction, and just as clearly contrived.
==Aelryinth
(...)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.
They are probably mixing it up with that.
Note that when you use Aldori Archetype, it also has a defensive fighting bonus.
==Aelryinth
-Change wasn't needed, it was balanced and acceptable.
The problem was the ease of acquisition since a single dip in Master of Many Styles monk would let you pick the feat up as early as level 1. It was a feat well balanced for the level when it first became traditionally available (level 5 at the earliest). The published change throws the baby out with the bathwater - a better fix would be to refine the requirements or reverse Crane Wing and Crane Deflection - that way it requires a bigger investment, comes online later, but still provides a unique and attractive quality to fighting with a free hand.
As it stands now you can simply take Crane Style for the Fighting Defensively benefits, grab a shield which will overall impact your Armor Class more than the new Crane Wing ever will, and leave the one-handers (yet again) in the dust.
I really hope this change gets rolled back.
I agree Kudaku condensing a 5 feat progression down to this few feats has the potential to be a bit unbalancing. Add to that, mitigation of the most substantial penalty, -4 to attack for fighting defensively, of the style to an inconvenient -1, and the fact that combats are dominated by melee attack gives the opportunity for a free attack every round at you highest BAB -1.
I think keeping the Fighting defensively penalty at -4 and keeping the feat progression inclusive unless the PC actually has "x" levels of Monk would keep this more in line, and prevent the one level dip that gives these substantial benefits to easily to the +1 BAB classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aelrynith, lots of abilities don't carry over to further rounds, for example many auras from Wizard School powers, or Domains, or even items, like Boots of Speed. They require an action to activate each round unless they state that they are activated for a number of rounds.
Fighting Defensively says you must attack in order to gain the benefit, same as Combat Expertise or the Defending Weapon property. At the beginning of every turn, you must make a choice between attacking, or not attacking. If you don't attack, you gain none of the above benefits, if you do attack, you can gain the above benefits.
Until you attack that round, you don't have the benefits, and they don't carry over from the previous round.
Hypothetical situation involving your claim that the benefits of Crane Style don't end at the beginning of your next turn.
Round 1,
Crane Style character moves up and attacks an orc, thereby activating Crane Style.
Orc attacks the Crane character only for it to be deflected, and the next attack misses.
An Orc Wizard shows up and starts casting a spell.
Another Martial character moves up and engages the Orc that the Crane character engaged.
Round 2, the benefits of Crane Style linger on for the Crane character.
Crane character moves away from the Orc, using his Crane Wing to deflect the AoO if it hits, because the benefits of Fighting Defensively have lingered as you claim. He activates something like a Ring of Invisiblity, which is a standard action. He hasn't attacked this round, but the effects of Fighting Defensively lingered.
So here is the question, Fighting Defensively mandates you use a Standard Action to activate it each round before attacking (but you can still make a full attack while fighting defensively despite using a standard action). We know that neither Combat Expertise nor the Defending Weapon will activate in the above Round 2 because you must attack to gain the benefits of those two abilities.
We know from the PDT that you must attack to gain the benefits of Fighting Defensively.
So in round 2, you claim that Fighting Defensively continues on until the next round, yet if you don't attack, you don't gain the benefit. So to we retroactively allow the AoO from the Orc to hit? Or do we go with the actual rules that mandate using a Standard action and attacking each round to activate Fighting Defensively?
Unless an ability says this can be maintained each round for free (like Bardic Performance) it requires the same action to activate each round. For example, the Bedevilin Aura of the Phantasm Wizard School requires a Standard action each round to activate, because Supernatural abilities costs Standard Actions unless they state otherwise.
Fighting Defensively, Combat Expertise, Auras etc. must be activated each round unless the ability says otherwise.
Wait, you think Boots of Speed need to be activated every round?
That you need to reactivate Auras, instead of letting them simply continue?
Uh, no, Tels, I'm sorry, we are in complete disagreement on this point. I have never, in 14 years of being on the 3.5 and now PF boards, seen the argument you are trying to make even BROUGHT UP.
The rules are also pretty plain that you do not gain the benefits of fighting defensively if you are unable to fight.
What happens is at the beginning of the round, you make the choice, do I continue fighting defensively, or do I take some other action?
If you want to activate that ring, you are dropping the defensive fighting. If you choose to cast a spell, you are dropping the defensive fighting.
If you choose to attack nothing, but remain in fighting posture ready to attack, or ready an action to attack, you are still fighting and may remain in defensive fighting mode.
In other words, once activated, as long as you continue to fight, you get the feat.
Your examples postulate that you can keep the benefits of fighting defensively while NOT FIGHTING. This is an error...it is the fundamental decision you make at the start of your turn, and your examples skip it.
Your examples above are skipping the defining moment where you continue to fight and qualify, or you do something else. It's directly akin to being in a rage and continuing to be in it, or dropping it...you don't have to select anew.
I'm not sure where you got the impression that actions don't carry smoothly through as long as you continue them. Ditto Boots of Haste...you can choose to keep spending the rounds by round as a free action, you don't need to 'reactivate them' every round.
===Aelryinth
Actually, the argument he is bringing up has been brought up quite a lot - including another thread we started on just this topic.
If you choose to attack nothing, but remain in fighting posture ready to attack, or ready an action to attack, you are still fighting and may remain in defensive fighting mode.
If you were fighting defensively the round before, that ended when you started your new turn. Taking a delay action, ready action, or any other action does not extend Fighting Defensively. What you can do is make another attack while fighting defensively, which would once again give you the bonuses until your next round.
There is still a gap between "fighting defensively ends at the start of my turn" and "I make my attack".
It goes a bit like this:
round 1: you make an attack, using the fighting defensively rules. You have a penalty to hit and a bonus to AC until the start of your next round.
round 1: Whatever creature you're fighting takes a ready action to attack you when you take any action/when you drop your guard/whatever.
round 2: Your turn starts, fighting defensively ends. You take any action/drop your guard/whatever - which is immediately interrupted by the readied action.
You are no longer fighting defensively, and cannot use Crane Wing.
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 to AC until the start of your next turn.
Aelryinth, there is no text that supports your argument. Being in a fighting posture isn't enough to fight defensively, you must make an attack. Fighting Defensively ends at the start of your turn so a readied action to smack you if you take any action interrupts and breaches the "Impenetrable" Crane Style.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The obvious answer to that tactic is that if the (single) opponent has not attacked the monk then the monk also readies an action to attack when attacked.
It becomes a standoff of "you first".
Also, your "take any action" is a bit broad. Are we talking "if the monk attacks" or are we stating any action from the CRB? As a GM would you allow a player to state such a broad readied action? How does the NPC/PC *know* it is an action? Are you counting a 5' step as an action? (It is listed as a non-action.)
While your readied action solution is a good one it brings up a number of questions and there is a counter (to ready an action).
Edit: Dang it, I gotta stop posting in this thread. I said I would stop and yet I keep getting drawn back into it. Don't you hate it when that happens? :)
Don't you hate it when that happens? :)
Eh. Kind of.
But on the other hand, I like posting. Otherwise I wouldn't be here.
So it's not so bad.
The obvious answer to that tactic is that if the (single) opponent has not attacked the monk then the monk also readies an action to attack when attacked.
It becomes a standoff of "you first".
Also, your "take any action" is a bit broad. Are we talking "if the monk attacks" or are we stating any action from the CRB? As a GM would you allow a player to state such a broad readied action? How does the NPC/PC *know* it is an action? Are you counting a 5' step as an action? (It is listed as a non-action.)
While your readied action solution is a good one it brings up a number of questions and there is a counter (to ready an action).
Edit: Dang it, I gotta stop posting in this thread. I said I would stop and yet I keep getting drawn back into it. Don't you hate it when that happens? :)
The Monk can't ready an action until his turn, while the T-Rex has already readied an action to attack before the Monk can begin Fighting Defensively again. So before the Monk can ready his action (and a readied action doesn't count as an attack for the purpose of Fighting Defensively), the T-Rex gets to go and chomp the Monk.
Also, the stand off reminds me of another thread where we talked about what happens when two Come And Get Me Barbarians with Mythic Combat Reflexes gets into a fight. Every Attack provokes and they can make infinite Attacks of Opportunity, so they end up interrupting each other forever.
Divide by 0.
LoneKnave, apparently you didn't read the readied action to attack. No, you cannot ready fighting defensively. Yes, you can ready an action to attack and use Fighting Defensively when you attack.
Tels, what specifically is the "T-Rex" (or other creature) using as a readied action? Is it "any action"? That is the premise I was responding to. If it is "Any Action" what about actions with no visible behavior? What about non-actions (such as 5' step)?
My point is that the creature performing the readied action cannot make it that broad. Any player doing so would be told no by the GM so why would the GM be able to say an NPC is doing the same? In the specific case of the T-Rex it is too stupid to do such a broad readied action to begin with and that is assuming it is has the intelligence to perform readied actions at all (something in serious doubt).
So lets just assume for a moment that this is an awakened T-Rex so we can eliminate the intelligence question. That still leaves the broad nature of the readied action, something which is firmly in GM Fiat territory.
Since such broad readied actions are typically rejected by GMs what is the specific readied action that would universally screw the monk?
Can the creature see that the monk has readied an action to attack? Can the creature see that the monk is or is not fighting defensively? With no obvious indication in the rules that you can see either then it is GM fiat.
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.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
Ah, so they are complaining about a feat and assuming yet another feat. Seems like complaining that True Strike is OP when really talking about Quickened True Strike.
LoneKnave, apparently you didn't read the readied action to attack. No, you cannot ready fighting defensively. Yes, you can ready an action to attack and use Fighting Defensively when you attack.
Tels, what specifically is the "T-Rex" (or other creature) using as a readied action? Is it "any action"? That is the premise I was responding to. If it is "Any Action" what about actions with no visible behavior? What about non-actions (such as 5' step)?
My point is that the creature performing the readied action cannot make it that broad. Any player doing so would be told no by the GM so why would the GM be able to say an NPC is doing the same? In the specific case of the T-Rex it is too stupid to do such a broad readied action to begin with and that is assuming it is has the intelligence to perform readied actions at all (something in serious doubt).
So lets just assume for a moment that this is an awakened T-Rex so we can eliminate the intelligence question. That still leaves the broad nature of the readied action, something which is firmly in GM Fiat territory.
Since such broad readied actions are typically rejected by GMs what is the specific readied action that would universally screw the monk?
Can the creature see that the monk has readied an action to attack? Can the creature see that the monk is or is not fighting defensively? With no obvious indication in the rules that you can see either then it is GM fiat.
Where does it state you have to ready an action vs some obvious indicator? For ease: Ready an Action.
No where does it state that you must ready an action that can only be triggered by an obvious indicator, only that you ready an action against a condition that triggers it.
My condition, is "I ready an action to attack after his fighting defensively condition drops, and before he restarts it".
In real life, this is waiting for someones guard to drop. It might be they shifted their foot, their hands were out of position, something caught their attention and they quickly shifted their vision to look, etc. It might even be something as watching for a lessening in the tension of their muscles or a change in their breathing.
I'll link to an anime example: Kenichi Episode 17. Now, I don't know if you are familiar with the anime or not, but I'll explain a little. Kenichi is a student of, essentially, level 20 Monks. In this clip, a rival dojo has come to 'take their sign' by fighting one of the Masters and defeating them. The Masters aren't there, so it's up to Kenichi (and Miu) to defend the dojo's. The big guy is basically a master of defense, he claims his body is like iron and he can't be hurt (aka, he's using the Crane Style tree and fighting defensively).
Kenichi is, during this episode, being taught to look for 'openings' in an opponents defense, and he has to learn to strike without being scared of a counter-attack (it happened earlier in the episode). At around 1:16, the big guy relaxes his guard, and Kenichi attacks.
In Pathfinder context, Kenichi had a readied action to attack when the Big Guy's guard was down (I think his nickname is CrabHead). Between one round and the next, the Big Guy has to restart his defensive stance (either fighting defensively, or total defense). The round starts, and the Big Guy's turn comes up, and Kenichi's readied action triggers.
Tels, so I guess the dead get to act in your games too? It does not state that they do not. Perhaps you can explain how you are aware that on the other side of the planet someone shot a bow and thus your readied action goes off?
Being aware of an action is a basic concept here. If you are not aware then you cannot use your readied action.
As for anime, how about we keep the conversation confined to Pathfinder since this is not "Anime, the RPG"? As I stated, this is still firmly in GM fiat territory and you have not shown anything to dispute that.
Personally, I think you are using a lot of metagaming type logic to prove your point but, whatever. This discussion is rather pointless anyhow as it is not really about the rules anymore and is still "Is not! Is too!"
I think I shall go do something more constructive such as consider improvements to my Wild Shape autocalculation excel file. :)
Except we all know what a dead person is and what it does (i.e.: nothing) because "dead" is very specific condition IRL. Now, "fighting defensively" is just a vague description of how someone is doing something. It could be anything from completely hiding behind a shield to simply not making any forward motion...
Besides, the rules specifically say "fighting defensively" lasts only 'til the start of your next turn, so it does end at some point.
Really the "There aren't rules for dead people being unable to move" argument is dumb and completely pointless 99% of the times it's used.
No, it is not GM Fiat territory at all. You are the one introducing a house rule that then forces it into GM Fiat territory in order to 'win' an internet debate.
Fact of the matter is, you don't need an 'obvious indicator' to trigger a readied action. This is a house rule on your part. All you need is to state the condition of the trigger, and if that condition happens, then the readied action triggers.
If you want to argue 'basic concepts' then by 'basic concepts' people who fight a lot are aware when their opponents do and do not take defensive stances. They can spot openings in their guards and momentary weak points.
So on the point of 'basic concepts' your refute still fails because 'real' people can employ the concept of striking an opening in their defense.
I think you simply have nothing to back up your argument and now you're resorting to petty little insults, like claiming dead people get to act in my games.
Fact of the matter is, you have very little, if any, ground to stand on, and instead of willing to admit that, you're going to keep trying, and failing, to make arguments against a lost cause.
I was not making an insult, asking a rhetorical question is not an insult. It is a way of demonstrating a point.
I was going to write up more but this is really going nowhere. There are always alternatives even if you choose to ignore them. :)
Its been bugging me but why is the T-rex used as an example? Now the first thought is 'because it has 1 attack' the problem is the T-rex is used as an example because it makes the change to crane style look weak or poorly throught out.
Why not a hill giant? using a hill giant its first attack still never hits th crane wing target and its second probly misses due to the boosted Ac.
At the end of the day thoght he Crane-wing chain was used to create a 1 trick pony that directly interacted with major game mechanics associated with combat. Ie a moving creature only gets 1 attack and for levels 1-10 alot ceatures have 1 attack or at best a second one thats weaker.
the change ultiumately affects a tiny majority of the game whos Mechanical concepts hinged on that one mechanic working.(i would use character but really if your characters soule shtick is a single mechanic your not playing a characer)
This gets complicated by the boards showing, that a large chunk of the game apparently doesnt undrstand how defensive combat or the action economy works around it.
Also, your "take any action" is a bit broad. Are we talking "if the monk attacks" or are we stating any action from the CRB? As a GM would you allow a player to state such a broad readied action? How does the NPC/PC *know* it is an action? Are you counting a 5' step as an action? (It is listed as a non-action.)
I phrased it as "any action" because different GMs will interpret "ready action" triggers differently. Some GMs will think "I ready an action to attack him when he drops fighting defensively" as metagaming but "I ready an action to attack him when he drops his guard" as perfectly legitimate, other GMs don't really care. I didn't mean "any action" literally, it was more of a catch-all to accommodate different GM interpretations of what triggers a ready action.
I could probably have phrased it better.
Dang it, I gotta stop posting in this thread. I said I would stop and yet I keep getting drawn back into it. Don't you hate it when that happens? :)
I know that feeling all too well.
Obviously this is a little off topic, but...
@Eirikrautha - When I saw Awesome Display in play it was very powerful at low levels but eventually tapered off. If it is problematic it is just because it extends the useful life of the already extremely strong Color Spray spell. At least the monsters got a saving throw though. Sometimes they'd make it and give the Color Spraying PC a beatdown. I think it is the "sure thing" part of the old Crane Wing that bothered folks the most.
My PC in the same game has levels of Dirge Bard. Most enemies subject to Color Spray can be affected by Fear as well, but the save is harder to make, and the area is already 30 feet before metamagic. I've used Fear pretty sparingly since it seems more fun to actually fight stuff than just shoot it as it runs away, but I'd think most balance problems which apply to Awesome Display at levels 7+ would apply to the Dirge Bard's Fear at least as much if not more. I greatly prefer Blistering Invective and consider Fear kind of a last resort WMD or a joke to play on hopeless mooks once in a while.
Obviously this is a little off topic, but...
@Eirikrautha - When I saw Awesome Display in play it was very powerful at low levels but eventually tapered off. If it is problematic it is just because it extends the useful life of the already extremely strong Color Spray spell. At least the monsters got a saving throw though. Sometimes they'd make it and give the Color Spraying PC a beatdown. I think it is the "sure thing" part of the old Crane Wing that bothered folks the most.
Did it taper off before 10th level? A PFS character can hit 26 Charisma. With Persistent and DC boosts I don't see folks making that save.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Defending against the natural 20 is a large part of the point of crane wing. It's the martial's Misfortune/Ill Omen; get your AC/saves high enough that they can only be surpassed on a natural 20 and then block the natural 20. Congratulations, you have solved the ever-present problem of styles that rely on crippling an enemy rather than killing quickly (the ability to completely override your game plan through dumb luck because you've got the time to do it).
But only casters are allowed to cover their weaknesses, y'know.
|
I personally still like the option of Crane Wing working as it did prior to the change, but at the cost of 1 ki per deflection. That allows it to remain a very useful defensive feat, while limiting its number of uses.
@Gauss, Lemmy, Scavion regarding the discussion you were having about high AC, feat ratios of Combat Expertise vs. Crane Style, and bad AP/encounter design:
I personally think there are a lot of ways to demolish game balance. In my opinion, the three most destructive ways of doing so are as follows and in the order of what is most difficult for a GM to deal with without concocting excessive BS to match their PC's BS:
1). Max-DC God wizards. (not just for their combat ability, but for their ability to quite literally solve just about any issue, even altering reality, by just casting spells).
2). Powerful encounter and NPC lockdown builds, such as high level alchemists with their confusion/stinking cloud bombs, heavans oracles, kitsune enchanter sorcerers, ect. (these are behind the God wizard as typically at least some enemies will be immune to their tactics. those who are not just get whammied though).
3). Anything with insane DPR, such as a pounce barbarian, or double-barrel pistol pistolero. (if a baddie can't stay out of reach or otherwise block their ability to attack, they are just dead.)
In my core group's non-PFS games, we just take it easy on eachother so we can have solid PC's, but our GM won't have to design insanity to stand up to us. But let me ask you, and anyone else who is interested, this question of your preferences:
If you were running a game, and you had to deal with one of the following PCs, which would you prefer to have at your table:
1). A PC with very good AC, saves, and other special defenses who was difficult to effect, but had only a reasonable offense.
or
2). A PC with mediocre defenses, but with nearly irresistible killing power? Such as an 18th level flying, pouncing, spell sundering barbarian with an attack routine of +50/+50/+45/+40/+35 (1d8+84/19-20 x3), or a pistolero with an attack routine of +30(x2)/+30(x2)/+30(x2)/+25(x2)/+20(x2)/+15(x2) ranged touch (1d8+4d6(precision)+35/19-20 x4).
Me personally? I find the hard to effect character less destructive to the adventure every time. YMMV. And those numbers are only loosely optimized.
A better example is:
What would your PC's prefer to have sent against them? NPC 1 or NPC 2?
Kindly also note that Crane WIng's other problem, other then its nigh invulnerability, is that it was improbable, and it was boring. PC 2 gets fights over with quick...you know, like a caster. He's also squishy, and if the enemy is smart, can be crushed.
PC 1 gets fights over with...after...a...long...boring...amount...of die rolling, which gets the DM frustrated, bores the other people at the table, and starts handwaving the fight once a 'lock' is achieved.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Why do you consider NPCs vs. PCs a better example?
I am sure you will understand when I say that, while both of our perspectives are valid, they are also completely subjective and will not be shared by all.
What you find to be boring, others such as myself found enjoyable. I do not mean to say that extreme offense is boring - I find both styles enjoyable.
What I do not like about extreme offense/mid-low defense builds is that often he who rolls better for initiative wins. While this can be true to other circumstances as well, it is nearly universal for extreme offense builds vs. one another.
My purpose in bringing up the which do you prefer question is not to prove myself correct, but just to create discussion.
NPC vs PC is always a good litmus test for builds.
NPC's can't have great gear, but they can have buffs and stuff to bring them up to snuff. Which would you rather have thrown at you, this build requiring thought or this build that's going to probably kill you on the first attack?
Okay, you don't play type 2, and I won't play type 2. The DM will win in those scenarios.
Its the unwritten rule of optimizer games. If you are going to go whole hog trying to dominate the game, the DM is perfectly within his rights to do the same right back to you...and that can get ugly really fast.
YOu can do the same with caster builds.
But, yeah, table styles differ a lot from place to place.
==Aelryinth
|
|
I'm sorry, I didn't say that very clearly. Let me rephrase:
Why do you consider examining an NPC build meant to be thrown against PCs a better example than PC builds meant to go through an entire campaign?
My point of asking is because I can't imagine many players would prefer to face NPC build #2 that will just roll over them if it beats them in initiative vs. NPC build #1 that may take some time, use of underused game rules (like aid another), and clever thinking to overcome, but isn't near guaranteed death just because you biffed your initiative roll.
I also do not really get the GM vs. PC "winning" thing. I'm sure some players play that game, but I know for some gamers it's just a fact of character building being almost as fun as actually playing for them.
Again, YMMV.
As I said, it's a litmus test for fun and playstyle.
If they are willing to play that build against you, you're willing to do it against them.
Which build will be more fun? If they want rocket tag, then they are giving you permission to play rocket tag. If they want a fun, longer fight, then you'll do the same.
In other words, let them assess the builds from the standpoint of having to face them, instead of having to face the rote collection of monsters they will have to stomp all over. They should rapidly be able to come to the conclusion of which is the most fun for everyone.
'Rocket Tag' builds are adversarial builds. Just read the 'Killer DM" posts about some of the tricks his players pulled trying to dominate the game, and what happened when he used the same tricks right back on them.
==Aelryinth
A better example is:
What would your PC's prefer to have sent against them? NPC 1 or NPC 2?
Kindly also note that Crane WIng's other problem, other then its nigh invulnerability, is that it was improbable, and it was boring. PC 2 gets fights over with quick...you know, like a caster. He's also squishy, and if the enemy is smart, can be crushed.
PC 1 gets fights over with...after...a...long...boring...amount...of die rolling, which gets the DM frustrated, bores the other people at the table, and starts handwaving the fight once a 'lock' is achieved.
==Aelryinth
Number one. Obviously. A long and frustanting fight is loads better than a TPK. Always.
And hopefully the PC's will agree!
==Aelryinth
|
|
As I said, it's a litmus test for fun and playstyle.
If they are willing to play that build against you, you're willing to do it against them.
Which build will be more fun? If they want rocket tag, then they are giving you permission to play rocket tag. If they want a fun, longer fight, then you'll do the same.
In other words, let them assess the builds from the standpoint of having to face them, instead of having to face the rote collection of monsters they will have to stomp all over. They should rapidly be able to come to the conclusion of which is the most fun for everyone.
'Rocket Tag' builds are adversarial builds. Just read the 'Killer DM" posts about some of the tricks his players pulled trying to dominate the game, and what happened when he used the same tricks right back on them.
==Aelryinth
I know many people have played in bad games. I've been playing table top games for 20 years, knew what the heck I was doing for 15 years of that, and had a few GMs, games, and players who were the pits in that span.
But overall, I am having trouble understanding how your position is relevant in actual gameplay. In a game with reasonable human beings, why would it ever get so far as to require that level of adversarial play when it comes to the GM vs. PC sides of the table?
If we are speaking purely theoretically for the sake of optimization comparison though, that is a conversation I am happy to have, but invalidates GM vs. PC issues.
As I said, it's a litmus test for fun and playstyle.
If they are willing to play that build against you, you're willing to do it against them.
Which build will be more fun? If they want rocket tag, then they are giving you permission to play rocket tag. If they want a fun, longer fight, then you'll do the same.
In other words, let them assess the builds from the standpoint of having to face them, instead of having to face the rote collection of monsters they will have to stomp all over. They should rapidly be able to come to the conclusion of which is the most fun for everyone.
'Rocket Tag' builds are adversarial builds. Just read the 'Killer DM" posts about some of the tricks his players pulled trying to dominate the game, and what happened when he used the same tricks right back on them.
==Aelryinth
I know many people have played in bad games. I've been playing table top games for 20 years, knew what the heck I was doing for 15 years of that, and had a few GMs, games, and players who were the pits in that span.
But overall, I am having trouble understanding how your position is relevant in actual gameplay. In a game with reasonable human beings, why would it ever get so far as to require that level of adversarial play when it comes to the GM vs. PC sides of the table?
If we are speaking purely theoretically for the sake of optimization comparison though, that is a conversation I am happy to have, but invalidates GM vs. PC issues.
I think, where he's coming from is this: when designing a character or build, as yourself how you would feel if a similar character was thrown against the party. If the answer is you absolutely do not want that to happen, then you probably shouldn't play the character. To expand it, ask your party how they would feel if a copy of your character was used as an enemy against them; if they don't want that to happen (even if you're ok with it happening), then you probably shouldn't play that character.
I can see how this would be a better example from a 'break the campaign' issue. The reason being that, if you ask a player which he would rather play, a defense specialist who wears down his opponents slowly with minimal risk, or an offense specialist who deals so much damage his minimal defense isn't usually an issue, many people will go with the offense specialist.
Why? Because the offense specialist is going to feel like a total badass. There are many people in the world (in fact, I'd go so far as to say the majority of game players) who want to see their characters be ungodly machines of destruction.
How does that apply to Pathfinder? Because in a FPS game, on the scoreboard, if you see someone with a K:D spread of 22:3, they killed a lot of people and rarely died. The defense guy, conversely, would have something more like 5:0 so he never died, but he also didn't contribute as much to the team.
Defense guys are great for objectives though, and can score lots of points by holding objectives or defending bases, while the offense specialist might be assaulting objectives or bases. So you might see a score of something like 3,000 points and 20 kills for the offense guy, and a score of 3,500 and 8 kills for the defense guy, but he scored more due to special objectives.
Regardless, for many people, playing the offense guy is more fun, because it's proactive. The defense guy might go through long periods of waiting for enemies to get to him so he can finally do something. Then he gets a chaotic few minutes of play, and then back to waiting.
But Pathfinder is an RPG not a FPS!!! Yes, this is true. But in the context of society as of today, kids are growing up playing Battlefield, Call of Duty, Halo etc. and also playing games like WoW, League of Legends, SW:TOR etc. and then they start playing games like Pathfinder, with a previous mentality of the other games.
So the new players are changing the way the game is played and thought. For them, killing is what makes them feel powerful, not surviving anything thrown at them. They will argue, that killing everything is how they survive, not slowly whittling them down.
The point is, if you give a player a choice between a killing machine that has low to decent defense, or a tank with super high defense, but low to decent offense, most people will choose that killing machine because it *feels* more heroic to be wading into enemies, tearing them limb from limb with your awesome power and being drenched in blood. People want re-enact the scene from John Carter vs the Martians, because it's an epic scene, not be the guy waiting for the enemy to come to them and take 10 minutes to kill.
TL/DR Video Games strongly influence the mentality of new players and competitive games have forced people to think in context of a Kill to Death ration as an indicator of how badass they are.
|
|
I think, where he's coming from is this
And I understand that point, which is why I said I believe most reasonably adult games just discuss those things when character planning, playing, and leveling and they don't become an issue.
I also understand the draw of playing an offense character. All the glory and such as you pointed out. I did not intend to infer otherwise, and did state I enjoy both play styles.
What I was attempting to draw conversation towards was a hypothetical "break the campaign" situation, and in that situation, was either PC 1 (the crazy defense guy) or PC 2 (crazy face murdering build) more difficult and/or frustrating for a GM to have at their table?
I think, where he's coming from is thisAnd I understand that point, which is why I said I believe most reasonably adult games just discuss those things when character planning, playing, and leveling and they don't become an issue.
I also understand the draw of playing an offense character. All the glory and such as you pointed out. I did not intend to infer otherwise, and did state I enjoy both play styles.
What I was attempting to draw conversation towards was a hypothetical "break the campaign" situation, and in that situation, was either PC 1 (the crazy defense guy) or PC 2 (crazy face murdering build) more difficult and/or frustrating for a GM to have at their table?
PC 2 hands down. The amount of crazy damage players can unleash far surpasses the limited HP creatures have. My last session saw a Level 12 Fighter/Mythic Champion 4 do something like 600+ points of damage against a Tarn Linnorm (CR 20) with max HP. Funnily enough, I'm playing a super defense Monk with pre-errata Crane Wing in that campaign and while I can be slightly annoying to hit, my offensive damage comes primarily from bonus damage dice (adding falling damage to my attacks, Mythic Elemental Fist from Monk of the Four Winds, Bane property etc), and even then, I do only a fraction of the Fighter's damage (a full attack with 6 hits dealt ~150 damage while one of his crits does ~120 damage on average).
As a GM and from a player perspective, optimized killing machines are way more troublesome than optimzed tanks. Tanks allow the Monsters to still take actions, killing machines don't because the monsters are dead.
With a tank, as a GM you can try alternative options like maneuvers, spells, inflicting conditions or penalties etc. With a killing machine, the Monster has to 'not die' in order to be effective and that can really push the limits of believability. If every creature has to have 900+ hp just to last 2 rounds, then what the hell is the point of the monster having Hp in the first place? Put a round counter on him and that's how long he has till he dies, or something like that.
|
|
PC 2 hands down.
This is my opinion as well, for many of the reasons you listed as well as others.
My point in asking that question is the hope that it will lead some people to think and/or discuss further along the lines of "why are we neutering Crane Wing when we have these still functioning as are and far more disruptive offense feats".
And hopefully the PC's will agree!
==Aelryinth
You asked a question I answered. No need to get your fellings all hurt just because you don't know what players would actually want. A difficult fight is better that a dead party. Always.
I used to play comp Pokemon and used stall teams. A game being dragged out over a hundred turns is how I knew I was doing well.
So yeah, I think I can take the couple turns that would be required to solve a Crane Wing enemy. More fun than having everything decided on a dice roll in a single turn, as far as I'm concerned.
For the record, I would like the hard to kill npc as a player, and the hard to kill player pc.
Combat lasting but 6 to 18 seconds might be realistic, but damn if it's not boring.
|
Change wasn't needed, it was balanced and acceptable.
The main use of the feat was to provide a buffer against normally unblockable attacks like natural 20s or True Strike- which could spell doom for skinny finesse characters on crits.
My weapon master fighter/duelist was going to take it next level. He's focused on mobility, baiting AOOs to free up the party, has respectable damage output, and solid AC.
When I saw the Crane Style line, I knew more nice things would be had. That nice thing can be had no more.
My group won't be touching this errata with a ten-foot pole.
EDIT: Oops, sorry for the unintended necro. Not too terrible to raise more awareness for this though, aye?
Wasn't really a necro, this thread has gone on hiatus stages every now and then.
Honestly, bringing it back up every now and then is a good thing because it shows people still aren't happy with it.
And that the prediction that after a few months we'd stop caring and move on is false.
If you were running a game, and you had to deal with one of the following PCs, which would you prefer to have at your table:
1). A PC with very good AC, saves, and other special defenses who was difficult to effect, but had only a reasonable offense.
I'd rather have PC 1 but PC 2 is acceptable as well. I have enough tools as a DM that I can challenge both respectably without feeling heavy handed.
|
|
I'd rather have PC 1 but PC 2 is acceptable as well. I have enough tools as a DM that I can challenge both respectably without feeling heavy handed.
I believe the vast majority of PCs and players can be managed between some combination of:
1). System mastery.
2). Social contract (i.e, no one make anything ridiculous please).
3). Conversation about expectations and desires ahead of playing.
So in that sense, I agree. I only brought up the PC 1 vs. PC 2 theory to highlight my belief that the powerful offensive options are considerably stronger, more detrimental to default game balance (by that I mean all PC options are a go, and the GM provides "fair" CR appropriate encounters - clearly a level 20 titan wizard will "handle" that pesky level 11 pouncing barbarian), and more difficult to work around in general than the strong defensive options. In line with that belief, it does pretty much blow my mind that Crane Wing took a dirt nap, but other offensive feats like Clustered Shots, Raging Brutality, Dazing Assault, ect. have managed to escape concern or errata.