| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main point stands that just using the Melee abilities, which are pretty impressive, the Balor would easily win against the AC of the Silver Dragon PC, but by adding Crane Wing it turns that into an almost certain loss unless he switches to spell casting.
You remain ultimately incorrect in the conclusion that Crane Wing would allow a character with those stats to defeat a Balor in melee.
Now, if we ran a fight, the balor would certainly prefer to tear apart the dragon in melee.
He'd probably prefer to do that while his summoned minion (whatever it might be, there are tons of demons with at will greater dispelling) dispelled all those defensive spells and items that you mentioned to raise an 11th level character to AC 49.
Because balors love to fight, but I don't know who would ever expect a demon to fight fair. He'd do it himself if he needed to, since he has greater dispelling, too, but for a balor, the minion-slaves are probably there to do the boring parts while he has the fun, after all.
The main point stands that just using the Melee abilities, which are pretty impressive, the Balor would easily win against the AC of the Silver Dragon PC, but by adding Crane Wing it turns that into an almost certain loss unless he switches to spell casting. And the fact that he would need to go to spell casting to me says something wrong.
I would note that the Balor prefers Melee combat (the description makes that very clear) so comments about the Balor avoiding Melee combat would be blatant metagaming. Indeed it says the Balor uses it's spell casting on those that try and avoid melee combat.
Incidentally this just proves how much of an advantage PCs have in a straight melee fight. Not that Crane Wing is super powerful or anything.
If I wanted to play as brutally possible this is how I'd run the Balor without spells.
Summon Vrolikai, Summoned Vrolikai then summons a Marilith(50%). Marilith proceeds to try to grab you each turn. Eventually she'll succeed. Balor Greater Dispel Magics your Ring to let this happen. Eventually the entangle occurs and all the while the Vrolikai is stabbing you up with energy drain. Balor and Vrolikai flank. Making it slightly easier to hit. The Vrolikai is making 9 attacks a round, the Balor 7.
The Dragon has no chance of winning even in melee.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Summons can't summon.
But seriously, this encounter is too much a curbstomp to have anything useful to say about the thread topic. Put the dragon up against CR 17s or whatever the effective level of a half young (?) dragon with 11 levels is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main point stands that just using the Melee abilities, which are pretty impressive, the Balor would easily win against the AC of the Silver Dragon PC, but by adding Crane Wing it turns that into an almost certain loss unless he switches to spell casting. And the fact that he would need to go to spell casting to me says something wrong.
I would note that the Balor prefers Melee combat (the description makes that very clear) so comments about the Balor avoiding Melee combat would be blatant metagaming. Indeed it says the Balor uses it's spell casting on those that try and avoid melee combat.
A whip is still melee combat. It's just melee combat outside of your character's ability to fight back.
Of course, considering we're dealing with a dragon PC, I can just discard your entire set of evidence by pointing out you've houseruled the game to the point you're not even playing by Pathfinder balance. Thus, the problem is your houserules, not the game balance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just for interest because someone mentioned Balors I did the Math for a Balor going 1 to 1 with the Crane Wing PC in my game.
11th lev character. When Defensive Fighting is AC = 49
The Best Sword hits on 18, the Best Whip on 19 and the rest 20'sThe chance of him getting a single hit in a round is 32.6%.
The chance of getting 2+ hits in a round is 8.2%So Crane Wing reduces the chance of this (admittedly tough) 11th level PC taking damage going 1 to 1 vs a Balor CR 20 from 40.8% per round down to 8.2%.
Now admittedly if the Balor can successfully use his Greater Dispell to knock out Mage Armour (not sure if that's with Bark Skin up) then things improve somewhat with the 1st attacks having better odds, but that's not a guaranteed success, and the Player can just recast Mage Armour.
The rest of the spells will probably be saved against.
Yeahhh...no. :\
Will save low 20's, Reflex high teens, fort inbetween, and he has Evasion and Fire Reistance from a Lesser Helm of Brillance. If that cooks off things get dicey.
He's a Silver Dragon - 1/2 Very Young (hasn't finished growing into it). With old style Crane Wing I would expect the fight to be long and hard. When Defensively fighting he only has about +19/20 to hit. He would be hampered by not having found a
Chill Touch Spell Page to buy yet. He has a couple of Hero points. + a Ring of Freedom of movement.
As a 1st lev Cleric he can cast Protection from evil. He can cast Mage Armour as a sorcerer spell. So basically it may well come down to whether the Balor can pull of a Dispell Magic + Dominate sucessfully before he runs out of hit points.
He also has a curse that allows me (the GM) to kick in rage as per the Spell as an Extrodinary ability when I feel like it. Will to resist, but I would be cheating if I said it wouldn't kick in at this time. So that increases his Will save by another point, albeit at a cost of 2 from AC.
Hahahaha. You complain that we are being niche by discussing high level play (which most APs go into the upper teens), but you keep talking about 10th level silver dragons extra GM-granted powers and hero points. I find a humorous irony there. Anyway...
Say it with me...
Greater dispel magic at will. Buffs are gone. With that caster level you don't even have to roll it (it's 1d20+20 vs DC 12). If that doesn't appropriately soften you up for the storm of SLAs that are coming for you, then telekinesis allows him to chuck stuff around at you. I'm not sure what kind of demon he'll summon with his summon SLA, but it'll likely be a demon with class levels (CR 19 demon), or maybe Balor Jr. (balor with the young template?).
I'm not sure what frosty the dragon's AC and stats are sans all of his buffs, but if he's burning actions to recast his buffs, I'm not sure what good he's doing to the balor and his minions. >_>
Meanwhile, pinning the Balor down is kind of a joke. Assuming he doesn't just keep flying around or walking about and not minding the odd AoO, he can cast greater teleport defensively without fail (1d20+28 vs DC 29) to be wherever he wants to be.
And as long as we're talking about unusual PCs, let's chat about NPCs. Our Balor has spent virtually none of his treasure. On top of that, his feats aren't particularly great. If we swap the Two-Weapon Fighting, Cleave, and Weapon Focus (longsword) out and give him Improved Unarmed Strike, Deflect Arrows, Dodge, Mobility, and Blind-fight. Now the Balor happily coasts around throwing SLAs around with impunity. Since he's proficient with bows, we could include a bow and he can take pot-shots at people while he's moving around, and you can't hit him with things like Manyshot or Vital Strike shots.
I never said I took that approach. I said I didn't consider it an appropriate approach to take. Somehow you keep trying to read that as "I took this approach".
What do you expect me to think? This is what I said.
If you are upping the stats of monsters to hit defense specialized players at rates similar to non-defensive specialized players you are doing it (GMing) wrong.
What was your response to mine? You got defensive. And then responded to this post to talk about how you don't mind your PCs being powerful, but it just seems to be an example of big numbers (and big numbers don't impress me so much as real options and actually being better at playing).
You keep saying I'm somehow trying to draw a conclusion. I made a statement that built off of yours and you got defensive, acted like I was calling you out specifically (guilty conscience? >_>) and now here we are.
What did you expect me to think when I never said you did anything but then you got defensive when I made that comment?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we can all conclusively say that a balor demon would completely trash the aforementioned dragon PC. Can't it hit in melee? That's okay! :D Use the ridiculous amount of spells you have (and can cast almost (if not literally) all of them without having to roll to cast defensively because lolbalor). Crane Wing invalidated one single means of attack. What about the other 239048204382042 bad things that can happen to a character?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder Society is nothing but a heavily house ruled version of Pathfinder.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main point stands that just using the Melee abilities, which are pretty impressive, the Balor would easily win against the AC of the Silver Dragon PC, but by adding Crane Wing it turns that into an almost certain loss unless he switches to spell casting. And the fact that he would need to go to spell casting to me says something wrong.
Why? That's the whole point of specializing in something - to be good at it!
When a character is built to be strong against melee, good for him! In that fight with a bunch of melee, the character will shine!
And then later on in the adventure, when there is less melee and more spellcasting, he won't shine for that fight... Because he isn't built to shine in that circumstance!
This whole CW thing wouldn't be an issue if GMs would start acting like Adventure Guides and stop acting like it's a game of PvP vs the Players.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has given me a brilliant idea. It is now clear to me that the tarrasque must be given no less than ten levels monk as well as access to the entire crane style line, dragon ferocity, and we'll throw in the snake style feats just for fun. I WONDER IF I CAN BEAT IT WITH A BALOR DEMON.
This has given me a brilliant idea. It is now clear to me that the tarrasque must be given no less than ten levels monk as well as access to the entire crane style line, dragon ferocity, and we'll throw in the snake style feats just for fun. I WONDER IF I CAN BEAT IT WITH A BALOR DEMON.
Not sure about balors but a pit fiend can kill the Tarrasque in that case.
This has given me a brilliant idea. It is now clear to me that the tarrasque must be given no less than ten levels monk as well as access to the entire crane style line, dragon ferocity, and we'll throw in the snake style feats just for fun. I WONDER IF I CAN BEAT IT WITH A BALOR DEMON.Not sure about balors but a pit fiend can kill the Tarrasque in that case.
Part of this being that I feel like balors are rather underpowered compared to pit fiends. Pit fiends have far more options and I'd like to see more varied abilities on the Balor. They're pretty much just a mediocre TWF routine (apparently their having vorpal weapons is supposed to make them scary somehow) plus some fair SLAs that are useful but not amazing, but pit fiends are way better.
Master of Many Styles is the culprit of many low level power imbalances. Since PFS operates at lower levels, this impacts all play levels. Instead of nerfing the feat, change master of many styles to require bonus style feats to meet the monk level requirement.
Please, please do NOT do this. The only time I have ever seen MoMS cause any kind of power imbalance was in conjunction with Crane Style! What other problems does it cause? MoMS is one of a very few things out there giving us Monk players some genuinely interesting options (and some kind of relief from the necessity to build a supposedly mobile class around full attacking, ffs), especially in early levels.
Called creatures can as can those you just happen to meet out in the "wild".Summons can't summon.
What do you mean by that?
The balor summons, so his summoned creatures cannot summon again.Gated creatures are different - are you going in that direction?
Things about a SILVER DRAGON WITH CRANE STYLESo, your Dragon PC is cursed with something that gives them BONUS to their main combat attributes...
That poor fellow.
As long as we're just making up non-standard characters to pit against monsters who don't use their best abilities in a fight, for the sake of ridiculous anecdotal evidence, I have this idea for a 1/2 very young Balor monk with Crane style. He'd be cursed with occasionally breaking out in Protection From Good.
If the GM gets frustrated with my character it's probably Crane Wing's fault.
Given that the GM is deciding when it can happen and it has resulted in attacks on the party, yes, I would call it something of a curse.
But as you say, this is a home game character, and like all home games it has it's quirks. Of course we could just rely on PFS for our data because that has no home brew and provides a consistent data set........ :D
It seems to me that the dragon Monk/cleric/sorcerer that your DM allow, pehaps his best friend, to play in your group is a bad case to balance the game around. If he/she can beat powerfull enemies then it is hardy the fault of anything the books allow.
You seem to feel that the Dragon monk/cleric/sorcerer is a bit on the powerfull side and i suggest you take it up with your group. Surely the nerf of Crane Wing is not gonna save that one.
Change was not needed, its was great because:
1. Worked like deflect arrow but for melee. I love consistency.
2. All the kung-fu style "You are unwise for attacking me, very wise bald monk that can deflect your +15 power attack with my fingers, because i am so enlightened."
3. Allowed for alternative tanking methods, using kung-fu instead of wearing your weight in steel.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a general note on the approach several here have expressed to GMing Demons/Devils.
Summoning a Demon comes with a cost. For everyone. 3rd Ed was more specific about this but even in PF it does make general mention of this (regular talk about how p1ssed they get when they are summoned ectre). So when a Demon/Devil summons another Demon it's is essentially giving it a marker. The idea that they would do this straight away in combat unless they were obviously out matched is somewhat ridiculous. Seriously if you are GMing a Balor or any similar type creature and you approach is "1st round Summon Demon" then you are doing something wrong. IMO you might as well just slap +10 to the to hit if that's what you feel the need. I honestly don't see much difference.
So the demons of the abyss who serves as captains and generals wouldn't summon a minion given the chance. Interesting....
It's definitely not the same as giving them an extra +10 to hit. One is using their available resources, the other is cheating.
PS. As a note to the person who thought I let a player have a Silver Dragon Wyrmling as a Dragon because they were my friend. - I let the whole party chose monsters upto CR6 so long as I thought I could make it work in game. The party ended up 2 Silver Wyrmlings, 1 Blodeuwedd, 1 Half-Celestial Wyrmling and a Tifleing. The Tiefling is a Witch. I have found overall they balance pretty well. The Silver Dragon with Crane Wingis the Powergamer in the group and built a combat tank, with Crane Wing been his "even when they do manage to hit me they don't" schtick which meant in melee unless I do something really funky he simply doesn't take melee damage. I have slowly learnt ways around it but by the nature of the ways around been pretty unusual I can seldom use them or it's...
not sure I should take anything you have to say seriously. You ran a highly home-brewed campaign where people got to play CR6 characters. It sounds like Crane Wing wasn't the problem, but instead it was your Powergamer who got to pick any CR6 creature. Especially when he's cursed with the horrible ability to.... oh what was that..... oh yeah, rage. I'm not saying your campaign wasn't fun, but do you really think it's a serious representation of a Pathfinder game, or that we can use it as evidence in balancing a feat.
As a general note on the approach several here have expressed to GMing Demons/Devils.
Summoning a Demon comes with a cost. For everyone. 3rd Ed was more specific about this but even in PF it does make general mention of this (regular talk about how p1ssed they get when they are summoned ectre). So when a Demon/Devil summons another Demon it's is essentially giving it a marker. The idea that they would do this straight away in combat unless they were obviously out matched is somewhat ridiculous. Seriously if you are GMing a Balor or any similar type creature and you approach is "1st round Summon Demon" then you are doing something wrong. IMO you might as well just slap +10 to the to hit if that's what you feel the need. I honestly don't see much difference.
Balors summoning. If a Balor is on the Material plane then it had to get there. While they can't be summoned by a Summon spell they can be summoned by a Planar Binding spell. As far as I can see this has the standard restriction that been summoned it can't use it's own summon powers to summon other Demons. If anyone knows better can you please point out from the rules. Edit - Never mind. Have found the definition difference in a last check - Calling rather than summoning school. :-)
PS. As a note to the person who thought I let a player have a Silver Dragon Wyrmling as a Dragon because they were my friend. - I let the whole party chose monsters upto CR6 so long as I thought I could make it work in game. The party ended up 2 Silver Wyrmlings, 1 Blodeuwedd, 1 Half-Celestial Wyrmling and a Tifleing. The Tiefling is a Witch. I have found overall they balance pretty well. The Silver Dragon with Crane Wingis the Powergamer in the group and built a combat tank, with Crane Wing been his "even when they do manage to hit me they don't" schtick which meant in melee unless I do something really funky he simply doesn't take melee damage. I have slowly learnt ways around it but by the nature of the ways around been pretty unusual I can seldom use them or it's...
i was the rude fellow and i apoligize. I did not realize that you were the GM. But i still dont undestand why it was presentet at a level 11 monk if it is a monk/socerer/cleric with a race that cost 6 levels and a supernautral bonus to STR on top. If that is the case then it is still hardly the books that are to blame for any imbalance?
Edit: and if you get tired of the guy you call a power gamer just remind him that Crane wing requiers you to have a hand free. No hands, no deflection:)
Change wasn't needed, it was balanced and acceptable.
Martials really aren't allowed nice things (except Power Attack? But since virtually every optimised melee build takes that, I guess it's overpowered and due a nerfing, right?).
Change wasn't needed, it was balanced and acceptable.
Martials really aren't allowed nice things (except Power Attack? But since virtually every optimised melee build takes that, I guess it's overpowered and due a nerfing, right?).
Power attack should be a 6 feat chain. Scaling feats of any kind must be destroyed. You will all play casters AND LIKE IT!
As a general note on the approach several here have expressed to GMing Demons/Devils.
Summoning a Demon comes with a cost. For everyone. 3rd Ed was more specific about this but even in PF it does make general mention of this (regular talk about how p1ssed they get when they are summoned ectre). So when a Demon/Devil summons another Demon it's is essentially giving it a marker. The idea that they would do this straight away in combat unless they were obviously out matched is somewhat ridiculous. Seriously if you are GMing a Balor or any similar type creature and you approach is "1st round Summon Demon" then you are doing something wrong. IMO you might as well just slap +10 to the to hit if that's what you feel the need. I honestly don't see much difference.
Balors summoning. If a Balor is on the Material plane then it had to get there. While they can't be summoned by a Summon spell they can be summoned by a Planar Binding spell. As far as I can see this has the standard restriction that been summoned it can't use it's own summon powers to summon other Demons. If anyone knows better can you please point out from the rules. Edit - Never mind. Have found the definition difference in a last check - Calling rather than summoning school. :-)
Or they paid attention to this part of the balor's entry:
On the Abyss, most balors serve demon lords as generals
or captains (those balors who don’t are even more potent,
and are known as balor lords—see below). A balor typically
commands vast legions of demons, and while it often lets
these slavering and eager minions fight its battles, the balor
is far from a coward. If presented with an opportunity to join
a fight, few balors choose to resist.
Note the part about commanding legions of demons? The balor isn't summoning someone it will owe a favor to. It's summoning a subordinate. Someone who has to obey its commands.
PPS. Sume one couldn't understand why having to resort to magic to get past Crane Wing invalidates the argument that Crane Wing wasn't a problem. Magic gets past everything. There is very little disagreement that in theory Spell Casting is the big I Win in the game (in practice not so much. Depends on the player). High level spell casting is the Nuclear bomb of power discussions. Any time your response to the strength of a build, feat ectre is "Use high level magic" then you are saying "I can beat it by dropping a nuke on it". If your support for saying someones army is weak is to say nukes will beat them then don't expect to be taken seriously. The same applies to magic in DnD/PF.
Except that most of us talking about using magic are not talking about high level magic. An acid arrow is definitely not high level, yet it can still make an effective counter to CW.
Please, please do NOT do this. The only time I have ever seen MoMS cause any kind of power imbalance was in conjunction with Crane Style! What other problems does it cause? MoMS is one of a very few things out there giving us Monk players some genuinely interesting options (and some kind of relief from the necessity to build a supposedly mobile class around full attacking, ffs), especially in early levels.
Honestly, It's a mediocre archetype that gives up far too much AB(loses flurry) for the mediocre combo of combining style feats. Yes it "gains" mobility, but not really. Every other monk had that same mobility, they just never used it cause it was better to do a flurry 80% of the time. So I say that the archetype needs to be changed, less for the potential exploits it can cause(STR based Unarmed Fighters dip the class just for Dragon Style reqs, when otherwise they would have to wait till 9th level at the earliest for entry).
I would rather see MoMS just made actual full BAB(or give it some other means of boosting AB) and lose the prerequisite bypass on style feats. Would make it much more of a capable archetype, and stop most from dipping into the class.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would rather see MoMS just made actual full BAB(or give it some other means of boosting AB) and lose the prerequisite bypass on style feats. Would make it much more of a capable archetype, and stop most from dipping into the class.
Y'know, I could actually get on board with this.
No, for the love of the death star. Don't mention Power Attack,
It might be reduced to only a -1att bonus +2damage (+1 off hand/+3 two handed).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would rather see MoMS just made actual full BAB(or give it some other means of boosting AB) and lose the prerequisite bypass on style feats. Would make it much more of a capable archetype, and stop most from dipping into the class.
That's actually not a bad idea at all. Monks really should be full BAB anyways.
I would rather see MoMS just made actual full BAB(or give it some other means of boosting AB) and lose the prerequisite bypass on style feats. Would make it much more of a capable archetype, and stop most from dipping into the class.That's actually not a bad idea at all. Monks really should be full BAB anyways.
Agreed. If you happened to play in the ACG test, you'd see that Paizo ultimately came to the same conclusion with the Brawler. Shame it'll never get folded back in on the Core Rulebook. Least not for another 5 years, or however long it takes for a Pathfinder 2.
To be honest I fail to see how Crane Wing was such an extreme game changer when Create Treasure Map (hi there 2nd lvl bard and sorcerer/wizard spell, nice to meet you at CL 3/4) could, with the same "munchkinning" as those taking Crane wing are accused of, entirely derail a PFS scenario, not to mention an AP.
Not only that, the same ways you can deal with ranged attacks, which supposedly detract from the value of Deflect Arrows, are ways to deal with melee-based characters so that they can have their effectiveness reduced by an equal amount.
But this may not be a fair comparison. What I can say, however, is that it is strange that when we are advised to not design encounters in the "traditional" 1-monster-one-way-of-attacking style they can not help but do so in the lower level PFS scenarios, which according to my reading of this topic is where most of the statistically mature number of complaints, opinions, and cries for help have come from?
There is a guide for us GMs in how to design encounters so as to make them multi-faceted and interesting to those who play them, including how to make sure that people get equal opportunities to shine over the day, are the PFS scenario designers not keeping the guide in mind for some reason?
You could also say that in 3.5 the 5th level rogue could flank against the DR 15 golem and hey he's still doing something.
Please, if this is 3.5, a smart rogue is a Flask Ninja (throwing, quick drawing Alchemist flasks).
An acid flask for a 5th level ninja deals 1d6 acid +3d6 acid sneak attack damage per hit (touch AC) plus 1 splash damage (but that isn't that great but nice side benefit). Remember only direct hits get sneak attack.Rapid shot allows an extra attack (haste works as well).
The Pathfinder banned alchemy flask from sneak attack though.
And since they did rogues started getting weaker.
Oh, in case you wonder how the Flask Ninja gets sneak attack ranged? Grease in 3.5 made you use balancing rules just by standing in it. And no golem has 5 ranks in balance. Wands/scrolls of grease of cheap (although friendly wizards can also use if nice).
Just wanted to make sure everyone saw this update to Crane Riposte in the FAQ:
Crane Riposte: With the changes made to Crane Wing, how does Crane Riposte work?
While the feat still reduced your penalty when fighting defensively, there is a change to the text the follows.
Update: Page 93, in the Crane Riposte feat, in the benefits paragraph, change the second sentence to read as follows: Whenever you are fighting defensively, and you use Crane Wing to add a dodge bonus against one attack, that attack provokes an attack of opportunity from you if it misses. In addition, when you deflect an attack using Crane Wing while taking the total defense action, you may make an attack of opportunity against that opponent (even though you could not normally do so while taking the total defense action).
—Pathfinder Design Team, Monday
If this changes your opinion of the Errata, go to page 1 of this thread and change your Favorite/Vote.
|
If this changes your opinion of the Errata, go to page 1 of this thread and change your Favorite/Vote.
Speaking for myself only, the clarification to Crane Riposte is appreciated and balanced in my opinion, but Crane Wing itself is still terrible as is. I am not really a fan of "add this bonus once a round to one roll" mechanics. A bit dull though it may be, I'd rather just have a flat bonus. As is, Dodge > current Crane Wing for me personally.
Making the whole chain a scaling fighting defensively effect could be cool and fair as well. A very quick example:
Crane Style: Reduce penalty to hit by -1, and increase AC bonus by +1. Crane Style does not stack with other class features that enhance fighting defensively or total defense.
Crane Wing: Reduce penalty to hit by -1, and increase AC bonus by an additional +1 for every 6 BAB. Can use Monk levels in place of BAB.
Crane Riposte: Reduce penalty to hit by -1, and once a round when a melee attack misses you while fighting defensively, you can take your riposte attack.
|
How bout changing the feat to something similar to the Swashbuckler class:
Opportune Parry (Ex): At 1st level, when an opponent makes a melee attack against the swashbuckler, she can spend 1 panache point and can expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt to parry that attack. The swashbuckler makes an attack roll as if she were making an attack of opportunity. If her attack roll is greater than the roll of the attacking creature, the attack automatically misses. For each size category the attacking creature is larger than the swashbuckler, the swashbuckler takes a –4 penalty on her attack roll. The swashbuckler must declare the use of this ability after the creature’s attack is announced, but before that attack roll is made.
Vorpal strike+telekenisis= Balor beats anyone depending on crane wing, or anything vulnerable to the vorpal weapon ability honestly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the errata was needed and i fully support and will still use the Crane Style feats.
Crane Style and the feat chain that goes with it is still good. I'd have to imagine alot of why some will think its bad is becasue it will be compared to what it once was rather than what it is now.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the errata was needed and i fully support and will still use the Crane Style feats.
Crane Style and the feat chain that goes with it is still good. I'd have to imagine alot of why some will think its bad is becasue it will be compared to what it once was rather than what it is now.
Betting ten bucks the character you use it with isn't a monk if you actually support it.
|
|
I think the errata was needed and i fully support and will still use the Crane Style feats.
Crane Style and the feat chain that goes with it is still good. I'd have to imagine alot of why some will think its bad is becasue it will be compared to what it once was rather than what it is now.
I'm comparing it to the Shield spell, personally.
Or I guess just using a shield. That works too.
Both are vastly superior to the current crane wing feat.
I recently built an Halfling NPC Druid(no dips) with this feat line, whom combined Feral Combat, Planar Wild Shape(for smite), Cautious Fighter, and Uncanny Defense to allow him get his AC & AB to astronomical levels(55 AC vs the Paladin IRC). I should probably mention we're a game with pretty high level of play.
I have to say that frankly, CW had next to no impact on his fighting ability. Simply fighting defensively was powerful due to Feat Synergy(Crane Style itself is still strong imo, Wing & Riposte are bad). The reduction in penalty to AB was marginal at best, as it felt no different than the impact in AB you get from Power Attack or what have you before.
The extra +4 AC was an annoyance because it meant I had to make the PC note his attacks separately and slowed down combat. As for the Riposte, most of the time his AoO's were eaten up by other PCs, leaving none left for the PC he actually wanted to Riposte as he, unlike say a Monk or Fighter might assuming they had Combat Reflexes.
Full Defense was entirely useless. The one turn he did so, the party just spent the turn positioning around him for Flanking Positions & Buffing for the next turn(with True Strikes) since he couldn't AoO and it gave up a lot of action economy as a result.
Long story short, the new Crane line is as boring as I thought it might be. It does not change my vote.
|
I recently built an Halfling NPC Druid(no dips) with this feat line, whom combined Feral Combat, Planar Wild Shape(for smite), Cautious Fighter, and Uncanny Defense to allow him get his AC & AB to astronomical levels(55 AC vs the Paladin IRC). I should probably mention we're a game with pretty high level of play.
I have to say that frankly, CW had next to no impact on his fighting ability. Simply fighting defensively was powerful due to Feat Synergy(Crane Style itself is still strong imo, Wing & Riposte are bad). The reduction in penalty to AB was marginal at best, as it felt no different than the impact in AB you get from Power Attack or what have you before.
The extra +4 AC was an annoyance because it meant I had to make the PC note his attacks separately and slowed down combat. As for the Riposte, most of the time his AoO's were eaten up by other PCs, leaving none left for the PC he actually wanted to Riposte as he, unlike say a Monk or Fighter might assuming they had Combat Reflexes.
Full Defense was entirely useless. The one turn he did so, the party just spent the turn positioning around him for Flanking Positions & Buffing for the next turn(with True Strikes) since he couldn't AoO and it gave up a lot of action economy as a result.
Long story short, the new Crane line is as boring as I thought it might be. It does not change my vote.
It is nice to see actual gameplay testing of the new Crane Wing feat. The errata Crane Wing feat is proving to be as useless as most of us expected the feat to be.
If deflect arrows is fine then cranes wing should be fine the way it was.
Not the end of the world though.
If point-blank shot is fine, point-blank slam must be as well.
If rapid shot is fine, rapid slam must be as well.
If many shot is fine, many slams must be too.
...and so on, ranged combat works differently than melee in many ways, due to feats or general rules that the comparison isn't really that easy.
I think too many allowances for missile combat have been given that make it too easy to just shoot targets without penalty. The existence of deflect arrows is almost a balancing factor, I do not think melee combat needed balancing towards that end. It is not about martials having nice things rather it nerfs martials, making enemies relying on physical attacks more useless than before.
Anyway I am all for a nerf of the feat, though I don't think it is the right nerf. I'd love to see a parry riposte feat chain so you do not need to take duelist levels just to be able to parry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the major issues with the feat were in regard to gaining access to the feat sans prerequisites ala Master of Many Styles and Unarmed fighter. You could technically get this feat before your enemies possessed iterative attacks. Yes combined with Spring Attack, you can lay a good old fashioned nickel and diming on someone and have a great defense. The problem is you are taking
Dodge
Mobility
Spring Attack
Crane Style
Crane Wing
Loss of Shield bonus
Loss of 1/2 str damage/power attack
Loss of TWF extra attacks
and this is all to negate one attack....
This feat is awesome before level 5 and pretty good after levels 6-8....
*Unless* the enemy took Expertise and Improved Feint. or a myriad of other feats that have a way of getting around this defense. You know what other feat is amazing before level 6? Furious Focus.
It's very disconcerting that an option like this, heavily restricted as it is, was deemed to be too powerful.
No offense to anyone...I mean this in the sincerest way possible...
but if you were having trouble with this feat as a GM it just might be time to hang up your hat. If it's too much of a stretch/pain to use Grappling, invisibility, concealment, darkness, multiple enemies, feinting, Spells with saves, etc(the list is actually fairly extensive)... then I don't think your players will continue to enjoy your combats to begin with. I've seen a lot of people say "Well this is ridiculous that you can deflect a colossal red dragon's tail attack" etc... You know what else is absurd? Being hit by a colossal red dragon's tail attack and not being turned into PASTE and yet that is more believable than an option to avoid said attack with the narrative of dodging the tail rather than necessitating the crane wing user physically deflect the tail. To me that is ludicrous.
A chain of feats with heavy restrictions that can be bypassed by numerous tactical options even below level 5 had no business being nerfed. Yes there are situations where the feat is strong. That's a good thing. That's like saying Favored enemy is too powerful because your GM throws a favored enemy in Every. Single. Fight. It's a GMs job to manipulate the situation their players are in. I think a lot of people who have this problem are GMs who are locked into a module. Of course they are going to have an issue with it! Who wouldn't? They can't adjust accordingly.
tl;dr - The real problem lies with obtaining the feat sans prereqs in games with GMs who are running a module and lack the ability to properly adapt.
To be fair, Feinting did not defeat the original Crane Wing, it just negated the bonuses from Fighting Defensively. However, Feint does make it easier to land maneuvers as the enemy is denied their dexterity and dodge bonus to their CMD as well.
"Change wasn't needed, it was balanced and acceptable"
Probably a problem: MoMS
To be fair, Feinting did not defeat the original Crane Wing, it just negated the bonuses from Fighting Defensively. However, Feint does make it easier to land maneuvers as the enemy is denied their dexterity and dodge bonus to their CMD as well.
If feinting actually made them Flatfooted it would have. I actually think out of all of this, which I think myself and many others have just given up on at this point, I will make a house rule to that effect.
Denied Dex = Flat footed
Sorry if you disagree. That's your problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Denied Dex = Flat footed
Sorry if you disagree. That's your problem.
Denied dexterity does not equal being flat-footed. They are separate conditions and it's not my fault if you are unaware of the rules of the game.
Denied dexterity does not equal being flat-footed. They are separate conditions and it's not my fault if you are unaware of the rules of the game.Denied Dex = Flat footed
Sorry if you disagree. That's your problem.
I feel that you are wrong.
We've had this discussion before. I was not persuaded. Nor have any of your posts on the matter persuaded me.