Can someone explain the great Crane Wing debacle to me?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Wiggz wrote:
wakedown wrote:

Absolutely this is/was a PFS issue.

In the past 9 months, in 150+ sessions with 250+ different players, 400+ different characters and 40+ GMs, I have new perspective on Crane Wing that I didn't have this time last year.

In your opinion, since this is/was a PFS issue, why was it not addressed in the PFS rules as countless others have been before. Entire archetypes have been done away with, whole races banned or prohibited... why did this feat have to be changed across the board for the game as a whole if the issue was specifically with organized, low level play?

It seems to me that we already have a mechanism in place for that, one that is used very, very often.

I suspect they felt it was a larger more fundamental problem, rather than races or archtypes that were more often banned because they didn't fit with the desired atmosphere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wakedown wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
.. wonder if the PFS gameplay model.. leads some people to take a different.. attitude
I'd say yes - without a doubt. I never stepped foot into a PFS (or organized play) game prior to 2013, and I will say it has dramatically altered my perspective.

I tried to word that as politely as possible since I don't want to seem condescending or insulting towards PFS players, but I envision it somewhat like the MMORPG version of Pick Up Groups versus guild or clan groups.

wakedown wrote:
It must be pretty good considering I went from 0 games to clocking in over 100 sessions in 9 months, though! :)

If anything I'm jealous, the vast majority of my PF time nowadays happens via VTT. I'd have loved to get more table games, even if it was PFS.

wakedown wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
That's really interesting! How many of those do you think used the Master of many styles dip to pick up the feat?

At least half of them.

Folks who say the MoMS dip is part of a larger problem are certainly onto something.

Personally I'm a little worried the new cookie cutter PFS build will involve Combat Reflexes and Snake Fang to dish out AoOs for misses instead. 'Errata'ing Crane Wing and leaving the MoMS / Unarmed Fighter unchanged leaves the loophole open for other combinations.

At least Snake Fang has a requirement of 3 ranks in Sense Motive so it would come online at level 3 instead of level 1.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Turgan wrote:

Morphling's example clearly is not taken from gaming experience, because dragons don't work that way.

They usually have six good attacks (all within three points of each other), not one. And they are intelligent.

Not to mention breath weapons and frequently spellcasting.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I funny story about Crane Wing. I ran a particular scenario at Who's Yer Con and had a Monk character in the party. At the last battle, he went for the main bad and got caught in a trap. He was glued to the floor. Well, that's ok is his response, waiting for the baddie's turn.

I start out be taking a five foot step away so that I could hit him with a reach weapon. Slapped away, of course, but the monk himself didn't have a reach weapon. He could slap away the single attack, but not do anything back to the bad guy.

He was laughing at this the whole while. It was a story to tell after the game was done.

Shadow Lodge

Kudaku wrote:
I tried to word that as politely as possible since I don't want to seem condescending or insulting towards PFS players, but I envision it somewhat like the MMORPG version of Pick Up Groups versus guild or clan groups.

PUGs!! I feel my rage building thinking about PUGs!

(I also apologize in advance for anything below that can be seen as insulting to folks who PUG or play PFS)

I wouldn't throw PFS as a whole under the PUG-bus.

Certainly some tables of PFS can absolutely be described as a PUG, especially when they are hard scenarios and every single person that sat down planned to play a barbarian. Sometimes it's a bunch of new players who don't even have a single wand or potion among them and 4/5th of them are unconscious.

However, PFS also draws some of the creme-le-da-creme of gamers. Many of the folks who write the game guides on here are heavy PFS players. There's also some of the most tremendous roleplayers (acting in character) I've ever seen that could certainly get careers in Holywood if they wished.

What you will see if you can manage to hit up a couple venues (stores and cons) is the full spectrum of players.

Thus PFS features both "PUGs" and "hardcore players", although I'd actually venture to say there's more hardcore folks than PUG-level folks that become regulars.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

This was not "A PFS Issue". This was an issue that happened to be brought up to attention by the PFS crowd. Is it a bigger issue there? Slightly. 1 - you can't just ban it (on a GM level). 2 - semi-required tactics. Emphasis on the slightly and semi. PFS is not full of single creature encounters, and it's not full of one attack melee bad guys (except perhaps at lower levels when that's typical).

Crane Wing was an issue whenever hits averaged close to 1 per round. That happens with hordes of baddies, pairs of golems, and (yes) even dragons sometimes, if the AC build is good enough. Not just "one attack" guys. When nothing hits, the game gets boring.

It would have been banned in my home games, and I never would let it on my character sheets in PFS. Now? It's welcome at both.


Kudaku wrote:
wakedown wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
.. wonder if the PFS gameplay model.. leads some people to take a different.. attitude
I'd say yes - without a doubt. I never stepped foot into a PFS (or organized play) game prior to 2013, and I will say it has dramatically altered my perspective.

I tried to word that as politely as possible since I don't want to seem condescending or insulting towards PFS players, but I envision it somewhat like the MMORPG version of Pick Up Groups versus guild or clan groups.

wakedown wrote:
It must be pretty good considering I went from 0 games to clocking in over 100 sessions in 9 months, though! :)

If anything I'm jealous, the vast majority of my PF time nowadays happens via VTT. I'd have loved to get more table games, even if it was PFS.

wakedown wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
That's really interesting! How many of those do you think used the Master of many styles dip to pick up the feat?

At least half of them.

Folks who say the MoMS dip is part of a larger problem are certainly onto something.

Personally I'm a little worried the new cookie cutter PFS build will involve Combat Reflexes and Snake Fang to dish out AoOs for misses instead. 'Errata'ing Crane Wing and leaving the MoMS / Unarmed Fighter unchanged leaves the loophole open for other combinations.

At least Snake Fang has a requirement of 3 ranks in Sense Motive so it would come online at level 3 instead of level 1.

But a master of many styles can ignore skill requirements, so you can take snake style at one and then grab combat reflexes with you standard level one feat. At two you go straight to snake sidewinder and your done. Go unarmed fighter or brawler fighter from there out.


Torbyne wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
wakedown wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
.. wonder if the PFS gameplay model.. leads some people to take a different.. attitude
I'd say yes - without a doubt. I never stepped foot into a PFS (or organized play) game prior to 2013, and I will say it has dramatically altered my perspective.

I tried to word that as politely as possible since I don't want to seem condescending or insulting towards PFS players, but I envision it somewhat like the MMORPG version of Pick Up Groups versus guild or clan groups.

wakedown wrote:
It must be pretty good considering I went from 0 games to clocking in over 100 sessions in 9 months, though! :)

If anything I'm jealous, the vast majority of my PF time nowadays happens via VTT. I'd have loved to get more table games, even if it was PFS.

wakedown wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
That's really interesting! How many of those do you think used the Master of many styles dip to pick up the feat?

At least half of them.

Folks who say the MoMS dip is part of a larger problem are certainly onto something.

Personally I'm a little worried the new cookie cutter PFS build will involve Combat Reflexes and Snake Fang to dish out AoOs for misses instead. 'Errata'ing Crane Wing and leaving the MoMS / Unarmed Fighter unchanged leaves the loophole open for other combinations.

At least Snake Fang has a requirement of 3 ranks in Sense Motive so it would come online at level 3 instead of level 1.
But a master of many styles can ignore skill requirements, so you can take snake style at one and then grab combat reflexes with you standard level one feat. At two you go straight to snake sidewinder and your done. Go unarmed fighter or brawler fighter from there out.

I don't think that's quite right - doesn't Snake Fang specifically say 'while using Snake Style'?


It does, but I don't see how that changes what he said.

Assuming when he said "Snake Sidewinder" he meant Snake Fang and not Snake Sidewind.


Rynjin wrote:

It does, but I don't see how that changes what he said.

Assuming when he said "Snake Sidewinder" he meant Snake Fang and not Snake Sidewind.

Poo. Yeah I got the order mixed up in my poo brain. You can skip the middle feat and be ready to go at level two.

Dark Archive

Majuba wrote:
This was not "A PFS Issue".

Indeed it was not. It was a non-issue for anyone with even an inkling of originality to them. Yes, PFS expects you to adhere to tactics as written; it also expects you to improvise to the best of your abilities when player actions invalidate the tactics. Protip: Intelligent creatures aren't just going to wail on someone they can't drop. They're going to casually stroll around them and massacre the wizard. Even animal encounters present creatures with enough intelligence (usually an int of 2) to cease attacking the one they are incapable of harming. The predatory mindset is such that you don't sit there and cry for the moon, so to speak. Say a pack of wolves encounters an alligator snapping turtle for some reason. These wolves will mess with it for a while, but odds are they're not going to keep doing that. They will realize that A.) they can't really hurt it and B.) it just tore the pack leader's eye out and withdrew so fast they didn't even have time to snap at it. The wolves will thus decide it isn't worth the energy expenditure. Apply this same logic to tough characters in and out of PFS and you will find a world of difference. Very seldom, if ever, have I read tactics in one of my scenarios that says: "Will target the toughest PC and blindly attack them in a rabid frenzy--ignores all other PCs and abandons all semblance of intelligence to tunnel vision this one person."

Sczarni

yeah prior to this ruling I just told folks they had to use full defense to utilize it or not take it... this works out better for everyone.

Dark Archive

lantzkev wrote:
yeah prior to this ruling I just told folks they had to use full defense to utilize it or not take it... this works out better for everyone.

Because making a feat useless is the right way to fix it.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just didn't like having to change the ap encounters soo much to deal with auto deflecting characters. I hadn't considered giving them a bonus to ac while fighting defensive and doing the full defense deflect thing...

but yeah. If it doesn't work for you in your home game, feel free to just say no please... I took that a step further and said "if you really want to this is the restriction, otherwise no."

Dark Archive

I dunno. It just doesn't sit right with me to punish people that are intentionally building around defenses. Someone that does that should be treated no differently than the rest of the party, at least in my opinion; they have one thing they're really good at. Blast them with magic and suddenly they ain't so good anymore. That was enough of a balancing act for me. Admittedly, I could still land hits on people using crane wing in my games.

Sczarni

The Beard wrote:
I dunno. It just doesn't sit right with me to punish people that are intentionally building around defenses. Someone that does that should be treated no differently than the rest of the party, at least in my opinion; they have one thing they're really good at. Blast them with magic and suddenly they ain't so good anymore. That was enough of a balancing act for me. Admittedly, I could still land hits on people using crane wing in my games.

I don't see how you bypass the "deflect the attack" part of crane wing.

Sure you can land hits after that... but that's not really the crux of why I said no is it?

And it's not punishing them, I told them up front about it after the first AP we ran with crane wing in it worked out a bit boringish.

Of course I also play where mooks don't crit, only bosses, that's "punishing" anyone with fort I suppose? It just makes the game duller and less suspensful when there's no need to roll the first attack with a big bad evil guy.

And to be honest if you've run adventures like say rise of the rune lords, you know that alot of mooks (like when you're fighting giants and ogres 5 lvls beneath the party are thrown in) are irrelevant with their to hit rolls vs party ac.


lantzkev wrote:
Of course I also play where mooks don't crit, only bosses, that's "punishing" anyone with fort I suppose?

I don't see how not critting punishes fort saves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Beard wrote:
I dunno. It just doesn't sit right with me to punish people that are intentionally building around defenses. Someone that does that should be treated no differently than the rest of the party, at least in my opinion; they have one thing they're really good at. Blast them with magic and suddenly they ain't so good anymore. That was enough of a balancing act for me. Admittedly, I could still land hits on people using crane wing in my games.

It's not about punishing defensive builds. It's about making sure that defensive builds don't go beyond what they're supposed to be able to do.

If there was a Feat that allowed someone to auto-succeed on an attack of their choice each round, do you think that might be considered overpowered for offensive builds, even if it involved a multi-Feat investment?

And before you say "True Strike!", consider this:
True Strike is a personal spell (limiting its accessibility), costs resources, requires a standard action to activate, and still carries a 5% miss chance.

Sczarni

fort as in fortification...

and as the analogythat redward put forth...

what if there was the following feat

FACE SMASHed!
prerequisite Weapon Focus, Intimidate 3 ranks, FACE SMASH style, and Martial weapon proficiencies.

Benefit: While power attacking, your first attack automatically hits regardless of concealment, invisibility, level of target, incorporeal, etc, this cannot be bypassed or circumvented in any way.

Would ya think people would take it?

oh and face smash style makes power attack penalty be halved.

I mean it's got like two(three) "feat taxes" in there.


redward wrote:
If there was a Feat that allowed someone to auto-succeed on an attack of their choice each round, do you think that might be considered overpowered for offensive builds, even if it involved a multi-Feat investment?

Keep in mind that the game is changed a lot more by auto-hitting than by auto-missing. Things that die tend to do less than things who can choose to do something else.

lantzkev wrote:
fort as in fortification...

Ahh, well how is anyone supposed to know that? Especially when fort is already used for fortitude.

Sczarni

Quote:
Ahh, well how is anyone supposed to know that? Especially when fort is already used for fortitude.

What is also abbreviated as fort that affects crit chances...

Dark Archive

I do not at all believe being able to automatically succeed on an attack once per round to be broken. Here's why: 1.) Devoted martial classes wind up having such a high to-hit chance that they can land blows against creatures with ACs in the 40s-50s reliably on rolls as low as 5 anyway. 2.) It removes the ability to critically hit; this particular aspect would actually invalidate the feat in the eyes of quite a number of people.

Now it'd definitely be broken if the person could apply it to their lowest BAB attack each round, but uh... that's not even close to being relevant here. Crane wing would allow you to invalidate one attack when the vast majority of enemies either use magic or possess multiple attacks.

Right now I've got a level 13 barbarian whose damage output is so ridiculously (and reliable) that it can pretty much walk up to whatever it wants within its level range and erase it in a single round. Displacement no longer works, nor do effects such as invisibility or mirror image. The barbarian has easy methods to get through all of these. Oh, and it can fly now. ... And its AC is well over 30 even while raging. Doesn't this sound a wee bit worse than crane wing? Alternatively there's a level 5 sorcerer floating around that can burn holes through CR 14 creatures; this is clearly far worse than the aforementioned barbarian.

In any case, crane wing did not offer any more of a mechanical benefit than deflect arrows. Its use came with a feat tax and was most often used as part of a defensive build, thereby sacrificing a considerable portion of that character's offensive prowess. There is nothing wrong with a character that's extremely difficult, if not almost impossible to hit with mooks. Options still open include combat maneuvers, ranged attacks of any sort, magic of any sort, and creatures with multiple attacks. What's the point in coming up with exaggeratedly overpowered hypothetical feats that are in no way even close to as balanced as crane wing? It's like comparing a cow pie to platinum. OH LAWDY, I CAN DEFLECT ONE ATTACK PER ROUND. Clearly this is comparable to:

Quote:

FACE SMASHed!

prerequisite Weapon Focus, Intimidate 3 ranks, FACE SMASH style, and Martial weapon proficiencies.

Benefit: While power attacking, your first attack automatically hits regardless of concealment, invisibility, level of target, incorporeal, etc, this cannot be bypassed or circumvented in any way.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am amused that I have a level 14 player in my campaign that is:

A) A MoMS dip for crane style/wing
B) Shocking Grasp Intensified 60 + Damager
C) Dervish Dancing
D) Defense stacked up the wazoo with 40+ AC mirror image displacement and more (heck I even let him take Kung Fu Genius [int to ac instead of wis])

and is still less disruptive than the witch using her level 1 slumber hex.

This thread would have me believe he enters our apartment and brimstone spouts and I collapse gibbering on the floor behind my DM screen.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
redward wrote:


If there was a Feat that allowed someone to auto-succeed on an attack of their choice each round, do you think that might be considered overpowered for offensive builds, even if it involved a multi-Feat investment?

Here's the thing, offense is already, hands down, the optimal route for a character to take. Defensive builds are inherently weaker because while a character may be more survivable with that investment, BECAUSE of that investment they have less capability to get things done.

A Defensive character can survive the boss easily.

An Offensive character can ANNIHILATE the boss easily.

Significantly boosting a sub-optimal build category is less unbalancing than significantly boosting the already superior option.

redward wrote:

And before you say "True Strike!", consider this:

True Strike is a personal spell (limiting its accessibility), costs resources, requires a standard action to activate, and still carries a 5% miss chance.

Mmhmm. All true.

The "still carries a 5% miss chance" point is especially good in comparison to a possible reasonable nerf to Crane Wing (can't block Nat 20s, maybe even crits of any kind. Perhaps instead negating the extra crit damage or summat, like a Jingasa can).

I (and I think others) aren't so much mad that Crane Wing was nerfed, it's that Crane Wing was DESTROYED via nerf.

A little bit of downward balancing could have ended with everybody happy. I (and I think others) could have gotten over a more reasonable nerf, which could have made the PFS people happy.

But spiking it into the ground like this? Sits poorly.

lantzkev wrote:
Quote:
Ahh, well how is anyone supposed to know that? Especially when fort is already used for fortitude.
What is also abbreviated as fort that affects crit chances...

What is "a little used ability not many people are going to think of off the top of their heads when it's using the abbreviation for an infinitely more commonly used phrase", Alex?

Dark Archive

Rynjin wrote:


I (and I think others) aren't so much mad that Crane Wing was nerfed, it's that Crane Wing was DESTROYED via nerf.

A little bit of downward balancing could have ended with everybody happy. I (and I think others) could have gotten over a more reasonable nerf, which could have made the PFS people happy.

But spiking it into the ground like this? Sits poorly.

See, this right here is da troof. Yeah, I don't feel crane wing needed a nerf at all, but I wouldn't have taken issue with it if they hadn't reduced the feat to a greasy stain on the tarrasque's left butt cheek.


I have a Tengu Hexcrafter Magus in the last book of Shattered Star who has both Deflect Arrows and Crane Wing.

My GM got annoyed when there were attacks from creatures that did Move By attacks that were nothing but "I ready an action, staying in Crane Wing. When he flies adjacent to me, I attack."

Followed by "Fly by! Attack! Rolled good!" "I deflect. Also, I get my AoO with Crane Riposte."

Now, I tend to prefer character-as-multi-tool as a play style. This character would also fly and shoot arrows at people, keeping one hand free for Deflect Arrows on the counterstrike.

As well as the more conventional Cone of Cold, Fireball, Stinking Cloud, Slow and Black Tentacles casting.

Sczarni

Quote:
What is "a little used ability not many people are going to think of off the top of their heads when it's using the abbreviation for an infinitely more commonly used phrase", Alex?

so much hate for me abbreviating fortification...

I guess I should of wrote invalidate a character with 75% fort...

either way, most astute readers can understand what fort and crit might have to do with each other...


Not hate. Just annoyance that someone was (rightfully) confused at your abbreviation of an ability that doesn't usually show up (I have never seen a person with Fortification armor myself), and is associated with something much more common, and you act like they're an idiot for not understanding what you meant.

Abbreviations that overlap should be used sparingly in the case of the least common one, otherwise confusion is sown.

It's like going on the Steam TF2 forums and asking what people think of the BB.

When there are at least 7 items I can think of off the top of my head that can be abbreviated to BB.

Even Fort when used to refer to a save is usually said as "Fort save" to avoid confusion.

Grand Lodge

AdAstraGames wrote:
This character would also fly and shoot arrows at people, keeping one hand free for Deflect Arrows on the counterstrike

How is that even possible? Bows are two handed weapons.


Rynjin wrote:
Here's the thing, offense is already, hands down, the optimal route for a character to take.
MrSin wrote:
Keep in mind that the game is changed a lot more by auto-hitting than by auto-missing. Things that die tend to do less than things who can choose to do something else.
The Beard wrote:
What's the point in coming up with exaggeratedly overpowered hypothetical feats that are in no way even close to as balanced as crane wing?
redward wrote:
If there was a Feat that allowed someone to auto-succeed on an attack of their choice each round, do you think that might be considered overpowered for offensive builds, even if it involved a multi-Feat investment?

I never said that "FACE SMASHed!*" would be comparable to Crane Wing in overall balance. I said that it would be an overpowered Feat for offensive builds. Offense is indeed generally more powerful than defense. But everything changes when you're able to selectively decide which of your attacks will hit or which attack won't hit you.

I do find it odd that the "exaggeratedly overpowered hypothetical feat" that The Beard designed didn't even reflect the most important aspect of (the old) Crane Wing and the aspect that he agreed would be broken: that you can pick which attack it deflects after the fact.

*A word on this:
Your response amounted to this:
"I do not at all believe an ability less powerful than the one you described to be broken. Here's why: 1.) reason 1 the ability you didn't describe isn't overpowered. 2.) reason 2 the ability you didn't describe isn't overpowered.

Now it'd definitely be broken if it worked as you described.

In any case, melee attacks and ranged attacks must be comparable for this sentence to have any relevance

Here's a description that ridiculous feat you didn't describe. Isn't it ridiculous?"

I don't like to throw out the s-word, but when you mount a huge argument against something I didn't say, then agree with what I did say, and then point out that this thing I didn't say is ridiculous...well...I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make.

Being able to deflect one of 5 natural attacks may not seem that great until you're selectively avoiding the one with Grab. Or a Paralyzing rider. Or a Touch attack with Energy Drain. Or the crit. Or the only one that can hit your sky-high AC.

I didn't really have a strong opinion on the change to begin with. After skimming many of these threads, I'd say that the original was ripe for abuse and a change was probably warranted.

Also, please stop with Deflect Arrows. Ranged and melee combat are entirely different beasts. Deflect Arrows doesn't work on spell effects. Ranged attacks are far less prevalent than melee attacks and your average single ranged attack is far less deadly than your average single melee attack. Can we at least agree to that?


Cheapy wrote:

There was a feat called Crane Wing in Ultimate Combat that allowed you to automatically deflect a single melee attack a round. Prior to the errata, this was noted as one of the largest problems in PFS by campaign leadership, and had spawned countless threads from frustrated GMs asking how to deal with a crane wing character, as the GM was not able to challenge the character without hurting the rest of the party. Lots of arguments over its balance.

In the end, the Design Team decided it was far too good and when the UC errata was released, people discovered that the feat changed to be something more reasonable and in the power level of other feats, rather than being the amongst the strongest feats in the game.

For reference, "take a level of Master of Many Styles monk for Crane Wing" was a dip that was highly recommended due to the astronomically large boost to defenses that Crane Wing gave a character.

A few people didn't agree with this decision, and have been fairly vocal about their displeasure.

Are you sure they're the minority here and not the majority?

Where did you get your numbers / statistics on this topic anyway?


--edit--
saw new errata on crane riposte
will be using old wing and riposte and suggest others to do so too

about the invinsibility build - diminiutive swarms are immune to weapon damage completely, nerf them so they get only +4 dodge bonus against it? BS.

Dark Archive

Quote:
Being able to deflect one of 5 natural attacks may not seem that great until you're selectively avoiding the one with Grab. Or a Paralyzing rider. Or a Touch attack with Energy Drain. Or the crit. Or the only one that can hit your sky-high AC.

What you've just describe is exactly what made crane wing useful to begin with. Being able to selectively defend yourself against the single greatest threat your enemy is coming at you with was the whole point in the feat. What's wrong with being able to negate a crit? The system makes it very easy to build characters that are literally immune to critical hits in the first place, and that's without a feat tax or building defensively to the point of cannibalizing your own offense. For that matter, what makes you think people can get their AC so high that a correctly used <insert level appropriate CR creature here> won't get through it? There are any number of ways to completely crap all over someone's high AC without having to raise the thing's hit chance at all. Besides, that person sacrificed most of their offense for the sake of having that high AC. Shouldn't they be allowed to enjoy their impressive defensive prowess? It's really nowhere near as bad as Mr. Two-Handed Fighter one shotting things with four times his own health pool due to automatic scythe crits.


Rynjin wrote:
DarkPhoenixx wrote:

--edit--

saw new errata on crane riposte
will be using old wing and riposte and suggest others to do so too
Pls read the Riposte errata.

Damn ninja :) I ninja you!


LIES!

I was never here!

Sczarni

Quote:

and you act like they're an idiot for not understanding what you meant.

Abbreviations that overlap should be used sparingly in the case of the least common one, otherwise confusion is sown.

I'm in the medical field so I appreciate someone else with this view... but if elipses make someone come off as a jerk... I guess it doesn't mean the pause think about it like I was meaning it to.


I still don't get the difference mechanically between Crane wing and deflect arrows? why is there not any deflect arrows hate?

with deflect arrows you literally just say "I deflect that arrow" and it is is deflected

with crane wing you have to be fighting defensively or take a total defense action and you get to deflect one melee attack.

in a multiple attack game why is this such a big deal?

attack one is deflected

attack 2 hits ect...

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Lobolusk wrote:
I still don't get the difference mechanically between Crane wing and deflect arrows? why is there not any deflect arrows hate?

The primary reason that Crane Wing was more powerful than and caused more problems than Deflect Arrows, is the level of power/relevance of melee attacks. It's not particularly often that the players are fighting against a single, powerful, ranged attacker who never enters melee. Ranged attackers can also more easily ignore the monk/fighter and aim exclusively at the wizard. It's harder for melee characters to bypass the front-liners, which is why they end up occasionally fighting the heroes, despite all the people who say "the smart way to handle Crane Wing is to never let the melee character do any fighting."


Oncoming_Storm wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:
This character would also fly and shoot arrows at people, keeping one hand free for Deflect Arrows on the counterstrike
How is that even possible? Bows are two handed weapons.

They are two handed weapons when you're making an attack action. They are held in one hand when you're not attacking.

The counter to it is to hold an action to shoot the pesky person with a bow and deflect arrows WHEN they attack. At that point, they don't get Deflect Arrows.

It does require that they know you have Deflect Arrows, and that they think of "anti-caster" tactics to the bird flying with a Flight Hex.


Kudaku wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:

Actually, a count of unique posters in one of those threads showed that there weren't that many people at all.

So... yeah. "A few".

There was an unofficial poll set up in one of the crane wing threads, 237 people have replied at the moment:

A: 52% thinks pre-nerf Crane Wing was well balanced and did not need a change.
B: 30% thinks Change was needed, but (Crane Wing) is now too weak and needs revision.
C: 17% thinks Change was needed, (Crane Wing) is now balanced and acceptable.

I'd say that when 82% of the respondents, almost 200 unique users, feel that the nerf went too far, it's disingenuous to refer to them as "a few posters".

"A few people" were the words used, actually.

200 unique users, out of hundreds of thousands of players.

Why do you erroneously presume that forum posters are 'worth more' as Pathfinder players?

(There may indeed be more people who "don't agree with the decision", but they're uncountable and untrackable. With the data we have available so far of those who didn't agree - it's miniscule number... hence "a few people". We might be able to go one step further than where we are, though - does anyone know the number of unique forum accounts on Paizo? The % could then be 200 out of that number. I'm going to guess it's still very tiny.)

Sovereign Court

A bandwagon argument isn't really helpful. The question really is whether they went too far nerfing it, not how many people care, agree, or disagree.

A friend of mine has a detailed analysis of the effects of the nerf.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Acedio wrote:
A friend of mine has a detailed analysis of the effects of the nerf.

Your friend's heart was in the right place, and it's great to get a start on these things, but the data is very misleading.

The chart assumes the same attack bonus on consecutive attacks, while iterative attacks are not using the same bonus. The new crane wing would change depending upon which attack is chosen in this case, which adds a third dimension to the chart.

Also, the new crane wing dodge bonus AC also applies to confirming criticals, and critical confirmation is not applied to this chart as well.

The last thing that the nerf changes is the chance % to Crane Riposte, which is not reflected at all on this chart.

I am contemplating making a graph that takes all factors into account like I did with the "Allow odd modifiers" debate.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Beard wrote:
Quote:
Being able to deflect one of 5 natural attacks may not seem that great until you're selectively avoiding the one with Grab. Or a Paralyzing rider. Or a Touch attack with Energy Drain. Or the crit. Or the only one that can hit your sky-high AC.
What you've just describe is exactly what made crane wing useful to begin with. Being able to selectively defend yourself against the single greatest threat your enemy is coming at you with was the whole point in the feat. What's wrong with being able to negate a crit? The system makes it very easy to build characters that are literally immune to critical hits in the first place, and that's without a feat tax or building defensively to the point of cannibalizing your own offense. For that matter, what makes you think people can get their AC so high that a correctly used <insert level appropriate CR creature here> won't get through it? There are any number of ways to completely crap all over someone's high AC without having to raise the thing's hit chance at all. Besides, that person sacrificed most of their offense for the sake of having that high AC. Shouldn't they be allowed to enjoy their impressive defensive prowess? It's really nowhere near as bad as Mr. Two-Handed Fighter one shotting things with four times his own health pool due to automatic scythe crits.

When I have just killed some villain with heavy damage, particularly a critical hit, I often give their corpse a conciliatory statement of "Don't worry, people tell me I sacrificed most of my offense to learn these Crane techniques. Imagine if I didn't know them--you would probably have died just from my walking into the room! At least now, you had a chance to be blocked by my positioning at a chokepoint and wholly unable to do anything for about 10 seconds--hopefully that gave you time to get your affairs in order."

I hope this disclaimer is sufficient to assist their transition to the Boneyard and accept Pharasma's harsh judgment for their vile deeds. It's better for everyone if they don't come back as some kind of vengeful undead...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arnwyn wrote:

A few people" were the words used, actually.

200 unique users, out of hundreds of thousands of players.

Why do you erroneously presume that forum posters are 'worth more' as Pathfinder players?

(There may indeed be more people who "don't agree with the decision", but they're uncountable and untrackable. With the data we have available so far of those who didn't agree - it's miniscule number... hence "a few people". We might be able to go one step further than where we are, though - does anyone know the number of unique forum accounts on Paizo? The % could then be 200 out of that number. I'm going to guess it's still very tiny.)

I don't believe I ever stated, nor presumed, that forum posters are 'worth more' as Pathfinder players. In fact, I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to put words in my mouth.

As for the poll itself:

The total number of US registered voters in 2012 was roughly 146 million.
The typical gallup poll size for US politics uses 1 000 successful phone calls, and has an error margin of +/- 4%.

While I'm certainly not stating that the poll linked has a similar accuracy, I feel reasonably confident in stating that 200 unique users is a larger percentage of Paizo's total number of unique customers, than 1000 out of 146 million voters.

That said, the poll is obviously skewed: Towards Pathfinder's (possibly more hardcore) fans who regularly visit the forums, and towards posters who have an opinion on Crane Wing errata in general - which is why I made a point of saying it was unofficial, though in hindsight I think "informal" might have been a more appropriate word.

However, instead of picking apart words, let's try to put things into perspective... At the moment the Crane Wing threads have amassed more posts in one week (the Errata was published Friday, 7 days ago) than the Arcanist threads, pre- and post-revision, gathered in four weeks of playtesting - and playtesting is both a high-activity period and draws many posters that normally don't use the forum.
Clearly Paizo still considered the Arcanist threads a viable source of community feedback, and followed them closely.

Much like they've made a point of stating (several times) that they're watching the Crane Wing threads closely, and have posted in them repeatedly.

Respectfully, "a few people didn't agree with this decision, and have been fairly vocal about their displeasure" is not an accurate summary of the situation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arnwyn wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:

Actually, a count of unique posters in one of those threads showed that there weren't that many people at all.

So... yeah. "A few".

There was an unofficial poll set up in one of the crane wing threads, 237 people have replied at the moment:

A: 52% thinks pre-nerf Crane Wing was well balanced and did not need a change.
B: 30% thinks Change was needed, but (Crane Wing) is now too weak and needs revision.
C: 17% thinks Change was needed, (Crane Wing) is now balanced and acceptable.

I'd say that when 82% of the respondents, almost 200 unique users, feel that the nerf went too far, it's disingenuous to refer to them as "a few posters".

"A few people" were the words used, actually.

200 unique users, out of hundreds of thousands of players.

Why do you erroneously presume that forum posters are 'worth more' as Pathfinder players?

(There may indeed be more people who "don't agree with the decision", but they're uncountable and untrackable. With the data we have available so far of those who didn't agree - it's miniscule number... hence "a few people". We might be able to go one step further than where we are, though - does anyone know the number of unique forum accounts on Paizo? The % could then be 200 out of that number. I'm going to guess it's still very tiny.)

And why do YOU presume the silent masses are okay with the nerf? They might agree with 'nerf was needed but not that much' or 'it was balanced'. I find it supremely arrogant of any side to just assume that the silent majority is on their side. What, you have some special superpower to know that without need of them saying anything? Are you Professor X?

A small minority, very few people, liked the nerf. The large majority of people willing to share their thoughts on the subject agree, it was way too much of an overnerf.


wakedown wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
I tried to word that as politely as possible since I don't want to seem condescending or insulting towards PFS players, but I envision it somewhat like the MMORPG version of Pick Up Groups versus guild or clan groups.
PUGs!! I feel my rage building thinking about PUGs!

Sounds like we've been playing some of the same computer games ^^

By pugs I was mainly referring to the mentality that tends to show up in them. When you have five people playing a game where they know there's a good chance that they won't really be held accountable for their actions and there's no long-term repercussions for goofing off or acting up, they tend to behave rather differently than they typically do in, say, a work or family environment.

MMORPG PUGs are often (compared to groups where everyone know one another, where it's typically more of an "us vs them" mentality) affected by, among other things, individual competitiveness: DPS meters, gear comparison, completion times...

Competitiveness strikes me as something that could still thrive in PFS.
I'm wondering if that competitiveness could result in an overrepresentation of cookie cutter builds like the dervish dance magus, pre-errata Crane Wing MoMS X, CAGM barbarian etc. For instance Aelryinth's highly theoretical THF Crane Wing fighter strikes me as someone who might be 'endured' (It's just one session, he knows the rules better than me, it's not worth the fight etc) in a PFS setting, while in a home game he'd probably have been shut down a long time ago since the GM could simply rule 0 that kind of RAITAYCPIWN.


Quote:
Competitiveness strikes me as something that could still thrive in PFS.

While competition may be interesting, competing for a better build may not be worth investing time in. Tabletop games involve far fewer dice rolls than video games do (RNGs, whatever), so the statistical margin of error is much higher. A barbarian can fail to roll above a 5 all night, but that's not really going to happen for that barbarian in a Diablo. It'd be hard to demonstrate that your build is more effective than others anywhere other than in theory.


lol wow.
I create this post to ask for clarification since I didn't understand, get my answer, and think, "well, now I understand."
So I go away for a day or so, then come back to hundreds of posts.

My most successful topic yet! XD


In all fairness, I think a lot of the controversy is really caused by some underlying issues - not the Crane Wing nerf itself but rather what the errata, as well as a string of other things, seems to suggest for Pathfinder.

While I don't entirely agree with his point of view, I think Throne did a good job of summarizing those issues in this post.

101 to 150 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can someone explain the great Crane Wing debacle to me? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.