You know what solves Crane Wing?
Gunslingers.
Which in their own right don't do much damage unless they are at a level where they can get multiple attacks.
I hate the use of the word 'mundane' here. A guy fights the equivalent of a flying fortress (an ancient dragon) armed with only a sharpened piece of steel and wins. There's nothing mundane about that.
Starting around 9th level, even the most ordinary class is transhuman. Around 12th level, even the likes of Doc Savage are left behind.
Yes, I use "mundane" as the equivalent of "not magical", but I always say that "mundane" is not the same as "ordinary".
"So, pinned. No material or somatic components. Silenced. No verbal components. Silent Spell and Eschew Materials are wasted feats. By the way, I've inserted your left foot into your right ear canal."
Obviously these are not wasted feats.
I don't know if the Crane Style feats are broken, but I can certainly see an argument made that they are, as the OP says, unbalanced.
The ability to negate an attack each round, raise your armor class, and counter attack can be pretty brutal when combined with high AC builds in a game that isn't prepared for them (as it seems like the OP's gm was not). I can imagine it gets pretty frustrating when you already need a high roll to connect with a PC, and that one high roll gets negated and thrown back in your face (on a related note, having seen this play out as a PC, Crane and Snake style can be a nightmare for the martial characters in a given game if they aren't prepared).
While I understand that there are plenty of other ways to channel a party or even a given PC, having a stable shut down so definitively can come off as excessive - and again is the sort of thing that is hard to react to on the fly if you didn't see it coming.
I see it as one of the few really good feats a Martial can get with alot of versatility. The Style feats in general are definitely a step above some of the regular feats. I wish that alot of feats were more viable and meaningful than a +1 to attack rolls.
Yeah. And the problem with Dimensional Dervish is that by the time you can get to the good stuff in it, the game will probably have ended.
anybody can take the style feats
it's just that those with monk levels have an easier time with qualifying for them, just like fighters have an easier time qualifying for power attack or improved critical
the real problem
is not crane style
it's the DM using highly specific solo monsters that have a single attack per round and thinking they would actually be a threat
Crane Style outright Kills a lone Dire Wolf or T-Rex
a lone CR 8 T-Rex is not sufficient to challenge an 8th level party, in a party of 4, each with a CR of 8, they have an EL of 12, Despite the APL of 8
against such a party
don't just use 1, let alone 4 dire wolves, to get a balanced encounter, use 16 Dire Wolves
Ever 2 monsters of the Same CR adds 2 to the CR
effectively, Every PC adds 1 to the CR
a Party of 15 8th level PCs would be EL 23
if they had 15 6th level Cohorts
Add 7.5 to the EL, round up for 8
or EL 31
such a party shouldn't be killing a single big foe, they should be killing a horde of smaller foes
Yeah. And the problem with Dimensional Dervish is that by the time you can get to the good stuff in it, the game will probably have ended.You can retrain feats so as to access Dimensional Dervish almost as soon as you gain Abundant Step.
Optional rule, no access in PFS, home games only.
Optional rule, no access in PFS, home games only.Yeah. And the problem with Dimensional Dervish is that by the time you can get to the good stuff in it, the game will probably have ended.You can retrain feats so as to access Dimensional Dervish almost as soon as you gain Abundant Step.
And it's also one of those rules that many GMs won't allow. That's the bane of optional rules.
Not to mention the days of retraining, finding a monk who has all these feats, be willing to teach you, and the gold cost.
fyi, PFS has retraining rules in the latest (5.0) guide.Yeah. And the problem with Dimensional Dervish is that by the time you can get to the good stuff in it, the game will probably have ended.You can retrain feats so as to access Dimensional Dervish almost as soon as you gain Abundant Step.Optional rule, no access in PFS, home games only.
Link please. I want to know the glaring flaws =P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with Crane Wing/Crane Riposte isn't balance. They're the fourth and fifth feats in a chain (counting IUS as the first feat).
The problem is two-fold: synergy with the rest of the game, which the game developers franky don't think about. The 3.5/PF framework is designed to accept a multitude of options; this is its strength and results in a game with a finite life cycle before it collapses in all the add-ons.
Basically, Crane Wing synergizes with other defensive abilities to make characters who get too far out of the norm if allowed "build anything you want." The GM has to be able to say "build anything you want, but base ACs over your level plus 15 are going to get hit with the nerf-hammer. Any AC you can turn on with a feat counts against that limit."
The other problem with Crane Wing and Deflect/Snatch Arrows is that they give unusual narrative control to the players by the standards of this system. They don't "cost" anything to use, so the player gets to tell the GM "No, that didn't happen" every round without an ongoing cost. (Yes, I know, the ongoing cost is a -2 to hit or a -1 to hit later on - that's negligible).
Most GMs don't like being told "no" by a player - especially when the GM gets all excited about having finally hit that AC 30+ character in the first place. It's even worse when it's a critical hit being negated...
That isn't a balance problem, that's a player/game/GM dynamic problem.
The problem with Crane Wing/Crane Riposte isn't balance. They're the fourth and fifth feats in a chain (counting IUS as the first feat).
The problem is two-fold: synergy with the rest of the game, which the game developers franky don't think about. The 3.5/PF framework is designed to accept a multitude of options; this is its strength and results in a game with a finite life cycle before it collapses in all the add-ons.
Basically, Crane Wing synergizes with other defensive abilities to make characters who get too far out of the norm if allowed "build anything you want." The GM has to be able to say "build anything you want, but base ACs over your level plus 15 are going to get hit with the nerf-hammer. Any AC you can turn on with a feat counts against that limit."
The other problem with Crane Wing and Deflect/Snatch Arrows is that they give unusual narrative control to the players by the standards of this system. They don't "cost" anything to use, so the player gets to tell the GM "No, that didn't happen" every round without an ongoing cost. (Yes, I know, the ongoing cost is a -2 to hit or a -1 to hit later on - that's negligible).
Most GMs don't like being told "no" by a player - especially when the GM gets all excited about having finally hit that AC 30+ character in the first place. It's even worse when it's a critical hit being negated...
That isn't a balance problem, that's a player/game/GM dynamic problem.
That is a very dumb idea to be frank...
So the highest AC a character can have is AC 35 at level 20? That is Stupidly bad... A typical CR 20 will hit that with no problems at all. At level 1 you would have a AC of 16 max... so the rogue with a 20 dex could only have padded armor? Oh! and god forbid he has the feat Dodge... What about the monk? It is not uncommon for a monk to run around with 16-18 AC at level 1 with NOTHING ON.
You are abitrarily going after people because they built themselves to be walls at the expense of being better hitters. So do you limit how high of a hit bonus people can have? I would hope so if you are going to arbitrarily decide that having high AC is "wrongbadfun". And if you can't figure out how to deal with high AC characters you might want to look in the mirror before deciding the game is at fault... They are NOT that hard to deal with (for a monk? catch him flat-footed/denied his dex bonus. for a Fighter wall? simply use touch spells). Heck, if anything is annoying, the Barbarian with retard levels of DR/- is more annoying than any high AC character.
Tbh the only issue I have with the crane feats is that they are easily accessed by any defensive minded martial and not just monks or unarmed fighters.
You need a free hand... that is the only requirement. Even the attack from crane riposte can be from a weapon.
If this were a monk only feat I'm not sure we'd be having this discussion. They could hand every monk a shiny new toy and I wouldnt mind.
anybody can take the style feats
it's just that those with monk levels have an easier time with qualifying for them, just like fighters have an easier time qualifying for power attack or improved critical
the real problem
is not crane style
it's the DM using highly specific solo monsters that have a single attack per round and thinking they would actually be a threat
Crane Style outright Kills a lone Dire Wolf or T-Rex
a lone CR 8 T-Rex is not sufficient to challenge an 8th level party, in a party of 4, each with a CR of 8, they have an EL of 12, Despite the APL of 8
against such a party
don't just use 1, let alone 4 dire wolves, to get a balanced encounter, use 16 Dire Wolves
Ever 2 monsters of the Same CR adds 2 to the CR
effectively, Every PC adds 1 to the CR
a Party of 15 8th level PCs would be EL 23
if they had 15 6th level Cohorts
Add 7.5 to the EL, round up for 8
or EL 31
such a party shouldn't be killing a single big foe, they should be killing a horde of smaller foes
1. Typing like this, with every sentence or idea broken up across multiple lines is a pain to read. If there is any chance you could, in the future, condense your posts into something more easily read it would probably result in more attention being paid to you.
2. You are grossly misreading how EL and CR are supposed to be handled. Yes, a party of 4 8th level characters with full wealth is effectively an ECL 12 encounter, however if you place them against another ECL 12 encounter you are not generating a 'challenge'. You are generating a fight that mathematically they should lose 50% of the time. The reason the CR system exists is so you can eyeball a challenge for the party (e.g. a T-rex) that would deplete resources but not result in a high chance of defeat.
3. At no point does the OP discuss going against a single enemy with a single attack. He makes frequent references to groups of mooks, groups of enemies, and so forth. While yes, Crane Style is effectively an auto-win (or at least stalemate) against a T-rex or other similar beast, that is not the issue that has come up here. The problem for the GM in this case was an AC significantly higher than the party average combined with Crane Style that resulted only the first attack in a given monsters selection having decent odds of connecting, and the ability to negate that hit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with Crane Wing/Crane Riposte isn't balance. They're the fourth and fifth feats in a chain (counting IUS as the first feat).
The problem is two-fold: synergy with the rest of the game, which the game developers franky don't think about. The 3.5/PF framework is designed to accept a multitude of options; this is its strength and results in a game with a finite life cycle before it collapses in all the add-ons.
Basically, Crane Wing synergizes with other defensive abilities to make characters who get too far out of the norm if allowed "build anything you want." The GM has to be able to say "build anything you want, but base ACs over your level plus 15 are going to get hit with the nerf-hammer. Any AC you can turn on with a feat counts against that limit."
The other problem with Crane Wing and Deflect/Snatch Arrows is that they give unusual narrative control to the players by the standards of this system. They don't "cost" anything to use, so the player gets to tell the GM "No, that didn't happen" every round without an ongoing cost. (Yes, I know, the ongoing cost is a -2 to hit or a -1 to hit later on - that's negligible).
Most GMs don't like being told "no" by a player - especially when the GM gets all excited about having finally hit that AC 30+ character in the first place. It's even worse when it's a critical hit being negated...
That isn't a balance problem, that's a player/game/GM dynamic problem.
That is a very dumb idea to be frank...
So the highest AC a character can have is AC 35 at level 20? That is Stupidly bad... A typical CR 20 will hit that with no problems at all. At level 1 you would have a AC of 16 max... so the rogue with a 20 dex could only have padded armor? Oh! and god forbid he has the feat Dodge... What about the monk? It is not uncommon for a monk to run around with 16-18 AC at level 1 with NOTHING ON.
You are abitrarily going after people because they built themselves to be walls at the expense of being better hitters. So do you limit how high of a hit bonus people can have? I would hope so if you are going to arbitrarily decide that having high AC is "wrongbadfun". And if you can't figure out how to deal with high AC characters you might want to look in the mirror before deciding the game is at fault... They are NOT that hard to deal with (for a monk? catch him flat-footed/denied his dex bonus. for a Fighter wall? simply use touch spells). Heck, if anything is annoying, the Barbarian with retard levels of DR/- is more annoying than any high AC character.
I think you should probably take a second Noireve and relax, as I think you are taking pieces of AdAstraGames' post out of context and interpreting them in a way that he did not mean. AdAstraGames feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think you are trying to say is...
Basically, that character design and play should work with the GM, not in a vacuum. His AC = level + 15 seems to be more of a sort of guideline example, rather than any hard and fast rule he is quoting. No doubt he would similarly extend such kinds of guidelines to other things like attack bonus, damage, and so forth in an attempt to retain a relative parity in a given party. I don't think he is singling out high AC people.
While I'm not sure I agree with the idea of any kind of hard and fast rule with most numbers (because I tend to think the game can be flexible in the hands of an experienced GM to account for even relatively large differences), I can totally understand the perspective AdAstraGames is putting forward. Games are collaborative enterprises. While you should be free to build the character you want, at some point the GM has the right to request you tone things down or mitigate them in the interest of not making him work that much harder just so you can take advantage of the most powerful given options from a number of sources to create a mechanical monstrosity.
1. Typing like this, with every sentence or idea broken up across multiple lines is a pain to read. If there is any chance you could, in the future, condense your posts into something more easily read it would probably result in more attention being paid to you.
2. You are grossly misreading how EL and CR are supposed to be handled. Yes, a party of 4 8th level characters with full wealth is effectively an ECL 12 encounter, however if you place them against another ECL 12 encounter you are not generating a 'challenge'. You are generating a fight that mathematically they should lose 50% of the time. The reason the CR system exists is so you can eyeball a challenge for the party (e.g. a T-rex) that would deplete resources but not result in a high chance of defeat.
3. At no point does the OP discuss going against a single enemy with a single attack. He makes frequent references to groups of mooks, groups of enemies, and so forth. While yes, Crane Style is effectively an auto-win (or at least stalemate) against a T-rex or other similar beast, that is not the issue that has come up here. The problem for the GM in this case was an AC significantly higher than the party average combined with Crane Style that resulted only the first attack in a given monsters selection having decent odds of connecting, and the ability to negate that hit.
sorry, but 1 or 2 Full Attacks from the Martial PCs and a handful of Happy Stick Charges is NOT 20% of party resources, it's not a consumption of resources till the spellcaster casts at least a spell or few. i use the Party's EL not their APL. makes fights more fun. a minmaxed Character of most classes can already Solo a monster up to 4 CRs above their level in 1-3 rounds depending on their luck. i can't build such a character to show off, but i have seen it. i have seen a suboptimally built dwarven non-2WF Axe and Board Fighter at level 12. solo a CR 20 NPC in 3 or 4 rounds including a few waraxe crits.
I agree, and I do not like it. There is enough uniformity already in this game.
I like that diferent things have diferent mecanics. I like that some options have their strehnt and thier weekness, I liek that the choise matters. It woudl be boring to reflavor greataxes and longsword to deal 1d6 18-20/x2. Uniformity is boring.
Why would this be more boring than what's currently in the game?
First, everyone with a full BAB takes Power Attack.
give everybody power attack and deadly aim for free
and those feat slots become open for other options beyond the norm
sorry, but 1 or 2 Full Attacks from the Martial PCs and a handful of Happy Stick Charges is NOT 20% of party resources, it's not a consumption of resources till the spellcaster casts at least a spell or few. i use the Party's EL not their APL. makes fights more fun. a minmaxed Character of most classes can already Solo a monster up to 4 CRs above their level in 1-3 rounds depending on their luck. i can't build such a character to show off, but i have seen it. i have seen a suboptimally built dwarven non-2WF Axe and Board Fighter at level 12. solo a CR 20 NPC in 3 or 4 rounds including a few waraxe crits.
While your experiences here have meaning, and have certainly affected how you and your group plays, I don't think they apply across the board. Very rarely in my group do we go through an encounter in which the spellcasters cast no spells. I suppose that sort of thing can happen easily if a group of players with a relatively high degree of system mastery go all out. I've never played in such a group.
Similarly, I suspect there were extenuating circumstances in your NPC example that resulted in him not being a true CR 20 (or the dwarf being more powerful than expected).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. If uniformity is increased is because in this game there are options that are just much better than other options. Given the opportunity all two handed non reach weapon would do 2d4 18-29/x2 of damage, because that is the best mechanical option. Given the chance, a crossbow would be just a longbow, and the like.
The make give those options the similar levels of effectiveness. This way reflavor is just about preference. Because I want my character to use nunchuk instead of a flail, or a rapier instead of a scimitar.
Homogenization is caused by poor balance, not reflavoring. If you want variety, make it so that some options are not overwhelmingly superior to others.
Reflavoring is an attempt to make your character different without gimping her because some designer thought your character concept should be vastly inferior to others.
sorry, but 1 or 2 Full Attacks from the Martial PCs and a handful of Happy Stick Charges is NOT 20% of party resources, it's not a consumption of resources till the spellcaster casts at least a spell or few. i use the Party's EL not their APL. makes fights more fun. a minmaxed Character of most classes can already Solo a monster up to 4 CRs above their level in 1-3 rounds depending on their luck. i can't build such a character to show off, but i have seen it. i have seen a suboptimally built dwarven non-2WF Axe and Board Fighter at level 12. solo a CR 20 NPC in 3 or 4 rounds including a few waraxe crits.While your experiences here have meaning, and have certainly affected how you and your group plays, I don't think they apply across the board. Very rarely in my group do we go through an encounter in which the spellcasters cast no spells. I suppose that sort of thing can happen easily if a group of players with a relatively high degree of system mastery go all out. I've never played in such a group.
Similarly, I suspect there were extenuating circumstances in your NPC example that resulted in him not being a true CR 20 (or the dwarf being more powerful than expected).
the DM was Running Karzoug the Claimer as Written a matter of Years back, RoTRL was new
it was still 3.5 at the time
the 12th level dwarf soloed the 20th level higher point buy better geared runelord in about 3-4 rounds.
the Runelord was run using the tactics published in the AP
which i cannot remember because it has been so long
I do not know how your character would be different since he is basically the same no matter what weapon he choose.
Because at least her visual image is different. It's better than if she had a scimitar instead of a rapier, like every other duelist in the world, because Dervish Dance is the only way of making a viable duelist.
Can you not see that having indentical mechanics but different fluff offers more variety than having identical mechanics and identical fluff?
Ideally, the player would be able to pick his concept and make it work without fear of sucking. Unfortunately, that's not always possible... So his choice is either suck or play a character concept he's not interested in. No one should be forced to give up so much effectiveness for flavor.
Reflavoring at least allows him to keep his character's concept.
I am saying that if there is a problem with mechanics, then the solutions should be improving the mechanics itself.
I agree, but that's not always possible. Reflavoring is a last resort. A consolation prize.
Maybe your GM is incapable or unwilling to create/approve new mechanics for your character, but he has no problems allowing you to describe her in a different way, so that's what you do.Players reflavor because they don't have access to satisfactory mechanics to represent their character concept. If DD were usable with any weapon, the guy who wants to use a rapier would simply use a rapier, but that's not possible, so he uses a scimitar and describes it as a rapier, because that's all he can do.
You know what? Let's agree to disagree. We're just walking in circles in a discussion completely unrelated to the thread's topic.
That's a problem with PFS rules, not with Monks.
Even outside of PFS retraining isn't much of an option. You're retraining 4 Feats here. That's 20 days.
How often do you have 20 days of downtime? Or even the 5 that allows you to retrain one Feat?
sorry, but 1 or 2 Full Attacks from the Martial PCs and a handful of Happy Stick Charges is NOT 20% of party resources, it's not a consumption of resources till the spellcaster casts at least a spell or few. i use the Party's EL not their APL. makes fights more fun. a minmaxed Character of most classes can already Solo a monster up to 4 CRs above their level in 1-3 rounds depending on their luck. i can't build such a character to show off, but i have seen it. i have seen a suboptimally built dwarven non-2WF Axe and Board Fighter at level 12. solo a CR 20 NPC in 3 or 4 rounds including a few waraxe crits.While your experiences here have meaning, and have certainly affected how you and your group plays, I don't think they apply across the board. Very rarely in my group do we go through an encounter in which the spellcasters cast no spells. I suppose that sort of thing can happen easily if a group of players with a relatively high degree of system mastery go all out. I've never played in such a group.
Similarly, I suspect there were extenuating circumstances in your NPC example that resulted in him not being a true CR 20 (or the dwarf being more powerful than expected).
the DM was Running Karzoug the Claimer as Written a matter of Years back, RoTRL was new
it was still 3.5 at the time
the 12th level dwarf soloed the 20th level higher point buy better geared runelord in about 3-4 rounds.
the Runelord was run using the tactics published in the AP
which i cannot remember because it has been so long
Right, so basically exactly what I said, "extenuating circumstances in your NPC example that resulted in him not being a true CR 20 (or the dwarf being more powerful than expected)". This was 3.5 rules, a dwarf likely making use of some of the options from 3.5 that no longer exist (like belts of battle), and a GM following a specific set of tactics that apparently did not work?
Right, so basically exactly what I said, "extenuating circumstances in your NPC example that resulted in him not being a true CR 20 (or the dwarf being more powerful than expected)". This was 3.5 rules, a dwarf likely making use of some of the options from 3.5 that no longer exist (like belts of battle), and a GM following a specific set of tactics that apparently did not work?sorry, but 1 or 2 Full Attacks from the Martial PCs and a handful of Happy Stick Charges is NOT 20% of party resources, it's not a consumption of resources till the spellcaster casts at least a spell or few. i use the Party's EL not their APL. makes fights more fun. a minmaxed Character of most classes can already Solo a monster up to 4 CRs above their level in 1-3 rounds depending on their luck. i can't build such a character to show off, but i have seen it. i have seen a suboptimally built dwarven non-2WF Axe and Board Fighter at level 12. solo a CR 20 NPC in 3 or 4 rounds including a few waraxe crits.While your experiences here have meaning, and have certainly affected how you and your group plays, I don't think they apply across the board. Very rarely in my group do we go through an encounter in which the spellcasters cast no spells. I suppose that sort of thing can happen easily if a group of players with a relatively high degree of system mastery go all out. I've never played in such a group.
Similarly, I suspect there were extenuating circumstances in your NPC example that resulted in him not being a true CR 20 (or the dwarf being more powerful than expected).
the DM was Running Karzoug the Claimer as Written a matter of Years back, RoTRL was new
it was still 3.5 at the time
the 12th level dwarf soloed the 20th level higher point buy better geared runelord in about 3-4 rounds.
the Runelord was run using the tactics published in the AP
which i cannot remember because it has been so long
Sounds like it
The Dwarf Drank a Potion of Fly as a Swift Action somehow (could be belt of battle, or some odd combination of feats, i'm not sure.)
Pounced the Runelord in the same turn (i want to say it was lion totem, could be dervish or something else though, he claimed to be chaotic neutral.)
and followed up with a second full attack somehow (maybe dervish levels or something. dervish is all i can think of.)
killing the runelord with a crit after 2 consecutive full attacks in the same turn
effectively 3 rounds worth of actions
Maybe I've been using Crane Wing wrong this whole time, but under my reading it isn't as powerful as some here have been claiming.
Read "you can deflect one melee weapon attack".
I take this to mean an actual weapon attack, otherwise why would they not simply say "one melee attack"?
This also prevents Crane Wing from completely being untouchable against a T-Rex and whatnot.
Discussions of pouncing double-full-attacking dwarves aside.
Let's go back to this idea that "mechanics make you unique."
Really, they don't. Mechanical differences do the following:
1) Require more prep work on the part of the GM. More feats means more cominatorics, means more chances the players will have found some cheese-ball combination that renders the fun combat something akin to kicking puppies, only less risky.
Case in point: Witch with a DC 29-30 Slumber Hex. Every fight turns out the same - the Witch turns off an opponent 3 rounds out of 4, everyone cleans up. If the encounter is built around a single big bad guy...poof. One Slumber Hex, one failure to roll a 19-20, encounter is over.
2) What causes this game to be more than a badly designed melee skirmish minis game is the ability to describe what you're doing, and have that matter. Yes, it's a nice idea if the guy with the greatsword and the guy with two shortswords have different mechanics, but they really both do 2d6 damage, crit on a 19-20/2x, and the greatsword will both hit more often and have a better chance of getting through DR, and one greatsword crit is equal to two shortsword crits.
Rather than go through the mechanical complexity, why not say: "OK, you do 2d6+Character Level with your signature weapon; you get an extra bonus 1d4 for describing the cool action movie scene as you slice your way through your enemies before you roll."
We still get one guy doing a rapier, and another guy doing a greatsword...mechanically they're the same. They get described very very differently.
As to the AC issue - in general, scenarios are balanced around an AC spread that's between Level+15 and Level+20. When you go outside of these parameters, well, lower than level+15 tends to be self correcting.
Going higher than level+20 starts causing GM frustration.
the CR system, is a Joke. even without crane style.
This is an aside, but a DC 30 Slumber hex?
Hmm. Level 20 witch = +10, I suppose a +10 int bonus makes sense then. A level 18 with a +9 int bonus and a Corset of Dire Witchcraft could achieve the same. If a GM allows a witch to take Ability Focus, that could increase it as well, and some GMs allow the Dreamspeaker racial trait of elves to apply to Slumber. So, you're at least looking at a level 16 witch (+8) with a +7 int bonus, a corset of dire witchcraft, Ability Focus (slumber) who's an elf with the dreamspeaker trait -- and a permissive GM.
What can that be used on? Well, not dragons. Not undead. Not elves, half-elves or Drow. Nothing that's immune to mind-affecting effects. Anything with bonuses to mind-affecting effects, e.g. Titans, will be almost immune.
Doesn't sound at all unstoppable.
As for having all weapons do the same damage -- well, you can do that if you want, but it's not Pathfinder and not the style of D&D. Having different weapons with different mechanics is one of the things I like about Pathfinder.
my level 14 Elven witch had
17 base (inluding +7 for level)
24 Base Int (including 1 +1 int boosting tome)
a jade hair comb of int +6 (30 int right here.)
Ability focus (Hex)
a celestial boon from an angel (+2 sacred bonus to intelligence)
for a DC 30 Slumber Hex w/ 32 int
it was skull and shackles. plunder was easy to come by, and port peril was basically magic mart, we had a bard whom was selling plunder for quintuple it's value due to a high diplomacy check, and trading every ship or unwanted magic item, for mountains of discounted plunder like the stock market
we'd sell a 10,000 GP captured ship for 20 plunder in a different port, head to port peril and trade the 20 plunder for 100,000 gold worth of stuff.
so. being way over WBL was expected
I figured Ability Focus would have to apply towards a specific hex.
the CR system, is a Joke. even without crane style.
I rather like it. It's the best system I've seen for this sort of thing