A friend invited me this weekend to play a PF level 8 game (20 point buy). When asked what characters they already had in the group and which class they would like me to play, he answered "whatever you want, the point is to have fun. It'll be challenging, though, so don't play a gimp class like monk, you'd get pounded to the ground".
Well. Needless to say, this was a challenge I childishly couldn't pass. I'm not much of a minmaxer, but I built a Quinggong Monk using Crane Style and, well, basically I owned the game, stealing the thunder from a barbarian, an oracle of battle and a bard/RDD.
Fighting defensively, my AC (with bracers of armor +3, ring of protection +2, barkskin from ki) was 31.
10 + 3 (dex) + 3 (wis) + 1 (dodge) + 2 (ring) + 3 (barkskin)+ 2 (monk bonus) + 3 (armor) + 4 (defensive).
Most of the mooks could only hit me on a 20, while I had four attacks (+14/+14/+9/+9 for 1d10+7) unbuffed.
The couple elite mobs we had to fight (including an ogre barbarian, a bone golem or a stone giant) usually were between +16 and +20 on their first hit, which means they *could* hit me, but it was still pretty difficult. And when that happened, well, their hit got deflected and I retaliated.
During a 10 hours play session that was pretty much only monster-bashing, I filled the tank role and got hit maybe twice. The only time I felt in danger was when two level 7 kenku rogues surprised me (so I wasn't in defensive mode) and sneak-attacked me for 50 damage. Well, I took the hit, spat the blood off my mouth, attacked them defensively, and smiled at the way they couldn't finish me off.
So, long story short, I asked them if I had convinced them that the monk was in no way underpowered, and their answer was: "well, I don't know about the monk, but the Crane Style is so ridiculously unbalanced that we'll ban in from further play".
I don't really care since it was a one-shot, but what do you think (apart from churlish tantrums from both sides) ? Is Crane Style really unbalanced ? What could the GM have done to challenge me ?
|
Something good for Monks? Quick, ban it before poor, underpowered full casters hear of it!
In fairness, Crane Style isn't just for Monks. Even a Battle Oracle (or other full caster specializing in self-buffs) could use it fairly readily.
That said, it's very nice but not, IMO, unbalanced per se. A lot of monsters have more than one attack at full BAB and even more have spells or ranged attacks (which the Feat is worthless against).
He tried ranged attacks, but I had deflect arrows (and high AC).
He tried spells, but I had high saves.
He tried rays, and it actually worked (lost 3 levels on an enervation) though my touch AC still was the highest of the party.
Basically, for the cost of 3 feats, I had +4 AC for -1 to hit (which is already pretty good per se) AND I could deflect an attack AND I could retaliate.
I agree that lots of classes could benefit from crane style. However, it only really shines when your AC is already high enough, so that only the odd crit threatens you. Crane style when you have 20 AC is nothing special.
|
|
How'd you get +4 AC from fighting defensively? It is normally +2, and crane style adds another +1 to that. It is a dodge bonus and thus would stack with the +1 from the Dodge feat, but you had that listed separately.
That said, it isn't over-powered... you just built a monk focused on having a very high AC. The crane feats only included +4 (or +3?) of that... items, wisdom, dexterity, and barkskin all contributed similar amounts.
Monk haters always overlook that they are highly resistant to many forms of damage. Their 'weakness' is that they cannot wear armor and thus potentially have a middling AC. Except that it is easy to get items or spells which provide an armor bonus (with 0 dex penalty) and then the Monk's AC can soar to ridiculous levels... which combined with their other damage avoiding abilities makes them very resilient. The build above is just one of many ways to achieve this.
|
He tried ranged attacks, but I had deflect arrows (and high AC).
He tried spells, but I had high saves.
He tried rays, and it actually worked (lost 3 levels on an enervation) though my touch AC still was the highest of the party.Basically, for the cost of 3 feats, I had +4 AC for -1 to hit (which is already pretty good per se) AND I could deflect an attack AND I could retaliate.
I agree that lots of classes could benefit from crane style. However, it only really shines when your AC is already high enough, so that only the odd crit threatens you. Crane style when you have 20 AC is nothing special.
Well, being awesome IS after all the monk's objective.
And like I said, it could have been worst. My TH/TWFing pals cringe in despair when they hear that my level 15, 14 Dex monk has 34 base AC, 39 with barkskin, 43 with a Ki point, 47 against critical hits, +3 if fighting defensively, +6 if using total defense.Now put your own dex-crane-based monk in the situation, and you can easily add +4 or +6 to any of these numbers. They should be grateful that you don't use a flurry of maneuvers instead of an agile amulet, as there are few things funnier for a melee class than see in one round every enemy falling on the ground, and their weapons, in your hands.
It is not unbalanced. It just seems the GM was not ready for it. It is no different than GM's crying about smite when the paladin was revealed.
How'd you get +4 AC from fighting defensively? It is normally +2, and crane style adds another +1 to that. It is a dodge bonus and thus would stack with the +1 from the Dodge feat, but you had that listed separately.
If you have 3 or more ranks in acrobatics fighting defensively gives you +3 instead of +2 and full defence gives +6 instead of +4.
So with crane style it is +4 all together.In addition to that you could get a +1 shield bonus if the weapon you use to fight defensively has the blocking special ability like the tonfa. (I'm not talking about the defending enchantment)
The crane style is really good for the aldori sword master as he gets an ability that lowers the penalty for fighting defencively by 2. So even with just the first crane style feat he can get +4 AC at -0 to hit for fighting defensively.
But it is not overpowered.
|
|
How'd you get +4 AC from fighting defensively? It is normally +2, and crane style adds another +1 to that. It is a dodge bonus and thus would stack with the +1 from the Dodge feat, but you had that listed separately.
3 ranks of Acrobatics also adds +1 to this (as is noted under that skill's description), so I'm sure that's where that +4 total is coming from.
He tried ranged attacks, but I had deflect arrows (and high AC).
He tried spells, but I had high saves.
He tried rays, and it actually worked (lost 3 levels on an enervation) though my touch AC still was the highest of the party.
This is a good point. Crane Style does synchronize very well with the Monk's existing defensive capabilities.
Basically, for the cost of 3 feats, I had +4 AC for -1 to hit (which is already pretty good per se) AND I could deflect an attack AND I could retaliate.
Well, it's 4 Feats for non-Monks, but yeah, it's damn cool. Several Feat combinations are if used properly.
I agree that lots of classes could benefit from crane style. However, it only really shines when your AC is already high enough, so that only the odd crit threatens you. Crane style when you have 20 AC is nothing special.
True, but by 8th level any Martial character worth his salt has better than AC 20. Even a Barbarian with Reckless Abandon.
Admittedly, this is one of the reasons why I used to dislike starting a game at a later level. When you begin at level 1, you gradually get acclimated and introduced to the abilities your players can do. You'll be able to plan for it much easier. But starting at 6+ (I find 6 the sweet spot tbh) can really catch you off guard if you don't look at the player's characters carefully. My first game in DMing Pathfinder, I was caught off guard by a druid using a Tiger form and wrecking everything with pounce and full attack. Tore the big baddie to shreds. Looking back I can understand why it felt so overpowered, but nowadays, I can prepare much easier to deal with things like that without making that person feel useless all of the time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a massive jump in the power curve to be able to completely negate the attack that's most likely to hit you. It doesn't matter what sophistry is used by its supporters and users. At the end of the day, you are still able to negate the most likely to hit attack in many, many situations. And that is overpowered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Definitely not over powered. I am willing to bet that when you reflect back, while you were all but unhittable, the other combat classes were dishing out more damage than you by far. At 8th level, 1d10+7 at +14 on a 20/x2 is nothing special, in fact a barbarian should be able to exceed your mean DPR without bothering to rage.
Crane Style is nice, but I find it a cul-de-sac because you effectively lose on hitting when you are bad enough at that as it is, and there is not much point getting Combat Expertise which otherwise opens the monk to many more feats they could really use later in the game.
Definitely not over powered. I am willing to bet that when you reflect back, while you were all but unhittable, the other combat classes were dishing out more damage than you by far. At 8th level, 1d10+7 at +14 on a 20/x2 is nothing special, in fact a barbarian should be able to exceed your mean DPR without bothering to rage.
Crane Style is nice, but I find it a cul-de-sac because you effectively lose on hitting when you are bad enough at that as it is, and there is not much point getting Combat Expertise which otherwise opens the monk to many more feats they could really use later in the game.
Well, combat expertise needs a 13 int, which is one of the very few dump stats the monk has. I'm not comfortable with a low-INT so I stayed at 10, but I certainly couldn't find the point-buy to get 13 ^^
I agree that I wasn't the biggest hitter - that is, until the party realized I was nigh unhittable and started packing the buffs on me ;) But yeah, of course I wasn't the biggest DPS - though it came close since the DM didn't hit & run but packed the mobs tightly around me. Five hits at 1d10+7 was nothing to sneeze at either.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a massive jump in the power curve to be able to completely negate the attack that's most likely to hit you. It doesn't matter what sophistry is used by its supporters and users. At the end of the day, you are still able to negate the most likely to hit attack in many, many situations. And that is overpowered.
Sophistry? The only difference between it and Deflect Arrows, is that melee weapons come up in a fight more often. This means that it has more chances to be useful. I bet you dollars-to-dimes that if a DM stuck you against archers in every combat, that you'd be decrying Deflect Arrows as being "overpowered." You'd say, "Huh! That negates 1 Longbow Critical hit every round! that's 3d8 + X per round I'm not taking! OVERPOWERED!!!111 NERF IT!!!!!1111"
It negates 1 Melee Attack in a round. Any character with Improved Unarmed Strike can take Deflect Arrows at level 1. Call it sophistry, but I call it fair for the cost of 3 feats prior at no sooner than 5th level with the exception of a Master of Many Styles. If you can't do something really cool after 4 feats in a feat tree, then it's not a feat tree worth taking.
Well, combat expertise needs a 13 int, which is one of the very few dump stats the monk has. I'm not comfortable with a low-INT so I stayed at 10, but I certainly couldn't find the point-buy to get 13 ^^
It's doable. I built a monk with 14 int for the skills, took Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers and left Strength at 10. Damage was awful, but he could hit targets and do maneuvers brilliantly, and had the skills to act as party scout.
I agree that I wasn't the biggest hitter - that is, until the party realized I was nigh unhittable and started packing the buffs on me ;) But yeah, of course I wasn't the biggest DPS - though it came close since the DM didn't hit & run but packed the mobs tightly around me. Five hits at 1d10+7 was nothing to sneeze at either.
If he'd used, say, foes with DR 10/silver you would have had problems! Or even just moderately high AC would have held you up significantly.
I personally like Crane Style (don't need Crane Riposte or Crane Wing) for a barbarian with Stalwart and Improved Stalwart for +8DR and only -2 to hit.
Rather than saying it is over powered, perhaps we should say that it is a game changer.
Not necessarily.
This was really a classic case of one person built this super defensive nigh unhittable character and now the group is buffing him so he can hit hard too.
The group would probably do the same if you had a synthesist who had high ac and used a wand of mirror images. Or a sword/board ranger. Or an alchemist with a level or two of fighter.
It's not that different from Deflect Arrows. So are people going to go around and say that Deflect Arrows is overpowered? Probably not.
I'm going to go with Mergy on this one. Are you going to play with them again?
As was mentioned before, if you're not prepared for it, then yes, it can seem over powered. If you're aware of it and you plan for it, then it isn't so bad. And it is, of course, stronger on a character that already avoids most attacks through standard defenses.
Rather than saying it is over powered, perhaps we should say that it is a game changer.
I'm currently playing a monk in a high level game (18th at the moment) and while crane style is amazing the GM has figure out how to beat it.
Ignore me.
I can't make use of the style if he goes after the other members of the party first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monks are rad Nuff said did you give them the Face!!!!!
|
|
Crane style is far more powerful than Deflect Arrows because monks are subject to (estimated) 500x more melee attacks than ranged attacks, and the style also increases AC, reducing the number of hits he takes in a round, and Crane Repost means his defence becomes an offence. It is far more powerful than Deflect Arrows even if the mechanics are only slightly different. It is not, however, broken.
I have a monk with all three Crane style feats. He would not be the party tank without them, but he is hardly invulnerable. He has been brought to zero more than any other character in the campaign. This past session he was fighting harpy rangers. Even with a soar spell, he was getting hit four or five times a round. If he didn’t use a plot twist card he had that temporarily granted him the Die Hard feat, the fall would have killed him.
The moral of the story: A crane style monk is not invulnerable, he is just differently vulnerable. Which, to me, is perfectly suited to martial arts. Flying and archery-based attacks are a crane style monk’s bane. Also, zerg rush him before he enters his stance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) don't think the feat it self is broken - but getting to much AC in general is a problem.
If monsters can only hit you with a natural 20 - then what is the challenge? A fight is more interresting IMHO if you loose HP and at some point have to consider - can i take this guy down this round or should i withdraw? If battle is just a matter of going up to a creature and dealing damage until it's dead why bother?
The GM could just as well throw 1000 zombies after you - they can't kill you, but you get to roll alot of damage dices...
Spending 4 feats to get +4 AC is quite ok. Not broken.
2) Stalwart + imp stalwart? - Why would I want DR when I get to NOT BE HIT? High AC is just better than DR - since DR - even with imp stalwart just doens't keep up with the damage output by most monsters at midt to high lvl. I can't see how that should be broken...
But I would consider getting DR instead of AC if the GM could only hit me with a natural 20 - It's just more fun (read: BAD ASS - and see below)
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0450.html
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than saying it is over powered, perhaps we should say that it is a game changer.Not necessarily.
This was really a classic case of one person built this super defensive nigh unhittable character and now the group is buffing him so he can hit hard too.
The group would probably do the same if you had a synthesist who had high ac and used a wand of mirror images. Or a sword/board ranger. Or an alchemist with a level or two of fighter.
Look at a first level monk with crane style vs. an advanced giant tyrannosaurus (CR 11). The t-rex can not win unless the monk messes up and provokes an attack of opportunity. The ability to ignore 1 attack / round is huge.
However, it can be dealt with. (Of course, anything can be dealt with.) However, it does have to be dealt with. Hence game changer.
First I'd have to question the GM setting a CR11 on a Level 2 monk regardless of how he's built.
The same monk would be ripped apart by say, a Bear, or six goblins, or any caster with magic missile. These are not uncommon encounters for a character of that level to meet.
It's just another situation wherein a character in a certain capacity shines. You can get characters with immunities early on but you don't hear too much crying about them when GM's do things like pit said characters against them.
Lastly I'm not entirely sure that monk isn't screwed anyway. So yes the tyrannosaurus rex is mildly annoyed. But can crane style stop the trex from simply grappling him and eating him?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think your character is unbalanced. Even with out Crane Style would appear to dominate in this group. The reason you came off so effective is the group. Battle Oracles and Bards both have moral bonus boosting your attacks. They both have spells that control the battle field and buff party members.
As well you are playing 8th level. That's the sweet spot. I find as GM that the monk and rogue do the best at levels 8-9. Both classes tend to go from 2 to 4 attacks and encounters generally have monsters with AC that is still fairly low so they hit consistently well.
If you want to see something different play this character at different level with different party composition. Try Level 14 with a Inquisitor, Ranger, and Wizard. You will find you are not dominating at all but instead you are contributing and keeping up with the party.
It's a massive jump in the power curve to be able to completely negate the attack that's most likely to hit you. It doesn't matter what sophistry is used by its supporters and users. At the end of the day, you are still able to negate the most likely to hit attack in many, many situations. And that is overpowered.
Against a humanoid that's true. Against a monster with 5 attacks or something else that doesn't rely on iterative attacks its less so.
Look at a first level monk with crane style vs. an advanced giant tyrannosaurus (CR 11). The t-rex can not win unless the monk messes up and provokes an attack of opportunity. The ability to ignore 1 attack / round is huge.
However, it can be dealt with. (Of course, anything can be dealt with.) However, it does have to be dealt with. Hence game changer.
Any low-level character with flight can beast a T-rex just as easily, if not more so. So what?
That just means the T-Rex is poorly designed (or just the way it should be, depending on how you look at it).
That same 1st-level monk of yours, would get totally stomped by two rexes.
I don't really care since it was a one-shot, but what do you think (apart from churlish tantrums from both sides) ? Is Crane Style really unbalanced ?
I would probably use the terms "annoying" and "tedious" instead of "unbalanced".
Rather than saying it is over powered, perhaps we should say that it is a game changer.Not necessarily.
This was really a classic case of one person built this super defensive nigh unhittable character and now the group is buffing him so he can hit hard too.
The group would probably do the same if you had a synthesist who had high ac and used a wand of mirror images. Or a sword/board ranger. Or an alchemist with a level or two of fighter.
Look at a first level monk with crane style vs. an advanced giant tyrannosaurus (CR 11). The t-rex can not win unless the monk messes up and provokes an attack of opportunity. The ability to ignore 1 attack / round is huge.
However, it can be dealt with. (Of course, anything can be dealt with.) However, it does have to be dealt with. Hence game changer.
The first feat in the tree reduces the penalty for fighting defensively to -2.
The second feat which requires monk level or BAB 5 allows the deflection of 1 incoming attack.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure the T-Rex is stupid, but after about 2 rounds of missing it would get annoyed and just use a normal grapple maneuver to eat the monk.
Who cares if it provokes, it's a damn T-Rex!
Your GM does know it's 1 attack per round, not one attack per round per creature, right?
It's not unbalanced, it just means the DM needs to have better encounters with multiple melee critters to fight, or a mix of melee and range critters.
Sure the T-Rex is stupid, but after about 2 rounds of missing it would get annoyed and just use a normal grapple maneuver to eat the monk.
Who cares if it provokes, it's a damn T-Rex!
Some people interpret it as working against combat maneuvers whereas others on the opposite extreme don't think it applies against natural attacks.
Some people interpret it as working against combat maneuvers whereas others on the opposite extreme don't think it applies against natural attacks.Sure the T-Rex is stupid, but after about 2 rounds of missing it would get annoyed and just use a normal grapple maneuver to eat the monk.
Who cares if it provokes, it's a damn T-Rex!
I'm in the camp it applies to natural or manufactured weapons but not Combat maneuvers. that's just me, though. Trip the monk, then proceed to beat the hell out of him.
Honestly I think it's pretty clear. It says it works against Melee Weapon Attacks. It's basically deflect arrows for melee.
The way I DM it is as follows -
Works vs:
* Melee Weapons (i.e. swords/axes/etc..)
* Unarmed Strikes
* Natural Attacks
Doesnt work vs:
* Ranged Attacks
* Touch Attacks
* Spells
* Combat Maneuvers
Personally I think Snake Style is a lot scarier. It works against anything that requires an attack roll since it just says "Melee and Ranged Attacks".
What about combat maneuvers that use weapons, such as disarm, sunder, and trip?
Nope. Trip doesn't always use weapons, anyway. Neither does disarm.
To me, maneuvers enter a different world.
Even if they use the attack action, they don't follow the normal "attack" rules, and I treat them different.
I've had players try to argue all kinds of things, but ultimately it's up to the GM to give the final say. Besides, monks are already silly hard to land maneuvers on if built correctly. :)
|
You have to make an attack roll to trip, even if it's with an improvised weapon like your hand.
Edit
You can read it to apply to thrown melee weapons too :) what poorly worded feat.
Edit 2 I've been reading the d20prd
Benefit: Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you. You expend no action to deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you.
If you want to disarm with a sword, it's a melee combat maneuver, not an attack roll vs ac. Not deflected.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Personally I think Snake Style is a lot scarier. It works against anything that requires an attack roll since it just says "Melee and Ranged Attacks".
This. Imagine, if you will, how Snake Style would play out for say, a 16 Wis inquisitor 9/master of many styles 1 with Skill Focus: Sense Motive? 10 ranks + 2 Snake Style + 6 Skill Focus +4 stern gaze +3 class skill +3 Wis = +28 Sense Motive. And that's without even trying that hard. Snake Style's also less of an investment.
If you want to disarm with a sword, it's a melee combat maneuver, not an attack roll vs ac. Not deflected.AC has no matter in the topic. A "melee attack made with a weapon" is deflected, a trip with a melee weapon is an attack roll with a melee weapon. Don't make it more complicated that it is.
But it's not an attack roll. It's a CMB check with bonuses for carrying a weapon. Very different.
|
|
But it's not an attack roll. It's a CMB check with bonuses for carrying a weapon. Very different.If you want to disarm with a sword, it's a melee combat maneuver, not an attack roll vs ac. Not deflected.AC has no matter in the topic. A "melee attack made with a weapon" is deflected, a trip with a melee weapon is an attack roll with a melee weapon. Don't make it more complicated that it is.
It's an attack
While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific actionPerforming a Combat Maneuver
When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action. Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver. If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver. If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll). If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But it's not an attack roll. It's a CMB check with bonuses for carrying a weapon. Very different.
You sure about that?
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects.
|
|
But it's not an attack roll. It's a CMB check with bonuses for carrying a weapon. Very different.If you want to disarm with a sword, it's a melee combat maneuver, not an attack roll vs ac. Not deflected.AC has no matter in the topic. A "melee attack made with a weapon" is deflected, a trip with a melee weapon is an attack roll with a melee weapon. Don't make it more complicated that it is.
"When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action."
"When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus."
Core rulebook. Please quote me the "CMB check" or the part saying that some maneuvers arn't part of an attack action.
... actually, the fun fact is probably that you're right, and in this case sunder is the only maneuver you can deflect. But not for the reasons you said previously.
Bonus points if you find out why, with the correct quotes please.