| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If someone is deflecting every punch you throw at him you have no reason to think he can't do the same when you try to grab ahold of him. You can try it, but if you're trying it because Crane Style does not apply to maneuver checks, that's metagaming.
Arkham Horror is a good example. If you base your choices off of the monsters stats rather than what they are, that's the metagame.
That's just how a fight normally goes. I've seen a lot of bar fights and they all start off fist swinging but quickly move to grappling and ground fighting. I don't see why a Giant just out of frustration having swords deflected wouldn't just jump on the enemy using their size against them. Nothing meta gaming there. Just how fight would naturally progress in my opinion.
I mean sure if you are hacking away successfully with a sword you'd most likely keep doing that but if you have this guy jumping around dodging you blows with ease, grapple is just next on the list.
Again, if you change tactics because you know their feat does not defend against the new tactic, you're metagaming.
Or you could just justify it as the character realizing "wow this isn't working" and trying something else.
The fights must be pretty boring at your table. Any time you change tactics it gets called out as metagaming...
But to everyone else.. Yes it's MUCH easier to grab than land a punch. in real world.
Or you just use SLAMs which are Natural Attack and not melee attacks. It's not metagaming to realize your opponent is hard to hit and while the battle axe is damaging it's harder to swing as shown by +12/+7 but slams are +11/+11.
I'd say: If a opponent tries to hit and after some rounds trys to grab it's not metagamimg.
If after having some opponents try to hit every new foe starts grappling from round 1, that's metagaming.
Unless they are built as grapplers...
And of course this assumes that the GM didn't choose THAT monster specifically for THAT Character....
I'm playing a paladin with a high AC (for his level) so after 3 rounds or so of not hitting him, my GM decided that the bandits were going to grapple him off his horse, en masse... it made perfect sense to me.
Why screw around stabbing with spears when they have the numbers to drag me down?
I have to admit that I then dipped monk to get Improved Grapple to make that less likely in the future... Adapt to survive or die kiddies...
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It forces the GM to rethink encounters, using more ranged attacks, magic, and multi-attack creatures. Generally monks are still squishy, so a full attack from a hydra will do a lot of damage, as will a couple of scorching rays. It can still ruin a GM's day when he sees a cool monster of appropriate CR in the Bestiary that he'd love to use, but knows he'd just be feeding it to the party because of a Crane style monk.Or simply use more than one creature.
Isn't this... forcing the GM to rethink the encounter?
Yes, it is overpowered.
Broken? no. But definitely overly effective for it's cost and accessibility.
A Monk with high Wisom and Dex +4 to in each with crane style and Combat Expertise at level 6 can have a AC of 29 (4 dex, 4 Wis, 1 dodge, 4 Ki Dodge, 3 Defensive fighting, 2 Combat Expertise, 1 Monk AC) before any magic items. All this with -6 to hit. Add 2 feats for Crane Style and the -6 to hit drops to -4 and the AC goes up by 1. So for AC they get small bonus but also get to deflect 1 melee attack per round.
Doesn't seem all that over powered to me.
I find Monk in general can seem over powered if you rolled stats and end up with equivalent stats to 50 pt build.
Had one GM run game where all got the Half Dragon Template. That was insane. One player took a Monk and talk about over powered. +4 Natural Armor and with stat boost it was monstrous. The player put everything into Dex and Wis allowing the template to boost the other 4 stats. Now that with Crane Style was nuts.
Currently I'm running a game with a monk who has crane style with 15 pt build. It's not a problem at all.
Isn't this... forcing the GM to rethink the encounter?It forces the GM to rethink encounters, using more ranged attacks, magic, and multi-attack creatures. Generally monks are still squishy, so a full attack from a hydra will do a lot of damage, as will a couple of scorching rays. It can still ruin a GM's day when he sees a cool monster of appropriate CR in the Bestiary that he'd love to use, but knows he'd just be feeding it to the party because of a Crane style monk.Or simply use more than one creature.
Isn't that what GM's job is. I regularly have to rethink encounters in Adventure Paths because if I follow the suggested tactics the party will slaughter the encounter. And that's with no Monk in the game.
While I disagree generally that "do smoething else since that isn't working" is metagaming at all- I think the issue stems from the problem that we have spellcraft to determine what spells are thrown at us but no equivalent mechanism for how to determine what someone'd know about any given melee class or ability.
Take Crane Style for example.
if the monk is combating a fighter of equivalent level- how do you determine whether or not the fighter knows about the feat? "Hey that guy's using Crane Style, time to grapple!". Sure, the fighter could have the feat himself.. but what if not? How does we, players who seek not to metagame badly, combat the issue? Do we just stand there and miss our main attack because some guy has a feat and there's no way to know about it?
If we're 10th level and going up against a red dragon we make the appropriate checks and prepare accordingly.
If we're going up against a bunch of unarmed mooks- why isn't there some similar mechanism? "oh its a bunch of monks who specialize in the styles.. pretty good chance at least some will be using crane style, this is how you kick their butts anyway"
If we're going to call it metagaming for someone who's combat life is melee to recognize a melee feat being used against them then we need some mechanic for a melee person to recognize said feat so that its not meta-gaming when they find ways around it.
-S
Yes, it is overpowered.
Broken? no. But definitely overly effective for it's cost and accessibility.
How is it OP? You can attack the monk in a different manner. You can also just go after another party member.
How is it OP? You can attack the monk in a different manner. You can also just go after another party member.Yes, it is overpowered.
Broken? no. But definitely overly effective for it's cost and accessibility.
It really really depends. In the interest of avoiding the question of the gut feeling of "OP", I've been striving to collect standardized data using Pathfinder Society. As Ryan has mentioned upthread, in homebrew a GM can change the encounter distribution as desired to make Crane Style a non-issue, but in PFS that isn't an option. And sure you can go after another party member sometimes (depending on positioning, particularly in tight areas), but eventually you have to beat the Crane Style user. Crane Style users are savvy, and they know what their strengths and weaknesses are. With even a simple spell like Grease, they can up their odds significantly against Grapple, for instance.
But to avoid the feeling of all this being hypothetical, I made a Crane Style character for PFS and tested him in a variety of scenarios, making a thread about it. In a home game, it's no problem at all, but in PFS where the scenario is prewritten and you can't adjust it, I can tell you that the Crane Style chain led to my PC doing ridiculous things while playing up (for non PFSers, playing up means you are fighting challenges meant for a party up to 4 levels higher than you are). These included things like soloing encounters meant for a level 4-5 party at level 1 after the rest of the party (all level 4) were taken down without dropping a single foe. As I discussed in the other thread with the data, the key secret to why Crane Style's power is that it isn't just the auto-deflect Crane Wing--if you take that as an excuse to leave your AC low since "I have a free deflect, so I'm invincible", it won't protect you. The idea is that mathematically, having a really high AC compared to your enemies's attack bonus can only last you so long until they eventually roll high (particularly if they have claw/claw/bite and high numbers), but the auto deflect, combined with high AC, pushes your expected rounds of survival way way up in a way that neither can do alone. I can go search up my old thread if people like, but everyone, please, if you choose to post on that thread, please include playtest data or an analysis of data.
Crane style is early in some situations nice. Against natural attacks, surprise and multi attacks its a lot less useful.
The math is quite the opposite, as multi attacks and many natural attacks are where the really high AC will fall prey to eventual high dice rolls over the course of some number of turns. Of course, this is only true if you focus on AC in tandem with Crane Style, instead of letting the AC slack due to feeling invincible with Crane Style. The fact that one build has an advantage over the other only matters if you expect to be surrounded and attacked many times over the course of many rounds, which generally only happens when you're trying to, say, solo eight ghouls that just surrounded you and started to make 24 attacks on you per round. The Crane Style guy is going to be way more likely to come out of that alive
...but eventually you have to beat the Crane Style user. Crane Style users are savvy, and they know what their strengths and weaknesses are.
Hang on, you are saying, then, that's not the feat that's broken but the player? Sorry, does not compute. If the feat is broken it's broken. If the feat isn't but the player is skilled, then the feat isn't broken.
The tests I ran showed that against maybe 50% of foes the monk with Crane Style was able to deal damage to their target while taking less proportional damage themselves. Against the same foes a dedicated melee fighter creamed the foe in no time flat, while taking more damage. Against the other 50% of foes the crane style user took less damage per round than a normal melee combat class, but could not deal back anything like significant damage in return. While the melee class would not win, they could make a contribution to winning, while the monk could only run away.
In a party dynamic, the Crane Style user may be able to 'hold the line' but he can't actually dish much back, even with Crane Riposte.
What I suspect you will find as levels rise with your character is that against foes like dragons with many multiple attacks, your Crane Wing becomes progressively less effective.
...but eventually you have to beat the Crane Style user. Crane Style users are savvy, and they know what their strengths and weaknesses are.Hang on, you are saying, then, that's not the feat that's broken but the player? Sorry, does not compute. If the feat is broken it's broken. If the feat isn't but the player is skilled, then the feat isn't broken.
The feat leaves the player in a situation where certain enemies (enemies without spells) are basically left with little option besides grapple. So any reasonable player, not some kind of "broken" player, is going to think about that and bring a counter for grapple. I'm not even saying that players will do so off the bat--but they'll learn the first time they are grappled. It's the same way that parties begin to carry counters for invisibility, darkness, and flying enemies after being reamed by one of those. My crane style playtest character played through 10 scenarios. Was he invincible? Not at all, he had his takedowns from the enemies. But in numerous scenarios, he did some pretty ridiculous things.
Well, this post took off... So I am the DM that is running the game the OP is posting this about. The situation was in a 1-shot not involved with my actual game that will be coming up soon. I was running this 1-shot as a way to test the mettle of my group as I am a relatively new DM.
I had a couple of problems with the crane style, the biggest problem of course being the negation of one melee attack a round. Now at higher levels this feat is still useful but not so difficult to deal with; however at level four when nearly every enemy my group will be fighting can only make a single attack, maybe two this ability becomes too much.
While I can understand that my player's character build is almost purely defensive and that he does significantly less damage than other players in the group, I'm going to be dealing with a 6 person group in a world that I created, one which has relatively few monsters and is primarily populated by "humans". So how do I, on a consistent basis, challenge this player or make this player feel as though he were in a life and death fight without having every wizard in my game hold a grudge against the guy?
Also, as far as the grapple, since I believe dodge bonuses apply to CMD my player has a really nice CMD for his level, and if by some chance he is grappled, he also gave himself a good escape artist skill so that he could get out of them. BTW my giant did grapple the little thing that it couldn't hit...
Easy a pair of barbarians flanking the guy he deflects on attack and gets beaned by the other one.
hard to quantify two heavy hitters focusing on one player, who by what everyone has said does laughable damage, while surrounded by five other people... maybe if the group charges a barbarian camp...
Your making our point. He will be ignored after a round or two until the real problems get mopped up.
Once your parties casters and heavy hitters are dead he gets surrounded and pummeled.
Ok, but you're not seeing mine. I don't want to have to kill every single one of my players to challenge one like I'm challenging the rest of them. How do I challenge him without a TPK? If I always just ignore him or throw a few weaker enemies at him because he's not really a threat then combat for him is basically easy mode while everyone else is playing on the hard difficulty. Yes, if I kill all of my players and then throw all the remaining stuff at him he would die, but doesn't it seem a bit overpowered that that is how you're suggesting I challenge a player with this build?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It's not that you have to kill everyone to challenge him... he's painted himself into a corner where he isn't a threat to other creatures. If there is a biting fly buzzing around and a badger biting your foot, you ignore the relatively harmless and difficult to hit fly and attack the badger. This isn't a crane style problem, it's pretty much universal to most defensive focused builds see the similar discussions back 2+ years ago regarding the stalwart defender (or whatever it's called).
Also maybe have your player read this excellent post by Painlord. It's regarding organized play, but it applies to home games too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why challenge him? If he wants to run up and do minimul damage to a creature then be ignored then whats the problem?
Challenge him by showing him that unless his tactics evolve he isn't actully doing anything but being a hinderance.
It would be one thing if he was dealing 30-40 damage a round while being unhittable forcing you to get in an arms race. But in stead he is drawing all power from his weapons to his shields and doing nothing to help his allies who are being beaten bloody all around him.
you don't need to inflict damage to challenge someone. you just ignore him and calculate fights as if he wasn't there. the same can be said about any pure defensive or noncombat oriented build or even an inconsistent player. by playing turtle, he isn't really contributing to the fight, so don't include him for his malcontribution. don't even give him a share of the loot or the XP. all he did was some poor damage followed by turtling and running away. he didn't earn his keep. it reminds me of a specific shadowdancer that would just hide the whole fight and steal from his party when it was time to loot.
Then what is the issue with removing the crane style from my game? If I do this it forces him to explore other aspects of the build thus pulling him from a rut that everyone here seems to agree is a worthless style. If he no longer has the ability to wave away every attack that comes at him I can put him in a scenario where he has to play with tact and be part of the team. So far I'm not seeing a downside to this decision...
Someoneknocking.
25 AC, is high, but not unhittable. and crane style negates one melee attack per ROUND, Not per person. and 6 level 4 PCs is an APL of 6. since you mostly use Humanoids. here is my suggestion.
large squads of classed humanoids using flank, higher ground and exploitations of consumables.
Then what is the issue with removing the crane style from my game? If I do this it forces him to explore other aspects of the build thus pulling him from a rut that everyone here seems to agree is a worthless style. If he no longer has the ability to wave away every attack that comes at him I can put him in a scenario where he has to play with tact and be part of the team. So far I'm not seeing a downside to this decision...
Because, he really isn't learning anything by going that route.
As a GM, I find Crane Wing to be a fun feat. A lot of my NPC duelists roll with it and can be fairly threatening. I have also had Players make creative characters that could contribute to combat with it. Removing the feat does not remove the desire to turtle.
Also what Gorbacz said. I think banning stuff when the other players don't have input can hurt the DM/Player relationship which hamstrings a game more.
Someoneknocking.
25 AC, is high, but not unhittable. and crane style negates one melee attack per ROUND, Not per person. and 6 level 4 PCs is an APL of 6. since you mostly use Humanoids. here is my suggestion.
large squads of classed humanoids using flank, higher ground and exploitations of consumables.
and dudes with longbows
and dudes with longbowsSomeoneknocking.
25 AC, is high, but not unhittable. and crane style negates one melee attack per ROUND, Not per person. and 6 level 4 PCs is an APL of 6. since you mostly use Humanoids. here is my suggestion.
large squads of classed humanoids using flank, higher ground and exploitations of consumables.
good idea. i would also throw in a few guys with reach weapons too.
So my options are to ignore the player and eventually let them come to the realization that the character they're playing does relatively little to effect the battlefield... or I begin to throw archers, spell casters, grapplers, two-weapon fighters and ambushes at him... and just hope that those people target the little fly over the tiger riding cavalier?
I understand that I am the DM and so that I ultimately decided who is targeted by what enemy, but at the same time I prefer to quantify things and have reasons for the things that happen.
So my options are to ignore the player and eventually let them come to the realization that the character they're playing does relatively little to effect the battlefield... or I begin to throw archers, spell casters, grapplers, two-weapon fighters and ambushes at him... and just hope that those people target the little fly over the tiger riding cavalier?
I understand that I am the DM and so that I ultimately decided who is targeted by what enemy, but at the same time I prefer to quantify things and have reasons for the things that happen.
2 weapon fighters miss more. try reach weapon fighters. crane wing is once per round, not once per target per round. try lots of mooks of mixed assortment.
As crane style does not help vs natural attacks and as many monsters use such, why is carne considered overpowered?
Natural attacks are melee weapons, so Crane Wing works against them.
|
I offer you Sean K Reynolds, one of the guys who wrote this game and I recommend hitting the forum's search function before spending time building arguments that were resolved already before.
Also, from "Natural Attacks" heading in the Combat chapter:
"Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites (...)"