Dabbler--my post to you several back is in error. Please read this before replying. I was editing it and it must have hit the edit time limit mid-edit because the edit didn't take!That's OK, I did actually make a reply, but the boards ate it as well!
What I was going to say was that you are making a number of assumptions that may not be very true in your examples:
1) That Alice gets a riposte - that only happens if Alice gets attacked. If the dragon goes for the spell-casters first, it will ignore the melee fighters as long as it has a sky-high AC unless they prove they can hurt it. Fred is more likely to achieve this than Gus, and Gus more likely to do it than Alice, because both of them are more likely to hit and will deliver significant damage if they do. It really does not matter that Alice can match their damage output if she gets ripostes if she doesn't get ripostes. Alice is great design, but relies on drawing foes into extended fights.
2) The biggest, most reliable factor in DPR is hitting the target: +1 to hit is worth +2 to damage, and means you are more likely to hit high-AC targets, more likely to confirm critical hits, etc. Alice sacrifices this to get a sky-high AC. What's why Fred sacrifices AC for higher chances to hit, because taking down the bad guys before they can hurt the rest of the party is his objective.
3) The dragon has the ability to self-buff, it SHOULD be a tough foe. AC for a given CR is where they start, not where they finish. If the party are optimised - and Alice is a very optimised build - then the challenges should also optimise. It's something we ran into in the monk-thread, where what you are in effect trying to prove is that Crane Style is broken when an optimised build using crane style can cake-walk against a less optimised fighter (Gus) and a non-optimised threat.
There's nothing wrong with the Crane Style feat-tree. It gives a good defensive boost in melee at the cost of offensive potential. Alice...
These are all good points. My point about ignoring the Crane Styler still stands--eventually you have to get to killing the Crane Styler, even if you beat the whole party down before that happens (that new Archon Style I found in Blood of Angels helps even more with that, since you can force-divert one attack to yourself from an ally, but there's no way Alice the Aldori can afford to have those at level 10). At the point when everyone else is down, it becomes a solo fight. And Alice rules those. It's the upper-level version of the effect I was mentioning for my Crane Style playtest guy back down below, which is that occasionally the whole party gets knocked out of the fight except him and then he solos the encounter.
Problem is that offensive potential is what it's all about, and defences are not all about AC in melee alone.
Offensive potential is not the only thing in this game, but it is certainly true that you can't just let it slack completely. In fact, it's a good heuristic that you want to ensure that your offense is solid before you start increasing your defense. The question becomes then, what is solid? Regular Alice can kill a typical CR 13 in about 6 rounds unbuffed if it doesn't let her take a riposte. Risky Alice can do it in 5 (really more like 4.5). With a 4-person party that even remotely buffs each other, she is contributing more than a 1/4 share of a one-round kill of the thing, without riposting. Now, of course Fred is contributing even more. But at the point when you are contributing more than enough damage such that if everyone else in the party does that much damage, a boss-CR monster is dead in a single round, you are doing enough damage to get its attention, not an amount such that it has the following property:
limited offensive options mean you can't actually contribute that much in a party dynamic.
Could you do more? Well sure. Would it be awesome? Well absolutely! I love your Fred build. He is super-cool and we have a similar falchion guy as our Fighter in Kingmaker (though he has Shatter Defenses and Cornugon Smash) and we all love him to pieces. My Bard buffs him out the wazoo.
But Alice, and especially risky Alice, is doing well more than enough damage to contribute to the party dynamic in any group that I have ever seen. In fact, for a less optimized group, risky Alice (and of course also Fred) may even be overwhelming in their offensive capacities compared to everyone else. I'm the first one to agree that you can't build something that won't keep the monster's attention. That's the first thing I say in my Guide to Fighters in the section on the Sword-and-Shield Fighter:
Batman was also a defender of the weak, and he did it by kicking ass and being awesome. That is what you will do. He did it by striking fear in the hearts of his enemies. You’ll do that too. Every time they have to make the choice to break off with you because you’re pretty hard for them to kill, the enemy will be sweating, nervous, and horrified that they have to make that choice. That is how you will protect your friends.
I'm right there with you.
Also as far as weakness to saves, Alice has +1 to Ref and Fort and -1 to Will compared to Fred, so I'm not sure how fair it is to say that she is skimping on those either. Heck, my actual playtest character, which I didn't level up for this comparison due to it including MoMS, already has comparable saves to Fred as a level 5 character (Fort is 1 lower than Fred, Ref is 1 higher, Will is 2 lower due to Fred having Iron Will). His great saves are actually one reason he sometimes has to solo things, when the monsters use disables on everyone else.
Bottom line--I guess you have a much higher standard than me of what counts as a contribution. Both of us are 'correct' within our own paradigms, though. Or the best thing to say is that neither of us is wrong. In your paradigm where the standard for damage to be considered contributing is extremely high, I'm guessing most Fighters you've ever seen played by other people who weren't as heavy of optimizers didn't count as contributing--even building an otherwise-perfectly-optimized two-hander fighter build but choosing a weapon like the Greatclub as your weapon for RP reasons would be enough for a build to drop below that plateau. In my paradigm, doing enough to do your share to one-round a CR+3 in a party situation is more than sufficient. To me, it seems almost like you are saying that a defensive ability that costs anything to offense, even a little bit that still leaves you powerful in offense, cannot be overpowered no matter how powerful the defensive ability, since offense is all that matters.
FWIW, if offense is everything, the most powerful offensive version of the Crane Styler, that would be a Fighter without the Aldori archetype who uses a falcata. Start with Risky Alice. You lose 4 AC from the Aldori, but you get back Weapon Training, which nets +1 to damage. Damage against AC 28 is around 52 without riposte to Fred's 54. When riposting, it outstrips Fred considerably doing about 71 DPR. The 4 AC you lose hurts your ability to tank by more than enough for it not to be worth it in my opinion, but for the offense-minded comparisons you are looking for, it's probably notable in that it is basically Fred's equal in DPR while still being a lot more survivable than Fred.
Anyways, I think I've shown that the Crane Style chain is pretty overpowered defensively compared to other abilities in the game in its effect to amp up defense and survivability on a character and that it doesn't mean you are going to drop to nothing on your damage output either (in fact, if the monster attacks you, including if you are the last one standing, you are probably even doing equal or more damage than a normal fighter). You and I don't agree on how much offense is necessary to pull your share, but I'm guessing every other GM in this thread can decide for themselves on that--some will feel your style of judging DPS is more applicable for their campaign, some will feel mine is. We do agree that Crane Style is definitely through-the-roof broken at lower levels up to at least 5 or 6 or so, levels 1-4 of which wouldn't be possible without the Master of Many Styles, so blame can certainly be placed on the archetype. Mainly, I hope that I've provided a data point and thus a sanity check for other GMs so that if they are more like me in judging how much offense is needed to contribute, they will have something more than just hearing that the offense is too low--they have what they need to make a theorycraft judgment at least.
I still maintain that actual play will prove things out to be a bit clearer than these numbers. If you watched some of those PFS games (or read my summaries), you would be very surprised how often you can force enemies to attack the Crane guy (chokepoints are very nice for this). Hells, I was surprised by it myself!
These are all good points. My point about ignoring the Crane Styler still stands--eventually you have to get to killing the Crane Styler, even if you beat the whole party down before that happens (that new Archon Style I found in Blood of Angels helps even more with that, since you can force-divert one attack to yourself from an ally, but there's no way Alice the Aldori can afford to have those at level 10). At the point when everyone else is down, it becomes a solo fight. And Alice rules those. It's the upper-level version of the effect I was mentioning for my Crane Style playtest guy back down below, which is that occasionally the whole party gets knocked out of the fight except him and then he solos the encounter.
Alice only rules the solo fight if the enemy fights on her terms. The dragon flaps his wings, hovers over Alice and breaths on her every 1d4 rounds until she's dead, for example. Alice cannot escape, and cannot counter-attack the dragon effectively.
Alice is a very good melee fighter who can stalemate another melee fighter and in many cases wear them down. Against missile attackers, spell-slingers, and other forms of attack, she's as vulnerable as any other fighting class.
I think a snake-style sohei monk could give Alice a run for her money in melee combat, BTW. He can also max out his AC, and if his chances to hit her are not high with Snake Fang, she can't block them with Crane Wing while swinging her sword two-handed.
Offensive potential is not the only thing in this game, but it is certainly true that you can't just let it slack completely. In fact, it's a good heuristic that you want to ensure that your offense is solid before you start increasing your defense. The question becomes then, what is solid? Regular Alice can kill a typical CR 13 in about 6 rounds unbuffed if it doesn't let her take a riposte. Risky Alice can do it in 5 (really more like 4.5). With a 4-person party that even remotely buffs each other, she is contributing more than a 1/4 share of a one-round kill of the thing, without riposting.
I'm not saying Alice is not contributing, but she struggles to strike effectively against a high-AC foe. Also, against enemies as well optimised as Alice the DM is going to have to jack-up the opposition while we have been using standardised enemies. If the dragon uses items to buff up his attacks as well as his AC, Alice has problems even in melee.
Could you do more? Well sure. Would it be awesome? Well absolutely! I love your Fred build. He is super-cool and we have a similar falchion guy as our Fighter in Kingmaker (though he has Shatter Defenses and Cornugon Smash) and we all love him to pieces. My Bard buffs him out the wazoo.
But Alice, and especially risky Alice, is doing well more than enough damage to contribute to the party dynamic in any group that I have ever seen. In fact, for a less optimized group, risky Alice (and of course also Fred) may even be overwhelming in their offensive capacities compared to everyone else. I'm the first one to agree that you can't build something that won't keep the monster's attention.
I agree, Alice is a very strong build. My point was that a fighter optimised at that level for offence would do better, and comparisons mean nothing if you are not comparing at the same level of optimisation. In a party that consisted of characters optimised up like Alice, the opposition would have to be jacked up considerably to challenge the party, and that's where Alice's weaknesses will start to show.
Also as far as weakness to saves, Alice has +1 to Ref and Fort and -1 to Will compared to Fred, so I'm not sure how fair it is to say that she is skimping on those either. Heck, my actual playtest character, which I didn't level up for this comparison due to it including MoMS, already has comparable saves to Fred as a level 5 character (Fort is 1 lower than Fred, Ref is 1 higher, Will is 2 lower due to Fred having Iron Will). His great saves are actually one reason he sometimes has to solo things, when the monsters use disables on everyone else.
Fred isn't trying to solo monsters, he lives or dies with the party. Alice, on the other hand, will be last man standing (and if you are in a last-man-standing situation, things have already gone where they should never go). That makes her saves very important, such as in the case of the dragon above.
Anyways, I think I've shown that the Crane Style chain is pretty overpowered defensively compared to other abilities in the game in its effect to amp up defense and survivability on a character and that it doesn't mean you are going to drop to nothing on your damage output either (in fact, if the monster attacks you, including if you are the last one standing, you are probably even doing equal or more damage than a normal fighter).
Actually, you have shown that there are issues with Crane Style feats when combined with other factors the designers probably didn't foresee. I see these as two fundamental clashes between RAW and RAI, which could be avoided by modifying either Crane Wing slightly, or the Aldori Swordlord archetype slightly with a little bit of common sense:
1) RAW: fighting with crane style requires on ehand free. Releasing and grasping a one-handed weapon in both hands is a free action, so you can attack on your turn two-handed and defend with Crane Wing when it isn't. RAI: fighting with Crane Wing requires one hand free, so you only have one hand to use a weapon in - it's a powerful ability to block an incoming attack, so it's not unreasonable that you sacrifice offence for defence. So no, you can't use a weapon two-handed with Crane Wing.
2) RAW: Combining Crane Style feats with Steel Web gives you a massive bonus for fighting defensively at no penalty at all. RAI: fighting defensively is meant to be sacrificing offence for defence, it should never be possible to do with no penalty. I'd allow the bonuses to AC to stack, but not reduce the penalty below the -1 required by Crane Style.
The RAI's are the rulings I would place on Alice if you presented her as a character for one of my games. Suddenly, with this, Crane Style doesn't look so broken because you have to sacrifice offence for the defence. Alice still hits reasonably well, and still has an amazing AC, but her damage has stopped being awesome.
This leaves the Crane Style feats available as a boost to the class they were actually designed for, the monk, who needs all the help he can get.
I still maintain that actual play will prove things out to be a bit clearer than these numbers. If you watched some of those PFS games (or read my summaries), you would be very surprised how often you can force enemies to attack the Crane guy (chokepoints are very nice for this). Hells, I was surprised by it myself!
PFS games are not written for seriously optimised characters, and that's what Alice is (that's a compliment, BTW). If you have a tricked-out over optimized anything in a non-optimised game, it will look broken and will trounce the opposition.
1) RAW: fighting with crane style requires on ehand free. Releasing and grasping a one-handed weapon in both hands is a free action, so you can attack on your turn two-handed and defend with Crane Wing when it isn't. RAI: fighting with Crane Wing requires one hand free, so you only have one hand to use a weapon in - it's a powerful ability to block an incoming attack, so it's not unreasonable that you sacrifice offence for defence. So no, you can't use a weapon two-handed with Crane Wing.2) RAW: Combining Crane Style feats with Steel Web gives you a massive bonus for fighting defensively at no penalty at all. RAI: fighting defensively is meant to be sacrificing offence for defence, it should never be possible to do with no penalty. I'd allow the bonuses to AC to stack, but not reduce the penalty below the -1 required by Crane Style.
I don't really want to interrupt the discussion that you and Rogue are having, but I do have a thought on this
If I use your analysis of Alice, there is a lot of sacrifice in her build. She has to use many different combination of feats that preclude her from "better" feats. I think the authors are fine with being able to negate the penalty for fighting defensively because the amount of feats and interchanging abilities that you have to do it. (Did they "plan" for it, probably not, but does the unintended consequence hold inline with their vision, probably so. As it costs a lot to increase your to-hit up 5%.)
Alice is a very good melee fighter who can stalemate another melee fighter and in many cases wear them down. Against missile attackers, spell-slingers, and other forms of attack, she's as vulnerable as any other fighting class.
To be fair to Alice, she isn't my first choice of build. If we looked at a level 10 version with the Monk dip, the offense would be even lower, but the saves would be substantially higher, with Deflect Arrows for arrows, Evasion for AoE, and Snake Style for ranged touch attacks (or maybe this new Archon Style to use Crane Wing to save a party member each turn).
I think a snake-style sohei monk could give Alice a run for her money in melee combat, BTW. He can also max out his AC, and if his chances to hit her are not high with Snake Fang, she can't block them with Crane Wing while swinging her sword two-handed.
She should be able to destroy him by just not two-handing, I think.
I'm not saying Alice is not contributing, but she struggles to strike effectively against a high-AC foe. Also, against enemies as well optimised as Alice the DM is going to have to jack-up the opposition while we have been using standardised enemies. If the dragon uses items to buff up his attacks as well as his AC, Alice has problems even in melee.
Alice is close enough in to-hit to Fred that if one isn't contributing, the other basically isn't either.
I agree, Alice is a very strong build. My point was that a fighter optimised at that level for offence would do better
I think this is the crux of our disagreement. Define "do better". It seems to me that from your perspective, "do better" can be defined only by doing more damage. And of course a build optimized for offense will do better at doing more damage (though Alice can sometimes do more too, in the right circumstances). Doing nearly as much damage with amazing defense is significantly more powerful in my games. Optimized in-combat healing is also very powerful in my games. In your games, they may not be--not meant as a disparagement of your game at all, by the way, just meaning all games are different. We may literally both be right. I will say that I've played under a lot of GMs in PFS, so I can speak to all of those games.
PFS games are not written for seriously optimised characters, and that's what Alice is (that's a compliment, BTW). If you have a tricked-out over optimized anything in a non-optimised game, it will look broken and will trounce the opposition.
It depends. Some are pretty hard. Some are way too easy. There's a wide variation. There was a scenario I played just last month that our group could have REALLY used Alice. We had multiple deaths (the first death in a PFS game I've been in as a player) and would have had none with Alice. Fred would have been totally unhelpful. (The scenario involved surviving against overwhelming enemies for a certain amount of time, in case you're wondering why Fred would have been unhelpful. If you killed the kytons, an equal amount came. Forever).
If I use your analysis of Alice, there is a lot of sacrifice in her build. She has to use many different combination of feats that preclude her from "better" feats. I think the authors are fine with being able to negate the penalty for fighting defensively because the amount of feats and interchanging abilities that you have to do it. (Did they "plan" for it, probably not, but does the unintended consequence hold inline with their vision, probably so. As it costs a lot to increase your to-hit up 5%.)
Alice is getting up to +6 dodge bonus (with Acrobatics) to an already good AC at the penalty of -1 to hit plus a free attack using the suggested changes, that's not too shabby for two feats and one class ability, and is WAY better than either alone. Crane Style + Wing would be +4 AC for -1 with two feats and 3 ranks in Acrobatics plus deflecting one attack; Steel Web alone would be +4 AC for -2 to hit.
Alice is a very good melee fighter who can stalemate another melee fighter and in many cases wear them down. Against missile attackers, spell-slingers, and other forms of attack, she's as vulnerable as any other fighting class.To be fair to Alice, she isn't my first choice of build. If we looked at a level 10 version with the Monk dip, the offense would be even lower, but the saves would be substantially higher, with Deflect Arrows for arrows, Evasion for AoE, and Snake Style for ranged touch attacks (or maybe this new Archon Style to use Crane Wing to save a party member each turn).
Stronger defensively for weaker offensively, at 10th he'd miss out a Weapon Training 2, and so be +2 to hit behind Alice rather than +1.
I think a snake-style sohei monk could give Alice a run for her money in melee combat, BTW. He can also max out his AC, and if his chances to hit her are not high with Snake Fang, she can't block them with Crane Wing while swinging her sword two-handed.She should be able to destroy him by just not two-handing, I think.
Which cuts her damage twice over, as Power Attack now imposes a hefty penalty on every hit (no more Furious Focus) unless she drops it, and she is no longer getting strength-and-a-half. The monk still gets all those extra attacks with an AC that is on a par with Alice's...
I'm not saying Alice is not contributing, but she struggles to strike effectively against a high-AC foe. Also, against enemies as well optimised as Alice the DM is going to have to jack-up the opposition while we have been using standardised enemies. If the dragon uses items to buff up his attacks as well as his AC, Alice has problems even in melee.Alice is close enough in to-hit to Fred that if one isn't contributing, the other basically isn't either.
The difference is +4, which jumps to +6 for the monk-based build. That makes a huge difference in DPR against the higher AC targets, trust me on this we've been doing the math for monk threads for a while. It means Fred is hitting something with a 17-20 that Alice needs a 20 to hit. Against lower AC targets Fred is getting in the iterative attacks that Alice misses.
It's not huge at 10th level where Alice gets +50% attacks from Crane Riposte, but at 11th it'll kick in big time.
Say there is a target Fred can hit 100% of the time, he'll get 100+60+35 = 195% hits. Alice will hit the same target 65+80+40+15 = 200% hits. Now Fred is hitting a fair bit harder than Alice (and remember, Crane Riposte is one-handed with Power Attack penalties), so his DPR is going to creep ahead of hers quite steadily, especially if she doesn't get the Riposte, and the higher the AC the worse it gets.
I agree, Alice is a very strong build. My point was that a fighter optimised at that level for offence would do betterI think this is the crux of our disagreement. Define "do better". It seems to me that from your perspective, "do better" can be defined only by doing more damage. And of course a build optimized for offense will do better at doing more damage (though Alice can sometimes do more too, in the right circumstances). Doing nearly as much damage with amazing defense is significantly more powerful in my games. Optimized in-combat healing is also very powerful in my games. In your games, they may not be--not meant as a disparagement of your game at all, by the way, just meaning all games are different. We may literally both be right. I will say that I've played under a lot of GMs in PFS, so I can speak to all of those games.
Well, the disagreement is over 'Crane Style is overpowered' really. You think it is because you can build Alice and argue Crane Style should be banned. I think that the problem is the combination of tricks you used to build Alice needs some Errata, rather than Crane Style needing banning.
I think we are actually close on agreement, it's the course of action to follow that is the issue more than anything else. I suggest making a level 10 monk, the class the Crane Style feats were designed for, and seeing how broken they are before you judge. I made a monk that could survive almost anything, but couldn't contribute very effectively at all, for example.
PFS games are not written for seriously optimised characters, and that's what Alice is (that's a compliment, BTW). If you have a tricked-out over optimized anything in a non-optimised game, it will look broken and will trounce the opposition.It depends. Some are pretty hard. Some are way too easy. There's a wide variation. There was a scenario I played just last month that our group could have REALLY used Alice. We had multiple deaths (the first death in a PFS game I've been in as a player) and would have had none with Alice. Fred would have been totally unhelpful. (The scenario involved surviving against overwhelming enemies for a certain amount of time, in case you're wondering why Fred would have been unhelpful. If you killed the kytons, an equal amount came. Forever).
I have played some, and yes they vary and the right party combination can make mince out of some of them while others could be impossible with a different mix. That said, they are to be played 'out of the box' and so there's no allowances for either party combination or particular builds, things that good DMs will include in their games for extended campaigns. In short, they are a known quantity but they don't really tell us much in the bigger context.
Well, the disagreement is over 'Crane Style is overpowered' really. You think it is because you can build Alice and argue Crane Style should be banned. I think that the problem is the combination of tricks you used to build Alice needs some Errata, rather than Crane Style needing banning.
Back a long time ago I used to play Magic the Gathering. There was a card called Tolarian Academy that was basically involved in like 50 broken combos. For some reason, WotC kept banning everything that could combine with that card, but not the TA itself, even cards that were fun and generally completely fine.
The Aldori Swordlord is actually mostly a pretty lousy archetype that doesn't need a nerf. Crane Style, on the other hand, could use one--it's the load-bearing piece of the puzzle. One example would be if Crane Wing required an opposed attack roll like the Duelist's Riposte ability. The opposed attack roll could even be at a large bonus. At least something that stopped Crane Wing from being an absolute defense. I know it's an extreme example, but I actually fought a skeletal t-rex in PFS and soloed it with a character who had maximum health equal to its average damage per hit and who would be hit by the T-rex on anything except like a 7 or below, even with all my AC. I think the monster was It was mindless and couldn't change tactics from melee bites. If Crane Wing had given me a deflection only on an opposed attack roll with like a +10 to hit, the t-rex would have had a serious chance, as it should since its a CR 9 vs a level 3 character, but in many cases getting an attack at a large bonus to try to deflect will be a very likely to deflect. There's probably a better nerf than that one, I just made it up off the top of my head.
OK, so DPR actually does jump by the huge amount that seems impossible, pretty much all on its own. I swear. I've done the math. Let me show you how. Your dude, in leveling from 10 to 12, is going to be receiving a +3 to hit and +3 to damage courtesy of BAB, a new training and Greater Specialization. He also runs out and buys a better + for his sword and str belt. Then the iterative happens, and Power Attack increases to add 3 more damage. So a lot of things change between those two levels! I'll just go ahead and apply those to Gus, and I'll show you that I'm getting the huge jump to the numbers you were getting: Bang--86.1 DPR.I am sure DPR is not jumping up by 40 to 60 points across two levels.
Even at level 10 I can at least get 60 DPR.
Now that you have the level 10 guy doing about 60DPR it makes more sense because it falls in line with what I would expect, but that 45-85 jump was not going to fly.
I have not seen this proof. The fact that your level 10 guy is only going for a DPR of about 40ish makes me wonder about how you ran things. Even a rogue can hit 40.
A level 10 Rogue can hit 40 alone, unbuffed, no flank against a CR 13? I'm interested if so. As you may know, I wrote both the Guide to Rogues and the Guide to Fighters, and while I normally don't update them, if you have a trick to yield this that I don't know about, it may be worth adding.
No. I am not comparing 10's and 13's. I was comparing level 10's to CR'10 and the same for 13's.
My aldori build was built for defense, and to take advantage of certain things, such as combat reflexes needed to spread stats around more also.
I didn't think you were. I'm just saying that you happened to pick an archetype (Weapon Master) where the levels of comparison will skew the data. If you pick any level that 3 or 0 modulo 4 (like 3, 4, 7, 8, etc) it's biased towards the Weapon Master and if you pick any other level it is biased away from the Weapon Master. So level 10 and level 13 are both levels that are good for non-Weapon Masters and level 12 happens to be good for Weapon Masters. I don't think you did this on purpose.
I also only chose the weapon master because I already had one made up. I did not even give it the dueling gloves which is what would have pushed it over a hundred. The core fighter pushes with dueling gloves is about the same as the weapon master without dueling gloves.
Look back to my very first posts in this thread--I said it was a common misconception among the Crane Style is broken crowd to think that Crane Wing in a vacuum is the one problem. I've agreed with you all along that it's actually the whole style. Aldori Alice is not even the optimal build for this since she loses out on the goodies from MoMS dip, but I've shown that she stays competitive in every dimension even at higher levels while having her insane defense against melee. Can she outdamage the regular Greatsword Fighter? Actually sometimes yes, but in a regular party situation probably not. But she doesn't have to in order to prove my point.
Where did you prove this? If you posted good DPR numbers then I missed them.
Just to be clear I am not saying DPR wins the game. I am saying that if you can't draw the opponents attention crane riposte never comes in to affect, and the monsters can just concentrate on the other party members, which is the same issue the monk had.
When you have someone stabbing you for a large amount of damage they can't just be ignored, and I am doubting either crane wing build is going to solo the monster after the rest of the party is dead in most cases. If the monster realizes what is going on, and it most likely does*, which is why it saved the CW fighter for last, it is not going to to toe unless it is sure it can win, since the dead party members have likely injured it or used up some of its resources.
*There are not a lot of pure melee monsters(BBEG types) at higher levels, so it makes sense to use other options if the monster has them.
Now that you have the level 10 guy doing about 60DPR it makes more sense because it falls in line with what I would expect, but that 45-85 jump was not going to fly.
But it actually *does* jump up from 45 to 85. With crits, it goes from 60 to 100 or so at level 13 (exactly as you predicted would happen with the Gloves oF Dueling, so you were spot on your prediction). Not that it matters either way, we have the correct numbers now.
Where did you prove this? If you posted good DPR numbers then I missed them.
Sorry, it's buried in there. Level 10 Gus had 63.36 DPR vs CR 10 average AC and risky Alice had 44.545 without riposte and 78.84 with riposte (so better with a riposte). That's certainly good enough in my mind, even without a riposte. There must be some objective measure of what counts as "enough", but whatever it is I don't know. I find even 44.545 to be quite enough considering her defenses, even if she gets no ripostes ever. 78.84 is definitely well more than enough to be significant in my mind. With reasonable buffs on the party (Haste for example, or bard song), Alice will be doing more than her share of the damage necessary to take down a CR 13 in one round if everyone did that much (with a 4 person party). That seems very good for me. A CR 13 is a full-out boss encounter for a level 10 party. More than enough to grab attention, I would imagine.
[QUOTE-wraithstrike]and I am doubting either crane wing build is going to solo the monster after the rest of the party is dead in most cases.
Take a look at the froghemoth. It has no choices against her, even without a party. The same is true for many of the non-dragon enemies of CR 13.
Well, the disagreement is over 'Crane Style is overpowered' really. You think it is because you can build Alice and argue Crane Style should be banned. I think that the problem is the combination of tricks you used to build Alice needs some Errata, rather than Crane Style needing banning.The Aldori Swordlord is actually mostly a pretty lousy archetype that doesn't need a nerf.
All I am proposing is to change the text of Steel Web to say that you cannot reduce the penalty for fighting defensively below -1. That's hardly a nerf, as for most Aldori Swordlord builds it won't drop below -2 anyway!
Crane Style, on the other hand, could use one--it's the load-bearing piece of the puzzle.
Again, I propose the change "one hand free at all times" be made, so a two-handed build (offensively powerful) cannot make use of this style. You could also add a proviso that Crane Style won't work in medium or heavy armour if you like.
One example would be if Crane Wing required an opposed attack roll like the Duelist's Riposte ability.
Unnecessarily complicated, especially as for a monk, the to-hit role is where he suffers most. This becomes a major nerf that highlights the weakness of the class it was designed for, and that's not a good thing.
The opposed attack roll could even be at a large bonus. At least something that stopped Crane Wing from being an absolute defense.
As pointed out, it is NOT an absolute defence. Sure it's big for Alice, but reduce her offensive capacity (no two-handed attacks, a penalty on fighting defensively) and Alice stops being a major threat unless she invests more on her offence and less in her sky-high AC.
Also Crane Wing does not deflect arrows, rays, breath weapons, spells etc. which are all as big a threat to a melee fighter as melee attacks.
Now that you have the level 10 guy doing about 60DPR it makes more sense because it falls in line with what I would expect, but that 45-85 jump was not going to fly.But it actually *does* jump up from 45 to 85. With crits, it goes from 60 to 100 or so at level 13 (exactly as you predicted would happen with the Gloves oF Dueling, so you were spot on your prediction). Not that it matters either way, we have the correct numbers now.
Where did you prove this? If you posted good DPR numbers then I missed them.
Sorry, it's buried in there. Level 10 Gus had 63.36 DPR vs CR 10 average AC and risky Alice had 44.545 without riposte and 78.84 with riposte (so better with a riposte). That's certainly good enough in my mind, even without a riposte. There must be some objective measure of what counts as "enough", but whatever it is I don't know. I find even 44.545 to be quite enough considering her defenses, even if she gets no ripostes ever. 78.84 is definitely well more than enough to be significant in my mind. With reasonable buffs on the party (Haste for example, or bard song), Alice will be doing more than her share of the damage necessary to take down a CR 13 in one round if everyone did that much (with a 4 person party). That seems very good for me. A CR 13 is a full-out boss encounter for a level 10 party. More than enough to grab attention, I would imagine.
[QUOTE-wraithstrike]and I am doubting either crane wing build is going to solo the monster after the rest of the party is dead in most cases.
Take a look at the froghemoth. It has no choices against her, even without a party. The same is true for many of the non-dragon enemies of CR 13.
44 is not bad DPR, but if I can't hit someone and they are doing rogue level damage then they are not the priority. In short Crane Riposte should only come into play most of the time if a monster has a decent chance to hit you. Once it realizes that trying to hit you is bad for business it comes back to you last, hopefully it has better options than to just swing. If not then it is in trouble.
PS:I guess I am saying that if a character can be reduced in effectiveness by just not fighting it, then I am not that worried about it.
Yeah I do realise some GM's would not think of that though. I wish there was a way to determine what an average GM would do, generally speaking of course.
As for the CR thing, not all things of CR X are equal. Shadows are only a CR 3, can but they have a longer shelf life(how long you can use them to harrass PC's) than many higher level monsters.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone pointed out yet that RAW, you can't use Crane Riposte against a creature attacking you with reach, since you can only AoO into squares that you threaten? So that dragon just has to shuffle 5 ft. back to dodge the AoOs. Doesn't help him avoid his first hit being deflected, of course, but the DPR goes a bit wobbly.
Anyone pointed out yet that RAW, you can't use Crane Riposte against a creature attacking you with reach, since you can only AoO into squares that you threaten? So that dragon just has to shuffle 5 ft. back to dodge the AoOs. Doesn't help him avoid his first hit being deflected, of course, but the DPR goes a bit wobbly.
That's an extremely good point, Ninjaiguana, and one that doubtless makes the Lunge feat very popular...
All I am proposing is to change the text of Steel Web to say that you cannot reduce the penalty for fighting defensively below -1. That's hardly a nerf, as for most Aldori Swordlord builds it won't drop below -2 anyway!
Crane Style feats themselves already do this much on their own though. This isn't as elegant as your other proposed change, since very few other things in Pathfinder are minimum 1 instead of minimum 0.
Again, I propose the change "one hand free at all times" be made, so a two-handed build (offensively powerful) cannot make use of this style. You could also add a proviso that Crane Style won't work in medium or heavy armour if you like.
I believe the net of these is that it leaves non-Aldori Dervish Dance builds as the best. They actually have more AC than the Aldori build for cheaper too, so they can at least afford a tad more offensive stuff. Their DPS won't get to risky Alice levels, but it can certainly reach regular Alice levels (which was enough to kill that Froghemoth).
Unnecessarily complicated, especially as for a monk, the to-hit role is where he suffers most. This becomes a major nerf that highlights the weakness of the class it was designed for, and that's not a good thing.
A monk at a +10 should be just fine though.
As pointed out, it is NOT an absolute defence.
It is certainly an absolute defense. Obviously it's not an absolute defense against everything. That would be bizarre. It is an absolute defense against one melee attack.
Yeah I do realise some GM's would not think of that though. I wish there was a way to determine what an average GM would do, generally speaking of course.
PFS is a pretty good way of figuring out what an average GM would do. I played under a bunch of different GMs. Some of them didn't even try to grapple. Once even when I reminded them about grapple! They cited an enemy's Int and said "I doubt they would think of that in a tense combat when their grapple is so low compared to their melee in other situations."
Also, there's a lot of times when terrain gives a smart Crane Style user the ability to force the enemy's hand by blocking the path. In one particular encounter where an incredibly smart Heavens Oracle combined with my guy to annihilate a pretty damn tough boss that nearly got two kills when I ran the encounter as a GM on a different day, the enemy (a tricked-out ghoul cleric) was at a desk, and I moved to a spot that pinned him into a roughly 2x3 area which he couldn't leave without going straight through my square thanks to hard corners. The barbarian with a reach weapon stood behind me just in case. The heavens oracle then cast Silence on me. The enemy had like 10 ways to screw us over, even with me blocking him in (Confusion as a spell for one thing. Owwwie!) But with the Silence too, he had nothing left that would work except some impotent negative energy channeling. He tried full attacking first though to use his high paralysis DC.
44 is not bad DPR, but if I can't hit someone and they are doing rogue level damage then they are not the priority. In short Crane Riposte should only come into play most of the time if a monster has a decent chance to hit you. Once it realizes that trying to hit you is bad for business it comes back to you last, hopefully it has better options than to just swing. If not then it is in trouble.
PS:I guess I am saying that if a character can be reduced in effectiveness by just not fighting it, then I am not that worried about it.
The thing about DPR is it doesn't tell all the story. The story is, without riposte, we've got a character who is hitting the enemy between once and twice a round. Every hit is doing over 30 damage (almost 20% of a typical CR 13s maximum health). This story is important (more important than DPR) because it explains what the monster sees. If the Crane Styler happens to get one of those two-hit rounds, she's approaching half its health from her full attack routine on her first full attack. That just can't be ignored by a non-suicidal enemy (same goes for Gus or Fred, of course). On a one-hit round, it's still a poor choice to ignore her, as it could have been twice as bad and was already pretty bad for the monster. It's also a terrible choice to ignore Gus or Fred. Fortunately for the monster, it can actually take out Gus and Fred. Of course then it isn't taking out Wally the Wizard or whoever. I'd maintain, however, that the time required for the enemy to figure out it can't take out Alice while trying to take her out is probably not too much less than the time it takes to actually take out Fred. In exchange for the slightly shorter enemy attention time, after which it turns to someone else, you get to keep your Fighter attacking afterwards.
All I am proposing is to change the text of Steel Web to say that you cannot reduce the penalty for fighting defensively below -1. That's hardly a nerf, as for most Aldori Swordlord builds it won't drop below -2 anyway!Crane Style feats themselves already do this much on their own though. This isn't as elegant as your other proposed change, since very few other things in Pathfinder are minimum 1 instead of minimum 0.
No, but it does preserve the point that fighting defensively should have a penalty, if only a small one. Alice gained a lot of AC just from fighting defensively at no penalty. This imposes a penalty, albeit a small one.
If you prefer, you could write it into Crane Wing that the AC penalty for fighting defensively and employing Crane Wing cannot have a penalty of less than -1.
Again, I propose the change "one hand free at all times" be made, so a two-handed build (offensively powerful) cannot make use of this style. You could also add a proviso that Crane Style won't work in medium or heavy armour if you like.I believe the net of these is that it leaves non-Aldori Dervish Dance builds as the best. They actually have more AC than the Aldori build for cheaper too, so they can at least afford a tad more offensive stuff. Their DPS won't get to risky Alice levels, but it can certainly reach regular Alice levels (which was enough to kill that Froghemoth).
I disagree, Alice gained a great deal of DPR from Furious Focus and Power Attack. Take these out and it drops considerably. Without a two-hander, Furious Focus doesn't allow you to make the first attack without penalty, and the damage bonus is reduced. In fact, if you don't use a two-hander Power Attack is of dubious use in any event. It probably cuts the DPR by around a third.
Unnecessarily complicated, especially as for a monk, the to-hit role is where he suffers most. This becomes a major nerf that highlights the weakness of the class it was designed for, and that's not a good thing.A monk at a +10 should be just fine though.
Yeah, and now has to a more rolling. Problem is that a bonus that allows the monk to make a successful parry makes the parry even more certain for the non-monk. If it's that certain, why bother? If ALice only has a 10% chance of failing the parry, will this significantly effect the outcome? No.
But if Alice reduces her chances to hit and her damage, that makes a very big difference.
As pointed out, it is NOT an absolute defence.It is certainly an absolute defense. Obviously it's not an absolute defense against everything. That would be bizarre. It is an absolute defense against one melee attack.
One attack, and one attack only, when most things above 5th level can hit you several times, is not an absolute defence. The only reason Alice makes it look absolute is because she has a sky-high AC normally only attained by level 20 characters...funny you don't think that this is broken, though, but instead pick on Crane Style.
Yeah I do realise some GM's would not think of that though. I wish there was a way to determine what an average GM would do, generally speaking of course.PFS is a pretty good way of figuring out what an average GM would do.
No, I have to disagree. In PFS I believe the DMs do not have the luxury of tuning up opposition if the party are more highly optimized, and they often have to stick to the tactic the enemy use as laid out in the scenario.
An average DM is not running PFS scenarios to PFS standards, so the comparison is actually pretty useless.
|
|
Anyone pointed out yet that RAW, you can't use Crane Riposte against a creature attacking you with reach, since you can only AoO into squares that you threaten? So that dragon just has to shuffle 5 ft. back to dodge the AoOs. Doesn't help him avoid his first hit being deflected, of course, but the DPR goes a bit wobbly.That's an extremely good point, Ninjaiguana, and one that doubtless makes the Lunge feat very popular...
Lunge only increases your reach on your turn, so you're out of luck for AoOs however you slice it.
Wait, Dabbler. I thought you've been saying Alice isn't doing enough DPR comparable to Fred/Gus (I'm lost with all the hypothetical names)? Wouldn't both your changes be reducing it further? 1) reduced damage and 2) reduced accuracy?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Wait, Dabbler. I thought you've been saying Alice isn't doing enough DPR comparable to Fred/Gus (I'm lost with all the hypothetical names)? Wouldn't both your changes be reducing it further? 1) reduced damage and 2) reduced accuracy?
Alice's damage is significant, it just isn't as much as an optimised-for-damage fighter would dish. RE insists that it is more than sufficient to overcome vary powerful threats in time, and he probably has crunched the numbers enough to prove the point, to which I yield him the point: Alice can dish out some hurt, especially if she gets in a Riposte every round.
That being the case, if there is an issue with Crane Style feats it is not necessarily with the feats themselves but what they are combined with. Did the person designing a martial arts style for monks anticipate them being combined with a fighter archetype that also maxed up fighting defensively alongside a two-handed weapon? Probably not, I know I didn't think of it until RE mentioned it. My gut feeling is that while OK with RAW, Crane Style was intended to be a single-hander technique, and that fighting defensively should never have no associated penalty to hit.
Yeah I do realise some GM's would not think of that though. I wish there was a way to determine what an average GM would do, generally speaking of course.PFS is a pretty good way of figuring out what an average GM would do. I played under a bunch of different GMs. Some of them didn't even try to grapple. Once even when I reminded them about grapple! They cited an enemy's Int and said "I doubt they would think of that in a tense combat when their grapple is so low compared to their melee in other situations."
Also, there's a lot of times when terrain gives a smart Crane Style user the ability to force the enemy's hand by blocking the path. In one particular encounter where an incredibly smart Heavens Oracle combined with my guy to annihilate a pretty damn tough boss that nearly got two kills when I ran the encounter as a GM on a different day, the enemy (a tricked-out ghoul cleric) was at a desk, and I moved to a spot that pinned him into a roughly 2x3 area which he couldn't leave without going straight through my square thanks to hard corners. The barbarian with a reach weapon stood behind me just in case. The heavens oracle then cast Silence on me. The enemy had like 10 ways to screw us over, even with me blocking him in (Confusion as a spell for one thing. Owwwie!) But with the Silence too, he had nothing left that would work except some impotent negative energy channeling. He tried full attacking first though to use his high paralysis DC.
...44 is not bad DPR, but if I can't hit someone and they are doing rogue level damage then they are not the priority. In short Crane Riposte should only come into play most of the time if a monster has a decent chance to hit you. Once it realizes that trying to hit you is bad for business it comes back to you last, hopefully it has better options than to just swing. If not then it is in trouble.
PS:I guess I am saying that if a character can be reduced in effectiveness by just not fighting it, then I am
The thing about DPR is it doesn't tell all the story. The story is, without riposte, we've got a character who is hitting the enemy between once and twice a round. Every hit is doing over 30 damage (almost 20% of a typical CR 13s maximum health). This story is important (more important than DPR) because it explains what the monster sees. If the Crane Styler happens to get one of those two-hit rounds, she's approaching half its health from her full attack routine on her first full attack. That just can't be ignored by a non-suicidal enemy (same goes for Gus or Fred, of course). On a one-hit round, it's still a poor choice to ignore her, as it could have been twice as bad and was already pretty bad for the monster. It's also a terrible choice to ignore Gus or Fred. Fortunately for the monster, it can actually take out Gus and Fred. Of course then it isn't taking out Wally the Wizard or whoever. I'd maintain, however, that the time required for the enemy to figure out it can't take out Alice while trying to take her out is probably not too much less than the time it takes to actually take out Fred. In exchange for the slightly shorter enemy attention time, after which it turns to someone else, you get to keep your Fighter attacking afterwards.
Normally the PC's are the ones invading, so they have to push forward. The bad guys can just back off into another area that is to their advantage. They can also move out of the line of sight for the other party members, and pelt the CW character with ranged attacked.
PFS is a pretty good way of figuring out what an average GM would do. I played under a bunch of different GMs.
I have seen quiet a few post on PFS GM's, and simple things that could have been done were not done. Now maybe they were under the impression that they could not change tactics, but I still see complaints from time to time that can be handled with tactics alone.
Edit:Since I was told that NPC tactics could not be changed, that may be a part of the issue, but in any case I don't think that would happen in under most GM's. Well maybe the first time, but that is about it. I would expect a tactical adjustment by the next session.
So I have another poster telling me that tactics can't be changed. I am thinking that people are quiet unclear as a whole about how much leeway a GM has with NPC's.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find the idea that they didn't think Crane Style would be used by fighters as pretty funny. The iconic Crane Style in Chinese is their long slender sword fighting style!
Fighting Defensively should NOT be penalized for this build. Why? All it does is replace a shield +2. That's it. It gives them the same AC as a shield wearer...at the cost of a feat and class ability. Pretty steep price for something other fighters get for nothing.
==Aelryinth
Actually fighting defensively DOES give a penalty of -4 for +2, +3 with Acrobatics.
Crane Style and Crane Wing amend this to -1 for +3, or +4 with Acrobatics.
Steel Web amends fighting defensively to -2 for +4 or +5 with Acrobatics.
Steel Web + Crane Style and fighting defensively gives you (by RAW) -0 to hit and +5 to AC, +6 with Acrobatics. Add a wand of shield and Alice gets +10 to AC at no penalty to hit. Add that to all the other little tricks for building up AC (magic plate armour, rings of protection, amulets of natural armour) and you have an armour class that a monk would find it hard to match, and they are the kings of AC. Yes, he's putting a lot into it, but he's getting a lot more out.
Actually fighting defensively DOES give a penalty of -4 for +2, +3 with Acrobatics.
Crane Style and Crane Wing amend this to -1 for +3, or +4 with Acrobatics.
Steel Web amends fighting defensively to -2 for +4 or +5 with Acrobatics.
Steel Web + Crane Style and fighting defensively gives you (by RAW) -0 to hit and +5 to AC, +6 with Acrobatics. Add a wand of shield and Alice gets +10 to AC at no penalty to hit. Add that to all the other little tricks for building up AC (magic plate armour, rings of protection, amulets of natural armour) and you have an armour class that a monk would find it hard to match, and they are the kings of AC. Yes, he's putting a lot into it, but he's getting a lot more out.
Wait, Monks are usually the kings of AC? I know I'm not up-to-date on AC optimization, but I had thought TWF Sword and Shield Fighters and/or archery-focused Fighters usually had significantly more AC than Monks. I probably am missing new stuff from UC on that though, I guess.
Anyways, I think at this point we have both seen good arguments from the other side, and I think we've both become more convinced by a more middle position than where we started. We'll probably never agree on the exact specifics of what needs to be changed, but certainly at least your choices would be a start. I will note that although aimed at Fighters, part of your proposal actually does hurt Monks who also did the same two-handing trick even more. Maybe eliminating Master of Many Styles archetype ability to ignore prereqs and also eliminating the ability to take the feats for high BAB would be a good option (in other words, you must be Monk 5 to take Crane Wing. No dips or taking it as a straight Fighter).
Monks have always had really good AC along with S&B full plate fighters.
I have never been impressed by an archer's AC.
The Archer generally beats out the Monk by using Celestial Armor combined with extreme Dexterity. They only truly come into their own at higher level though (when they can afford Celestial Armor and extreme Dexterity). At mid levels they can beat Gus by ~1 or 2 AC due to higher Dexterity, and Gus with a +2 would not be easy to beat for a Monk without taking away your focus from Strength, which is where a Monk's focus needs to be to keep up their subpar offense.
Let's see if I can kit up a level 10 Monk with 32 AC on the cheap. I'll assume that Mage Armor appears out of the aether on the Monk from somewhere for free, so that takes care of 4. +2 Ring of Protection is 2 more. Amulet of Natural Armor is not a sure thing if you have an Amulet of Mighty Fists. Ioun Stone is +1. Monk flat-out gives you 2 more on its own. Dodge is another +1. So we're looking at getting about 12 AC from Wisdom and Dexterity, and you're obviously not going to have 22 Dex or Wis let alone 22 in both. I'm not seeing it. What am I missing?
Both the Archer and the Monk can use a Wand of Shield for 4 more AC, but that keeps them even if they both do it.
I think an AC focused monk will be ahead.
10 from dex
10 from wisdom.
5 from Amulet of natural armor
5 from ring of protection
+1 dodge feat
+5 monk class
+5 defending weapon--makes sense because a monk is better off with a weapon anyway in many cases.
8 bracers or armor
+10 base
59 AC--I have seen higher, but that is just off the top of my head.
edit:The monk has not stepped out of the CRB yet.
Celestial armor+9
Dex+8, +10 if using the core fighter
dodge +1
5 from Amulet of natural armor
5 from ring of protection
10 base
38 to 40 at level 20
A S&B fighter could have the same total AC from his armor if not higher, depending.
He will get 7 more from the shield, and, and another 5 from a defending weapon.
That puts him in the 50's.
I am sure I could find more stuff if I went looking around.
------------------------------------------
Even taking the monk down to level 10 I think it would be ahead of the archer.
I think an AC focused monk will be ahead.
10 from dex
10 from wisdom.
5 from Amulet of natural armor
5 from ring of protection
+1 dodge feat
+5 monk class
+5 defending weapon--makes sense because a monk is better off with a weapon anyway in many cases.
8 bracers or armor
+10 base59 AC--I have seen higher, but that is just off the top of my head.
How are you getting 10 from Dex and 10 from Wisdom, exactly? Even assuming you quintuple wished them and had +6 items for each, you would have needed to start with 19 in each of them at level 1 to reach 30 by level 20. Still, even with a more reasonable stat distribution with +7 from each of Dex and Wis, that is still 53, which is pretty good. Obviously the only relevant components of the monk's AC are:
7 from dex + 7 from wisdom + 8 from bracers of armor + 5 monk class VS total from other person's armor and dex (since the other person can take all of the other things too). At best the other person is going to have 23 vs the monk's 27 from these, so the monk is ahead at what appears to be level 20 wealth from your comparison (no other way for those wishes to be affordable). Granted the other guy saved the non-trivial (over 1/6 of WBL, even for level 20) 150,000 gold pieces compared to the monk on having 4 lower AC.
Looks like the monk definitely pulls ahead when you have access to double inherent bonuses for both stats and enough money that high-cost bracers of armor are worth it over just getting a Mage Armor.
20 point buy
32 dex (16 base+2 race+4 level up+6 belt+4 book)
26 wis (15 base+1 level up+6 headband+4 book)
12 con
Well that drops AC by 1
PS:That was level 20.
Wait, Monks are usually the kings of AC? I know I'm not up-to-date on AC optimization, but I had thought TWF Sword and Shield Fighters and/or archery-focused Fighters usually had significantly more AC than Monks. I probably am missing new stuff from UC on that though, I guess.
Oh yes, the monk usually gets ahead of the fighter by a few points.
At level 10:
22 Dex (18+2 leveling + 2 belt) +6
18 Wis (16+2 headband) +4
AC bonus +2
Use Magic Device and +4 armour and +4 shield are very cheap (to use you tricks)
Ring of Protection +2
Ioun Stone +1
Dodge +1
Ki point for +4
I make that AC 38. Actually, I wouldn't do the mage armour & shield tricks, more likely ring of force shield and bracers of amour +3 for AC34, but still very respectable without even trying hard (no amulet of natural armour as he wants an AoMF).
Oh, and if he Crane Styles, +4 AC from fighting defensively. That's AC 42 or 38.
Anyways, I think at this point we have both seen good arguments from the other side, and I think we've both become more convinced by a more middle position than where we started. We'll probably never agree on the exact specifics of what needs to be changed, but certainly at least your choices would be a start. I will note that although aimed at Fighters, part of your proposal actually does hurt Monks who also did the same two-handing trick even more. Maybe eliminating Master of Many Styles archetype ability to ignore prereqs and also eliminating the ability to take the feats for high BAB would be a good option (in other words, you must be Monk 5 to take Crane Wing. No dips or taking it as a straight Fighter).
Yes, I think the problem does lie in the Master of Many Styles as well, as I originally said. As for monks, yes they can do the two-handed trick but they don't get as much out of it, so it's easier for them to drop it. I've certainly never bothered.
Replying to some of the other comments:
Wait, Monks are usually the kings of AC? I know I'm not up-to-date on AC optimization, but I had thought TWF Sword and Shield Fighters and/or archery-focused Fighters usually had significantly more AC than Monks. I probably am missing new stuff from UC on that though, I guess.Oh yes, the monk usually gets ahead of the fighter by a few points.
At level 10:
22 Dex (18+2 leveling + 2 belt) +6
18 Wis (16+2 headband) +4
AC bonus +2
Use Magic Device and +4 armour and +4 shield are very cheap (to use you tricks)
Ring of Protection +2
Ioun Stone +1
Dodge +1
Ki point for +4
I make that AC 38. Actually, I wouldn't do the mage armour & shield tricks, more likely ring of force shield and bracers of amour +3 for AC34, but still very respectable without even trying hard (no amulet of natural armour as he wants an AoMF).Oh, and if he Crane Styles, +4 AC from fighting defensively. That's AC 42 or 38.
Yeah, I'm liking your guy better than wraithstrike's because wraithstrike's seems to have literally dropped offense into nothing to show a hypothetical AC whereas yours could hit enemies with very low AC. So you have 30 AC when not spending the expendable resource of a ki point, 34 with. That's about as good as the archer, who had 32 AC without expendables or UMD tricks. It does mean you can't be Strength-focused since most points were in Dex, so while you can hit, you won't be doing as much damage (though at least you can grab an Agile Amulet of Mighty Fists to help a bit). The Archer hasn't really sacrificed any offense though, and she has about the same AC. There's no question that at level 20, even if you take out the "tank offense into the ground" items like replacing the defending monk weapon with something that gives Agile, the Monk will still be ahead of the archer on AC once it is easy to afford a fully kitted Bracers of Armor and wishes and +6 stat boosters for both Wisdom and Dexterity, but it looks like the Archer is slightly ahead on AC without expendable daily ki points being used, with the option to burn one for the monk just in case.
And yeah, I like that you only included Crane Style separately--since the question was whether the Monk was already king of AC before Crane Style, best not to include it this time.
Of course, TWF Sword and Shield Fighters have better AC all the way through than the Monk, but then it makes sense, since that's the most iconic "tank" we can think of.
Yes, I think the problem does lie in the Master of Many Styles as well, as I originally said. As for monks, yes they can do the two-handed trick but they don't get as much out of it, so it's easier for them to drop it. I've certainly never bothered.
Yeah, and Monks can fight effectively two-handed with unarmed strikes by using the Dragon Style chain, but without using both hands. Do you think that my proposed change would help, wherein you literally could only take the feats if you had enough Monk levels, Master of Many Styles or not? I'm beginning to think it might actually be approximately enough to make me happy. You're taking a mighty large numbers of Monk levels to get these feats. To be nice to the Master of Many Styles due to my nerfing it, I would let them hold their bonus feats in reserve, so like say "my level 2 bonus feat is for Crane Wing. It will kick in when I reach level 5 in Monk and meet the prereqs"--essentially letting them take the feat without the prereqs but not use it until meeting them.
Do you think that my proposed change would help, wherein you literally could only take the feats if you had enough Monk levels, Master of Many Styles or not? I'm beginning to think it might actually be approximately enough to make me happy. You're taking a mighty large numbers of Monk levels to get these feats. To be nice to the Master of Many Styles due to my nerfing it, I would let them hold their bonus feats in reserve, so like say "my level 2 bonus feat is for Crane Wing. It will kick in when I reach level 5 in Monk and meet the prereqs"--essentially letting them take the feat without the prereqs but not use it until meeting them.
While, I am not sure the nerf is needed. You combine it with how the Unarmed fighter works. They can pick any "style" without prereqs, but not the subsequent part of the chain.
You could also say that the only prereq they need to meet for the feat, is the monk level and having the base style.
I would probably do a combination of these two, but again, Monks could use a few nice things and I don't see this as a big deal. (Then again, I GM homegames, so I have alot of flexibility.)
Do you think that my proposed change would help, wherein you literally could only take the feats if you had enough Monk levels, Master of Many Styles or not? I'm beginning to think it might actually be approximately enough to make me happy. You're taking a mighty large numbers of Monk levels to get these feats. To be nice to the Master of Many Styles due to my nerfing it, I would let them hold their bonus feats in reserve, so like say "my level 2 bonus feat is for Crane Wing. It will kick in when I reach level 5 in Monk and meet the prereqs"--essentially letting them take the feat without the prereqs but not use it until meeting them.While, I am not sure the nerf is needed. You combine it with how the Unarmed fighter works. They can pick any "style" without prereqs, but not the subsequent part of the chain.
You could also say that the only prereq they need to meet for the feat, is the monk level and having the base style.
I would probably do a combination of these two, but again, Monks could use a few nice things and I don't see this as a big deal. (Then again, I GM homegames, so I have alot of flexibility.)
I've never specced an Unarmed Fighter, honestly. Assuming they were not better enough than Monks offensively, their archetype could be changed to count the Fighter levels as Monk levels for the purpose of styles.
Yeah, I'm liking your guy better than wraithstrike's because wraithstrike's seems to have literally dropped offense into nothing to show a hypothetical AC whereas yours could hit enemies with very low AC. So you have 30 AC when not spending the expendable resource of a ki point, 34 with. That's about as good as the archer, who had 32 AC without expendables or UMD tricks. It does mean you can't be Strength-focused since most points were in Dex, so while you can hit, you won't be doing as much damage (though at least you can grab an Agile Amulet of Mighty Fists to help a bit). The Archer hasn't really sacrificed any offense though, and she has about the same AC. There's no question that at level 20, even if you take out the "tank offense into the ground" items like replacing the defending monk weapon with something that gives Agile, the Monk will still be ahead of the archer on AC once it is easy to afford a fully kitted Bracers of Armor and wishes and +6 stat boosters for both Wisdom and Dexterity, but it looks like the Archer is slightly ahead on AC without expendable daily ki points being used, with the option to burn one for the monk just in case.
Yes, it's the monk's lack of offensive capacity that is his downfall, every time. Even with an agile amulet to increase damage, the monk falls behind in BAB + enhancement enough to make him struggle to hit high AC targets. Alice has the problem to an extent, but not as severe an extent.
The archer also has better hit points then the monk, but the monk has better saves, Still Mind, Evasion etc that make him overall defensively better than the archer, or indeed the sword & board fighter.
And yeah, I like that you only included Crane Style separately--since the question was whether the Monk was already king of AC before Crane Style, best not to include it this time.
Thank you! You can see that Crane Style does ramp up the monk's AC, but not brokenly so, and it means his poor attacks get poorer. That's why Crane Style, used as intended, isn't broken.
Of course, TWF Sword and Shield Fighters have better AC all the way through than the Monk, but then it makes sense, since that's the most iconic "tank" we can think of.
There's not much in it, I have found. Sometimes sword & board is ahead, sometimes the monk is. In one game I am in the eighth level paladin is matching AC with my monk, and he's a sword & board build.
Yeah, and Monks can fight effectively two-handed with unarmed strikes by using the Dragon Style chain, but without using both hands. Do you think that my proposed change would help, wherein you literally could only take the feats if you had enough Monk levels, Master of Many Styles or not? I'm beginning to think it might actually be approximately enough to make me happy. You're taking a mighty large numbers of Monk levels to get these feats. To be nice to the Master of Many Styles due to my nerfing it, I would let them hold their bonus feats in reserve, so like say "my level 2 bonus feat is for Crane Wing. It will kick in when I reach level 5 in Monk and meet the prereqs"--essentially letting them take the feat without the prereqs but not use it until meeting them.
I think that the Master of Many Styles isn't broken as a pure class, but when you make them a dip class they are. MoMS lacks flurry, so being able to use all the styles isn't so broken because they are fixed at 3/4 BAB. However, as a dip they are too good, picking up style feats so easily. I think they should have to meet the minimum level requirements of Style Feats, as well as prior Style Feats, that way dipping them gets what they do: several styles, not one.
Note that while you can beg a high level mage armor off a caster for a Pearl of Power (cheap), Shield spells are very short duration and would effectively have to be cast 1/encounter...meaning right before a fight, during which the Monk will be making a UMD check and not fighting.
In other words, won't be used much except if theorycrafting or the rare circumstance where he gets a spare round to do nothing.
It's why I never include it in AC calculations. It's too circumstantial.
==Aelryinth
I included it because RE did in his calculations for Alice's Mega-AC. I gave details with and without, though.
Note that while you can beg a high level mage armor off a caster for a Pearl of Power (cheap), Shield spells are very short duration and would effectively have to be cast 1/encounter...meaning right before a fight, during which the Monk will be making a UMD check and not fighting.
In other words, won't be used much except if theorycrafting or the rare circumstance where he gets a spare round to do nothing.
It's why I never include it in AC calculations. It's too circumstantial.
==Aelryinth
Actually, Ael, you'd be surprised. My playtest character in PFS gets off shield a surprising percentage of the time, though to do so he has to be willing to waste charges occasionally when the door is thrown open and nothing's inside.
As Dabbler said, I included AC both with and without for Alice (although I exclusively used the non-Shield AC when doing simulations such as the one with the froghemoth). It's perfectly fair of him to have it there in parens.
BTW RE, I had some test builds from a while back at 12-13th level for some builds I checked up on. The sword & board fighters tended to be 2 AC ahead of the monk sans ki. With ki the monk pulled the same amount ahead.