Natural attacks are weapon attacks.
And in another thread it was clarified that it works with natural weapons:
If it meant "manufactured weapon," it would say "manufactured weapon" rather than "melee weapon."
The GM is no more important than any other player in the game. He absolutely does not have the "last word" in any situation because you, as a player, are always entitled to take the last word... "quit", preceded immediately by the second to last word, "I". A GM can't do much on his own if he drives off all his players with asinine rules adjudication; make sure you remind him of that. This is a game of many players; and the GM is one of those players. Any decisions regarding the game should be made with mutuality in mind and a GM should never make a knee-jerk reaction like that because this isn't a situation of "GM-vs-Players" as some take it to be. You took the feats expecting they'd work as stated in the rules and he suddenly flips those rules on you because it's too hard for him to deal with? Who's brow-beating whom here? You're already taking a penalty to attacks when fighting defensively and you gave up the benefit of Flurry for higher BAB and number of attacks with the archetype... tell him to grow a pair.
And what are the players going to do when the DM decides to stop running the game? Sorry, but the person that is putting in the lion's share of the work into the game *is* the most important person in the game.
I think the GM is wrong in this instance, but to suggest that throwing a hissy fit and quitting the game is probably not the best option. Frankly if I had a player childish enough to do that over a feat of all things then good riddance.
In my games, when an intelligent foe sees an unarmed, unarmored foe, they usually don't rush to engage in melee, but rather go "oh crap- mage! shoot him, quick!" ... which pretty much makes Crane Style+ useless and/or moot.
My monk is almost always carrying a lit torch in his hand as well as a temple sword on his hip and a spear across his back. He rarely uses them, but the bad guys don't know that. If anything, this character has been mistaken for a hireling torchbearer considering he's in a party with a heavily armored paladin, an armored cleric, a bow wielding ranger/rogue and a sorcerer.
After a round or two of attacking the monk and getting Crane Riposte'd and Snake Fang'd, most attackers try to chew on the paladin instead, since his damage output is 2 to 5 times greater than the monks. However, my nemesis is the surprise round and magic missiles.
Ok, it has to be said; I love that character build idea. Just, one handing a quarterstaff with style feats thrown in... yes please.Noted. I have already composed a list of things to screw over and Kazaan brought up the game mechanic of rumors which gives the Dm an excuse to start using tactics to thwart my build without heavy meta-gaming. I'm not sure how good the "losing flurry of blows" argument is going to go as I was planning on going Staff Magus level 3 with the Additional Traits feat going Magical Knack and Reactionary.Edit-LOL I should look up before I post.
Tell him the wing isn't overpowered. All he's gotta do is throw range at ya or a breath or magic at ya and u can't deflect it. That dragon shoulda been doing full attacks and would have hit yaat least a couple times if ya was up on it.
As far as the aoo, well a lvl 2 character has the abilities of a lvl 5 or 7 monk...really nice abilities I might add. But as long as he throwing range, magic, etc etc everything except melee atks at ya, ur wing is rendered pointless.
But losing flurry of blows and point out all the other benefits u are losing out on as well and that should sweeten the pot for ya.
Thank you, but it looks like this character build isn't going to be achieved as my Dm focused on the fact that the feat looks to be designed for higher level characters and sees me as abusing the rules. So now I need a new character. So I'm wondering what I should make to complete a party with a twf paladin face, A switch hitter ranger, and an undead lord cleric. We have a fey sorcerer in the party that hasn't been able to show up for the last couple of sessions. Any suggestions on classes? I would like something optimized to show the Dm that I don't have to abuse the rules to be powerful.
Thank you, but it looks like this character build isn't going to be achieved as my Dm focused on the fact that the feat looks to be designed for higher level characters and sees me as abusing the rules. So now I need a new character. So I'm wondering what I should make to complete a party with a twf paladin face, A switch hitter ranger, and an undead lord cleric. We have a fey sorcerer in the party that hasn't been able to show up for the last couple of sessions. Any suggestions on classes? I would like something optimized to show the Dm that I don't have to abuse the rules to be powerful.Ok, it has to be said; I love that character build idea. Just, one handing a quarterstaff with style feats thrown in... yes please.Noted. I have already composed a list of things to screw over and Kazaan brought up the game mechanic of rumors which gives the Dm an excuse to start using tactics to thwart my build without heavy meta-gaming. I'm not sure how good the "losing flurry of blows" argument is going to go as I was planning on going Staff Magus level 3 with the Additional Traits feat going Magical Knack and Reactionary.Edit-LOL I should look up before I post.
Tell him the wing isn't overpowered. All he's gotta do is throw range at ya or a breath or magic at ya and u can't deflect it. That dragon shoulda been doing full attacks and would have hit yaat least a couple times if ya was up on it.
As far as the aoo, well a lvl 2 character has the abilities of a lvl 5 or 7 monk...really nice abilities I might add. But as long as he throwing range, magic, etc etc everything except melee atks at ya, ur wing is rendered pointless.
But losing flurry of blows and point out all the other benefits u are losing out on as well and that should sweeten the pot for ya.
You could make a character based around the Antagonize feat (found in UM), high AC, high Diplomacy, High Intimidate, lots of languages and no offensive ability what-so-ever (unless you want to kill then split the AC with damage power, however the feat requires a standard action to use so it is not advised) and have the enemies attack you and only you or take penalties for not doing so. However this only works against stuff that can speak so swarms and no Int creatures are unaffected.
You could make a character based around the Antagonize feat (found in UM), high AC, high Diplomacy, High Intimidate, lots of...Thank you, but it looks like this character build isn't going to be achieved as my Dm focused on the fact that the feat looks to be designed for higher level characters and sees me as abusing the rules. So now I need a new character. So I'm wondering what I should make to complete a party with a twf paladin face, A switch hitter ranger, and an undead lord cleric. We have a fey sorcerer in the party that hasn't been able to show up for the last couple of sessions. Any suggestions on classes? I would like something optimized to show the Dm that I don't have to abuse the rules to be powerful.Ok, it has to be said; I love that character build idea. Just, one handing a quarterstaff with style feats thrown in... yes please.Noted. I have already composed a list of things to screw over and Kazaan brought up the game mechanic of rumors which gives the Dm an excuse to start using tactics to thwart my build without heavy meta-gaming. I'm not sure how good the "losing flurry of blows" argument is going to go as I was planning on going Staff Magus level 3 with the Additional Traits feat going Magical Knack and Reactionary.Edit-LOL I should look up before I post.
Tell him the wing isn't overpowered. All he's gotta do is throw range at ya or a breath or magic at ya and u can't deflect it. That dragon shoulda been doing full attacks and would have hit yaat least a couple times if ya was up on it.
As far as the aoo, well a lvl 2 character has the abilities of a lvl 5 or 7 monk...really nice abilities I might add. But as long as he throwing range, magic, etc etc everything except melee atks at ya, ur wing is rendered pointless.
But losing flurry of blows and point out all the other benefits u are losing out on as well and that should sweeten the pot for ya.
I might think about it. Right now I'm looking at either a hexcrafter magus, a witch, or possibly rogue/wizard/arcane trickster.
"Abusing the rules".
Yeah, using one of the class features you gave up your main damage ability for is "abusing the rules". :rolleyes:
Your DM seems like a prick, for the record.
More on topic, play something that could not even be misconstrued as "abusing the rules" but will still make him cry.
Like a Battlefield Control Wizard, or a Conjurer.
Maybe play a Summoner, get the best of both worlds: Hard to hit damage dealer coupled with good spellcasting.
The Fey Sorcerer might be a decent idea. Mind control everything. You'd be level 2 when it starts, you can wreck quite a number of encounters at that level with Sleep and Color Spray.
Doing all of this, doing nothing but exactly what the spells say they do.
If you want to be a bit more "hands on", play an Invulnerable Rager Barbarian. Go as stereotypical in the build as you can: 2H weapon, Superstition, Beast Totem, Spell Sunder, Come and Get Me (when you get that high).
Kill everything before it can touch you. Or, when you get CaGM, kill everything FOR touching you.
We don't use traits in our campaign's unfortunately, but I might look into the Flowing Monk with Snake Style. I'm curious how Snake Style works. So your Sense Motive check becomes you AC for that turn? Couldn't that potentially be quite bad? and how would one go about making a Flowing Monk? What would be some good feats?
Your sense motive check becomes your AC for one ATTACK, not for the whole turn. Your attacker declares an attack. You declare that you're going to attempt Snake Style. You spend your immediate action and make the roll. At that point you CAN (but don't have to) use the result as your AC vs that attack (only) or not if you rolled poorly. The attacker now rolls his declared attack. If he hits anyway, he hit. If he missed, you might now activate Snake Fang.
possibly rogue/wizard/arcane trickster.
You might look at vivisectionist/wizard if your going to be an arcane trickster.
Also, why are we discussing natural attacks? They count as weapons under pretty much every circumstance except when its specifically called out that you need a manufactured weapon.
Monsters are well known for their training in crane style and martial arts? That said, usually you outnumber a single high AC monster enough that it doesn't have a big affect. Worst case scenario your a T-rex or Hippo with one big vital strike trying to take down someone with crane wing one on one.
I would suggest players might want to think about what happens if the GM give Crane Wing to the monsters with high AC. In such a case if you play Crane Wing as per the rules using the Spell Combat FAQ then it's quite likely that Melee combat will become a "no damage zone" on both sides. Is this what people want?
If the GM nerfs Crane Wing for you he is equally nerfing it for the monsters.
There are certain enemies that Crane Wing would be completely appropriate for.
When the party runs up against them, they adjust their tactics accordingly.
Outthinking a challenge is what makes the game interesting and fun.
I think I might continue this monk build despite what has happened. I think I'll make an arrangement that we can play by his rules up until I meet the legitimate prereq's for the feat.
"Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks"
They are melee attacks, and they are weapons. What more do you need, a dissertation? Melee weapon: a weapon used to deliver melee attacks. Crane Wing deflects a Melee Weapon attack or, in other words, the attack of a Melee Weapon. Natural Weapons are Melee Weapons; thus Crane Wing can deflect a Natural Attack just as it can deflect a longsword. Myth Busted.
As I have already pointed out outside of the Magus FAQ the RAW doesn't actually support your point to any significant degree. Such a ruling should be in an area that can be easily found by someone looking for it, i.e. in the Core FAQ clarifying definitions or in the UC for Crane Wing.
Your "obvious" requires your chaining together several statements with slightly different terminology and saying "A" is similar to "B" , and "B" is similar "C", so "A" = "C". Not great logic especially when there are places in the rules that quite clearly indicate "A" =/= "C" as I've pointed out in the rules on Natural Attacks.
I don't believe you've pointed out anything of the sort. You're essentially arguing at this point that "melee weapons are not melee weapons" by arguing some weird semantic nonsense wherein the FAQs don't matter and neither does simple logic.
I would suggest players might want to think about what happens if the GM give Crane Wing to the monsters with high AC. In such a case if you play Crane Wing as per the rules using the Spell Combat FAQ then it's quite likely that Melee combat will become a "no damage zone" on both sides. Is this what people want?
If the GM nerfs Crane Wing for you he is equally nerfing it for the monsters.
"What people want" is irrelevant. The Feat works the way it works.
And as the prerequisites are so specific in theme and numerous in number, there will be very few enemies with it. When they are encountered, people will adjust.
Dominate Monster is a good spell. It works the way it works.
Sometimes it gets thrown against the party too. That doesn't mean you should willfully misinterpret aspects of the spell to nerf it for both.
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet).
***
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack.
Natural Attacks are made by Natural Weapons and are Melee Attacks. It's difficult for me to see how Natural Attacks would be anything but an attack with a melee weapon, since Natural Attacks are defined as being Melee Attacks made with Natural Weapons.
That's not Magus FAQ language, that's straight out of the Combat Chapter of the CRB.
"What people want" is irrelevant. The Feat works the way it works.
This quote cracks me up. You do understand that you're not working with computer code here. The feat isn't carved on a stone tablet taken from the top of mount Sinai. The pathfinder design team doesn't have complete and final authority on how you play your game (PFS not withstanding). Sometimes they write a poorly thought out feat or ability. It happens, they're only human.
If "What people want" will lead to a better, fairer, more enjoyable game how can it possibly be irrelevant.
As to the OP I personally come down on the side of Crane Wing is a touch overpowered mostly on the grounds that it's a 100% effective defense. I'm not a fan of 100% effective defenses. *edit* or offenses for that matter *edit*
- Torger
I've seen Crane Style used in many games now as GM and as player. I've never used it myself. I don't see it as over powered but I do know as GM it's annoying. You get this great hit and the player just brushes it off but it's only 1 attack though just sucks when you roll bad a gm and only land one to have tossed aside. But really no different than Deflect arrows, I find that just as annoying.
Crane wing typically doesn't show up till 5th or high level unless the monk is a Master Of Many Style and they give FOB for it so that's balanced. With out FOB they don't get a FULL BAB attack so they are -1 off the start and take the fighting defensive penalty on top of it. At 5th is when the monk or classes Full BAB can take it and this when they will be facing encounters with iterative attack or multiple attacks from natural weapons. Really only the fighter take it realistically at 5th. For a paladin they'd have to be human to take unarmed strike, dodge, Crane Style at 3rd and Crane wing 5th.
It might seem over powered against a lone enemy with single powerful attack but really that isn't even a challenge for a party of 4 due to action economy. For any encounter that is true challenge crane wing is not a problem. It deflects one attack on character who probably isn't doing much damage to begin with.
|
As a GM whose early campaign was absolutely wrecked by, and has subsequently banned from future games, Crane Wing, I can confirm the feat is absurdly, ridiculously, stupidly overpowered.
Until level 5.
Then it's just a solid defensive option and isn't worth worrying about. But gods help you if you're a big monster at levels 1-4 fighting a Crane Wing monk whose AC of 25 laughs at your attacks anyway and when you DO finally land one, it's deflected outright. Multiple attacks, larger groups of enemies, etc. all counter the Crane Wing monk.
"Lacking offense" is no drawback to a monk whose best friend is a gunslinger. She sits there and is untouchable (blocking people from getting to her companion) while bullets just destroy every opponent.
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet).
***
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack.
Natural Attacks are made by Natural Weapons and are Melee Attacks. It's difficult for me to see how Natural Attacks would be anything but an attack with a melee weapon, since Natural Attacks are defined as being Melee Attacks made with Natural Weapons.
That's not Magus FAQ language, that's straight out of the Combat Chapter of the CRB.
Your own rules quote has the rules differeniating between "Natural Weapon Attacks", "Melee Weapon Attacks" and "unarmed strikes" as different types of attacks. How can you quote that and then say the rules say they are all the same? Seriously read what you quoted. According to your own rules quoted a Natural Weapon Attack is different from a Melee Weapon Attack!!!
So given that the designers have ruled they are the same it would be sensible that they put a FAQ in clarifying that the rules you have quoted don't mean what they say.
They're not differentiated as wholly different things. They're described as specific ways to make standard action attacks. They can't be differentiated as different things because Natural Weapons are explicitly called Melee Attacks.
And if you really want to get pedantic about it Melee Weapon Attack is never defined, particularly not in that section. Melee Attacks are those made with a normal melee weapon. Natural Attacks are a specific subset of Melee Attacks. Ergo, Natural Attack are made with melee weapons (just specifically natural melee weapons).
What you're doing is saying squares aren't rectangles because the section discussing rectangles doesn't specifically mention squares, even though the section discussing squares specifically says "Squares are rectangles".
As a GM whose early campaign was absolutely wrecked by, and has subsequently banned from future games, Crane Wing, I can confirm the feat is absurdly, ridiculously, stupidly overpowered.
Until level 5.
Then it's just a solid defensive option and isn't worth worrying about. But gods help you if you're a big monster at levels 1-4 fighting a Crane Wing monk whose AC of 25 laughs at your attacks anyway and when you DO finally land one, it's deflected outright. Multiple attacks, larger groups of enemies, etc. all counter the Crane Wing monk.
"Lacking offense" is no drawback to a monk whose best friend is a gunslinger. She sits there and is untouchable (blocking people from getting to her companion) while bullets just destroy every opponent.
You typically you shouldn't see Crane Wing till 5th level. Only the Master of Many styles monk archetype can get it at level 2 by giving FOB. The monk then becomes all defense and not offense. Offense comes latter but for levels 2-4 not a problem. The monk can be largely ignored.
A monk who isn't fusing two style off the start if kind of wasting the loss of FOB in my opinion. I'd go with 2 styles off the start and pick up Crane Wing later.
|
|
You typically you shouldn't see Crane Wing till 5th level. Only the Master of Many styles monk archetype can get it at level 2 by giving FOB.
Are you willing to venture a guess which archetype my monk selected?
The monk then becomes all defense and not offense. Offense comes latter but for levels 2-4 not a problem. The monk can be largely ignored.
A monk who isn't fusing two style off the start if kind of wasting the loss of FOB in my opinion. I'd go with 2 styles off the start and pick up Crane Wing later.
As I said, the monk doesn't care at all that the damage numbers don't flow from her. She's not soloing. There's other party members that can't begin to express how happy they are that the invincible monk is blocking enemies from getting through her defense so they can attack to their hearts' content.
There's workarounds (which I used, including one awesome labyrinth where the hollow walls were basically filled with Tengu ambushers), but it was a massive pain custom-designing adversaries who could challenge the party just because of a single feat. Small corridors: Never again.
Since I specifically said the FAQ on Magus makes clear that Natural Attacks = Light Melee Weapon Attacks I'm not sure what you are talking about regarding ignoring FAQs.
I'm talking about it because every time the FAQ is mentioned you go "Well, ignoring/without the FAQ..." as if it's not relevant to the discussion. It is, as it is the SECOND piece of text that proves you flat out wrong.
Your own rules quote has the rules differeniating between "Natural Weapon Attacks", "Melee Weapon Attacks" and "unarmed strikes" as different types of attacks. How can you quote that and then say the rules say they are all the same? Seriously read what you quoted. According to your own rules quoted a Natural Weapon Attack is different from a Melee Weapon Attack!!!
Perhaps you need to learn the term "categorization"?
Let's use the category term "feline".
House cats are felines. So are tigers, lions, panthers, and so forth.
The fact that that there are other types of felines does not change the fact that cats are still felines.
The fact that there are TYPES of melee attacks does not change the fact that all of those things (natural attacks, unarmed strikes, and manufactured weapons) are MELEE ATTACK, just like it says in the quote Fretgod pulled up for you stating, quite clearly, than you are in the wrong on two counts here.
"What people want" is irrelevant. The Feat works the way it works.This quote cracks me up. You do understand that you're not working with computer code here. The feat isn't carved on a stone tablet taken from the top of mount Sinai. The pathfinder design team doesn't have complete and final authority on how you play your game (PFS not withstanding). Sometimes they write a poorly thought out feat or ability. It happens, they're only human.
If "What people want" will lead to a better, fairer, more enjoyable game how can it possibly be irrelevant.
We're not talking about changing it, even though there's no reason it should be changed.
He's saying we should willfully misinterpret the rules text to nerf the Feat in question if we don't want "bad things" to happen.
Regardless of whether it CAN be changed, currently it works the way it works. Anything else is a houserule and is worse than irrelevant to a discussion about how something actually works, it's actively disruptive to the discussion as a whole.
As to the OP I personally come down on the side of Crane Wing is a touch overpowered mostly on the grounds that it's a 100% effective defense. I'm not a fan of 100% effective defenses. *edit* or offenses for that matter *edit*
It's 100% effective against a SINGLE ATTACK, which most things don't have after about level 5. Hell, even at level two you fight monsters with two claw attacks or who TWF, so it's not even 100% there.
And you take penalties for doing it, as well, so it's not like it's "something for nothing" (disregarding the Feats spent, as well).
Do you like playing with you GM. Is he your only option? What is your mindset about his rulings?
He is really my only option atm, but I would rather stick with him as he is a very good friend of mine. I don't agree with a Dm messing with a character in mid-session as I feel that the character is the only thing the player has control over. I felt like their were better ways of approaching this problem, but he's been kind enough to hear out my complaints. Still hasn't changed his verdict, but that's just how it is.
As I said, the monk doesn't care at all that the damage numbers don't flow from her. She's not soloing. There's other party members that can't begin to express how happy they are that the invincible monk is blocking enemies from getting through her defense so they can attack to their hearts' content.
"Invincible"?
It's one attack a round!
There's workarounds (which I used, including one awesome labyrinth where the hollow walls were basically filled with Tengu ambushers), but it was a massive pain custom-designing adversaries who could challenge the party just because of a single feat. Small corridors: Never again.
You don't have to "custom design adversaries" you just need to not use ones with a single big attack.
Any enemy with multiple natural attacks, iterative attacks, or who TWFs can get through Crane Wing just fine.
Hell, using MULTIPLE ENEMIES with one big attack works.
Gosh it's terrible when an underpowered class that forces players to build characters designed to do just one thing is able to actually do that thing. It utterly destroys games. The best way to fix the situation is to make sure the thing that the character is designed to do can't ever be done. Character synergy is also a terrible thing. Characters working together is completely game-crushing.
There's other party members that can't begin to express how happy they are that the invincible monk is blocking enemies from getting through her defense so they can attack to their hearts' content.
"Invincible"
...
You have extremely low standards for what is defined as "invincible".
It's one attack per round. One. Not one per level or one per adversary. Nope. It's just one. One. Single. Attack. And it doesn't even work against ranged attacks.
Does Blur create invincible characters? That's 20% miss chance. So 1/5 of all attacks will miss. Not only melee attacks, either. All attacks. I suppose a character under effect of Blur or even concealment suddenly becomes "invincible".
Unless all your encounters are a one-on-one battle against a T-Rex, Crane Wing is not even close to broken. It's a good feat. That's all.
|
|
You have extremely low standards for what is defined as "invincible".
*rant removed*
Never played a level 2 adventure before, I see. How many CR2-3 monsters have both multiple attacks, and can reliably hit an AC above 20?
Not many.
If you'd read what I posted, Crane Wing breaks games below level 5, and is fine afterwards. My players napped through their initial levels. It's only now that things are getting tougher that they actually have to try. The game's improved drastically since then. The monk is still very hard to hurt, but it's at a reasonable level now that monsters can full attack her.
Never played a level 2 adventure before, I see. How many CR2-3 monsters have both multiple attacks, and can reliably hit an AC above 20?
Not many.
Again: One attack per round, not per adversary. What exactly happens when two or more adversaries attack the Monk? What happens when they use ranged attacks? If they can't reliably overcome his AC, they were not a threat to begin with.
AC 20 is pretty low even for low level adventures. The Monk just spent 2 feats in that. That's a considerable investment. Especially at low levels, when he won't have more than 3~4 feats. What's the problem? Do you think shields are OP because they make AC too high at low levels?
Never played a level 2 adventure before, I see. How many CR2-3 monsters have both multiple attacks, and can reliably hit an AC above 20?
Quiet a few things with natural attacks really. Most things with claws come in pairs and can come in packs. Teams of murder hobos in particular. In my last group(4 level 3's) only one PC made less than 2 attacks at less than 7 attack, the wizard. The marksman could make 2 attacks at +9 or so and crane wing won't block any of those.
|
|
Well, I don't need to come up with theories and speculation to support my position. The monk wrecked four levels of my game. This is a fact, and I specifically did throw creatures at them which Crane Wing didn't completely shut down.
It's a brutally, brutally effective feat for low-level characters. It wouldn't be a problem without Master of Many Styles, since you'd need to sink many more feats and levels into it in order to get the benefits of the feat tree otherwise.
And I've seen a Rogue practically win 2 combats in a row all by herself. I suppose that means Rogues are broken.
Fighters are very powerful at low levels, and Wizards are pretty limited. Does that mean Fighters should be nerfed and Wizards should be buffed?
Any creature with natural attacks can easily bypass Crane Wing. So can ranged attacks and spells. And all of those are common things.
MoMS loses FoB, a Monk's main offensive tool, in order to get better use os style feats. The fact that it actually works is a good thing, not an overpowered game mechanic.
Your GM does have the last word for everything in your game, and you should work with him on this. You definitely shouldn't browbeat him with any opinions you hear here.
GAH I wish you people would stop saying that.
Players can totally have the last word. It usually goes like "you're dumb and I don't want to play with you."
I definitely feel like Crane Wing is very, very strong. Not only does it block one attack each round, but it's always the most advantageous attack to block, since you get to choose when to use it. If you're fighting a single foe, his first attack will always be his strongest when full attacking, or his only attack when not full attacking.
Really, the only counter to this feat is to never use single opponents, but always gangs of equally dangerous foes. Even then, the monk would have to be facing at least a couple of members of said gang for Crane Wing not to block the strongest attack against him, and even then it isn't as if the feat were nullified, merely that he'd still take one strong attack instead of two.
And Crane Style is a good defensive feat itself, reducing the penalty for fighting defensively by half and increasing the benefit by 1/3rd. So it's not like there's a feat tax to get it.
Is it overpowered? Harder to say. Mirror Image has a solid though not 100% chance to accomplish the same thing, though it does cost a resource. Displacement grants a 50% chance to avoid any attack, not just one.
All in all I'd say that like an archer's full attack, Crane Wing is something that requires a DM to be aware of it and take steps to ensure it isn't overpowered. So long as the campaign contains plenty of multi-foe encounters, magical attacks, etc. then Crane Wing is very strong but not over-the-top. If the DM runs almost entirely one-foe physical encounters, then yes, Crane Wing is completely OP.
Never played a level 2 adventure before, I see. How many CR2-3 monsters have both multiple attacks, and can reliably hit an AC above 20?
Not many.
If you'd read what I posted, Crane Wing breaks games below level 5, and is fine afterwards. My players napped through their initial levels. It's only now that things are getting tougher that they actually have to try. The game's improved drastically since then. The monk is still very hard to hurt, but it's at a reasonable level now that monsters can full attack her.
"Can hit an AC of 20" is likely to be the hardest part, since attack bonuses are fairly low at level 2.
Then again, many characters can achieve 18-20 AC by level 1 or 2 if that's what they want to do.
But in answer to your question, in alphabetical order (only the ones with melee attacks, so things like Lantern Archons are excluded):
CR 2:
Silvanshee Agathion (bite +6, 2 claws +6)
Giant Soldier Ant (bite +3, Sting +3)
Harbringer Archon (3 blades +4)
Dire Badger (bite +4, 2 claws +4)
Blindheim (bite +5, 2 claws +5)
Boggard (Morningstar +5, Tongue -1)
Bogstrider (bite -1, 2 claws +4 as an option instead of its spear)
Cave Fisher (2 claws +5)
Charau-Ka (club +5, Bite +0)
Cheetah (bite +6, 2 claws +6)
Giant Crab (2 claws +4)
Crocodile (Bite +5, tail slap +0)
Dretch Demon (bite +4, 2 claws +4)
White Wyrmling Dragon (bite +5, 2 claws +5)
Crystal Wyrmling Dragon (bite +4, 2 claws +4)
Dweaomercat Cub (bite +7, 2 claws +7 POUNCE AND RAKE)
Electric Eeel (bite +3, tail slap -2)
Elk (2 hooves -1 as an option instead of its gore)
Forlarren (2 claws +4)
Gorilla (2 slams +3)
Hippogriff (bite +4, 2 claws +4)
Incutilis (2 tentacles +3)
Jackalwere (battleaxe +5, bite +0)
Kappa (2 claws +5)
Leopard (bite +6, 2 claws +6)
Leshy Fungus (bite +2, 2 claws +2)
Wereboar (dagger +6, bite +1)
Morlock (club +5, bite +0)
Mudman (2 slams +4)
Nuglub Gremlin (bite +3, 2 claws +4)
Ogrekin (spear +7, bite +2)
Spirit Oni (bite +9, gore +9)
Phantom Armor Guardian (2 slams +4 as an option instead of its sword)
Voidworm (bite +8, tail slap +3)
Quasit Demon (2 claws +7)
Sahuagin (trident +4, bite -1, OR bite +4, 2 claws +4)
Envyspawn (ranseur +4, bite -1 OR bite +4, 2 claws +4)
Gluttonspawn /Pridespawn/Greedspawn/Slothspawn/Wrathspawn (ranseur +3, bite -2 OR bite +3, 2 claws +3)
Lustspawn (bite +3, 2 claws +3)
Owlbear Skeleton (bite +6, 2 claws +6)
Skin Stealer (2 claws +5)
Skum (trident +4, bite +2, claw +2
Thawn (2 claws +4)
Wolverine (bite +4, 2 claws +4)
Apocalypse Zombie (bite +6, slam +6)
And I honestly can't be arsed at this point to list the CR 3 ones. I think I made my point.
Unless I miscounted, that's 45 enemies. Of the total 109 CR 2 foes.
Almost half. So I think I can safely say your "not many" claim is bunk.