You have to activate it as a Swift action at battle start, but it still can only deflect one attack per round (meaning things with multiple attacks still have PLENTY of chances to hit you), and you have to "Fight Defensively as a Full Round Action" to utilize the style at all (imparting a penalty to your to-hit in exchange for more defenses).
Crane style/wing/riposte works the same whether you are fighting defensively as a full round or a standard action.
You have to activate it as a Swift action at battle start, but it still can only deflect one attack per round (meaning things with multiple attacks still have PLENTY of chances to hit you), and you have to "Fight Defensively as a Full Round Action" to utilize the style at all (imparting a penalty to your to-hit in exchange for more defenses).Crane style/wing/riposte works the same whether you are fighting defensively as a full round or a standard action.
True, but either way you're gimped offensively for a round.
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...
Wow, this list actually helps lot as my Dm did just tell me there weren't many creatures with a CR of 2 with multiple attacks. Might use this list. The amount of controversy about the Crane Style feat tree at low levels shed some light on this for me.
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.Well, honestly, he is not the first nor will he be the last GM to cry about Crane Wing. Remember, most GMs only GM at lower levels because they only want to deal with easy to manage characters. However, characters with many attacks (1st level rapid shot or characters with 3 or more natural attacks) and Crane Wing characters that are hard to hit, bring the complication of higher level characters down to lower levels.
I say he is giving you a hint that you should play a different type of character that he can deal with. Likely a non-optimized character with one attack a round, modest AC, modest saves, no escapability.
The other option is that he can learn to step up his game as a GM, but he is likely not into that.
This is a very high possibility. I would like to talk to him more about that. Thanks for the advice, I had been thinking about that.
True, but either way you're gimped offensively for a round.You have to activate it as a Swift action at battle start, but it still can only deflect one attack per round (meaning things with multiple attacks still have PLENTY of chances to hit you), and you have to "Fight Defensively as a Full Round Action" to utilize the style at all (imparting a penalty to your to-hit in exchange for more defenses).Crane style/wing/riposte works the same whether you are fighting defensively as a full round or a standard action.
Well, it depends. A -2 isn't necessarily gimped, it depends on if you have enough other bonuses to hit to make it still more likely than not that you will hit. Yes, it reduces your DPR regardless (unless you'd only miss on a 1 either way) but it may not reduce it a lot if you have fighter levels, a strong attack ability modifier (STR or DEX) or significant investment in feats and items that boost your attack. It's situational. A -2 reduction in attack for a +4 in AC is certainly not a bad deal, but you have to consider when it is appropriate. Also of note: the Taldor PFS faction has a trait, Threatening defender, that reduces by 1 the penalty to your attack you take when fighting defensively. With Crane Riposte, you'd actually get no penalty at all. There are also reductions associated with the aldori swordlord fighter archetype, and the prestige class of the same name.
Well, it depends. A -2 isn't necessarily gimped, it depends on if you have enough other bonuses to hit to make it still more likely than not that you will hit. Yes, it reduces your DPR regardless (unless you'd only miss on a 1 either way) but it may not reduce it a lot if you have fighter levels, a strong attack ability modifier (STR or DEX) or significant investment in feats and items that boost your attack. It's situational. A -2 reduction in attack for a +4 in AC is certainly not a bad deal, but you have to consider when it is appropriate. Also of note: the Taldor PFS faction has a trait, Threatening defender, that reduces by 1 the penalty to your attack you take when fighting defensively. With Crane Riposte, you'd actually get no penalty at all. There are also reductions associated with the aldori swordlord fighter archetype, and the prestige class of the same name.
Gimped COMPARATIVELY, I guess I should've said. I think it's important to note that a lot of common status effects (Shaken, for instance) impart that same penalty to-hit.
And yes, if you spend resources and class dips in things you can mitigate or eliminate that weakness...but then again SHOULDN'T that be the case if you're investing resources into being able to do something?
Nobody begrudges the high Str power attacking 2H Barbarian Pouncer for being able to deal lots of damage, because that's what he INVESTED in.
Why should you begrudge the Crane Style using Monk (MoMS)/Fighter (Aldori Swordlord) who invests resources into fighting defensively with no penalty for being a good defensive character who has non-gimped (well...further than you're gimped by giving up Flurry. As much as I love the MoMS, that hurts) combat ability (but not compared to someone who's spent those other resources on BOOSTING combat output instead of mitigating loss)?
Mitigating loss == Boosting combat output. It has the exact same result -- hitting more often. A fighter who puts his coin into a +2 sword instead of a +1 sword and a +1 armor and +1 shield is doing the exact same kind of balancing.
Mitigating loss == Boosting combat output. It has the exact same result -- hitting more often. A fighter who puts his coin into a +2 sword instead of a +1 sword and a +1 armor and +1 shield is doing the exact same kind of balancing.
No, it really is not equivalent.
Compared to someone who spent their resources on boosting combat output will have better combat output than you, since you are mitigating your loss.
Your Feats are: Dodge, Crane Style, Crane Wing, Crane Riposte. You have high defenses, at the cost of lower offense.
You can spend traits on, lowering the penalty, as you said, and such like that.
Let's say you do that. You now have high defenses, and a "baseline" combat output.
Meanwhile, you have another guy (also a Monk). His Feats are, say: Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Dragon Style, Dragon Ferocity.
His defenses are lower than yours...but his combat output is still higher.
He is not at the baseline, and needed spend no resources to ACHIEVE the baseline, as you did. Indeed, he can spend 1st level resources like traits to boost this further (Quain Martial Artist, for instance), basically doing everything you did...but to the effect of boosting his strength, not mitigating his weakness.
Mitigating a loss will never boost your output, it is just going to bring you up to the baseline. FROM THERE, you can boost your output, but you're still also at a net loss of combat output compared to someone else, just as they are always going to be so defensively when compared to you, even if they take Dodge or something, unless at some point you both end up with the exact same Feats and use them at the same time.
Essentially, if your -2 penalty is eventually mitigated to a +0, that doesn't matter when someone else is at a +2. You're still effectively at a -2 as compared to someone focused on combat, and therefore your output is smaller.
Likewise, putting a few minor resources into putting his AC back up to the "baseline" (if he somehow dropped it, which this guy did not) will leave him behind the baseline effectively when it is shifted higher.
Natural weapons are considered weapons. So are unarmed strikes.
Crane Wing doesn't say "manufactured" weapons. Just "melee" weapons. That includes any weapon that is not a ranged weapon, such as firearms and longbows. It doesn't matter if it's part of the creature or a sharpened piece of metal.
n one level this isn't game breaking because you can just take the enemy down with spells, breath weapons ectre. But, and IMO this is a big "BUT", do we want something that emphasises the strength of spell casters over melee fighters even more?
In my personal opinion the game gains from placing some restriction on it. Whether it is what sort of melee attacks it can be used against or how many times a day you can use it (once per day per monk level seemed a good one). But that is merely my personal opinion.
Do we want to nerf a perfectly balanced option for martial characters just because it is better than average for 1~3 levels? Removing this feat will only weaken Monks and other unarmed combatants, which are already quite weak compared to combatants with manufactured weapons.
Let's see some very easy ways to "counter" Crane Wing:
- Multiple enemies
- Enemies with multiple attacks
- Ranged Attacks
All of these are extremely common and completely inside the capabilities of low-level mundane characters. All of them become more and more common as the levels go up, so Crane wing becomes less and less powerful.
It's an useful feat. But it's not overpowered. Not even close.
It also takes 2 feats and requires that you focus on what might be the weakest weapon in the game: unarmed strikes.
Unless you're dueling a T-Rex on a daily basis, Crane Wing is very far from OP.
As I pointed out in my post, and as reading the rules on Natural Attacks would make obvious, Melee Weapon Attacks didn't originally include Natural Attacks or Unarmed Attacks. The term Manufactured Weapons is a term that came into use later in the rules. Originally Melee Weapon Attacks were used when they talked about what is now called "Manufactured Weapons".
"Orginally" when? 3.0? Because I'm pretty sure "melee weapons" always included natural weapons and unarmed strikes. Limiting it to manufactured weapons or X times per days makes no sense from neither a balance perspective nor a flavor perspective.
Why can the monk deflect a vorpal blade but not a cheetah's claw? Why can he do it only a few times per day? How does "Look, I avoided one attack" hurt game balance? Invisibility is much, much more powerful and I don't see anyone complaining...
Natural weapons are considered weapons. So are unarmed strikes.
Crane Wing doesn't say "manufactured" weapons. Just "melee" weapons. That includes any weapon that is not a ranged weapon, such as firearms and longbows. It doesn't matter if it's part of the creature or a sharpened piece of metal.
As I pointed out in my post, and as reading the rules on Natural Attacks would make obvious, Melee Weapon Attacks didn't originally include Natural Attacks or Unarmed Attacks. The term Manufactured Weapons is a term that came into use later in the rules. Originally Melee Weapon Attacks were used when they talked about what is now called "Manufactured Weapons".
This is why I say they need to clarify this in a FAQ in the Core Rules section.
As I pointed out in my post, and is obvious by referencing the rules, it's not difficult to read the language present in the CRB to show that Natural Attacks are, in fact, Melee Attacks made with Natural Weapons. Hence, they are Melee Weapon Attacks.
FAQing that particular issue is unnecessary.
Even if you think it's conceivable to read the rules that way, do you honestly think that's the intent of the feats? To disallow their use against Natural Weapons? That seems rather silly, since a huge chunk of the Bestiaries use Natural Weapons.
So, if we can agree that the intent is clear, regardless of any fabricated ambiguity in the language, why is a FAQ necessary? FAQs aren't necessary just because words can mean different things. FAQs are only necessary if there exist multiple reasonable interpretations. The interpretation that says Crane Wing doesn't work with Natural Weapons is not reasonable. No FAQ is necessary.
The opening post is in regard to the GM changing the rules based on his view of the power of the feat and how should the Player handle this. So what people want is entirely relevant to the OP and just saying "the feat is what it is, live with it" is a singularly unhelpful comment because the GM that the player is dealing with doesn't agree and his decision completely trumps you.
That may be what the OP is about, but that's not what YOU have been discussing. You have been trying to argue that the Feat DOES NOT in fact work the way it works by RAW through some twisted form of anti-logic I can't fathom.
The appropriate text that proves you wrong has been quoted multiple times. It IS in the core rules, it just requires even the slightest bit of actual thought on the part of the person reading it to understand this.
The rules are clear. They were further clarified in a tangential FAQ. The fact that said FAQ is not a Core FAQ doesn't change the fact that it is a clarification to an already fairly clear rule.
In addition, what the OP was asking for was an approach to use for his DM that might get the man to see reason, so again, random houserules thrown out as an absurd argument that the Feat doesn't work the way it works doesn't help matters.
"What if a T-Rex uses it against the party? It obviously needs a nerf." helps nobody on either side of the discussion.
In all honesty, it seems the real problems in this entire situation are 1) The GM is basing a decision off of a very limited experience pool (one or two fights from the sounds of it) and 2) that the real culprit here is MoMS, and not Crane Wing/Riposte.
As to the first point, while I agree with the proposition that the GM is always right, that doesn't mean he's necessarily "right", if you catch my drift. Having DM'd for over a decade now, I would be very hesitant to nerf something after just one session. Some encounters will invariably end up being particularly well suited to a particular party or character and result in the party simply mulching their way through. Other encounters on the other hand, may seem like fairly mundane, average encounters, but when thrown against a party that is not well-equipped for them, suddenly become a meat grinder. All of this being said, I have to admit that its a lot easier for me to see this now than it was when I first started DM'ing. Fortunately, my players back then were also fairly new and never really created anything particularly game breaking.
As for the second issue, this is where it gets more difficult. Crane Wing is certainly very useful -- even at higher levels, while it won't stop all attacks, it still will at least stop some of them, thereby letting you live longer. As written, Crane Wing ordinarily can not be selected until 5th level. Add to that, the fact that Crane Riposte ordinarily cannot be taken until at least 7th level (if you are full monk) or 8th or higher (depending on class). MoMS; however, gets around this by allowing you to take all the feats in the tree by 2nd level, which invariably makes them more powerful.
So based on feats (as they are normally available) you have a character with 7th level abilities that is fighting 2nd level critters (and yes, I'm generalizing here). This is not to say the OP is being cheesy, rather he's simply using what a lot of others have used and what a lot will use in the future. I think the simplest way to showcase this to your GM would be to first, make sure he understands everything that you give up by going this route. You lost Flurry -- an iconic Monk feature. You have to fight defensively -- making you less likely to hit (though often giving you back an attack lost from flurry). Plus, you had to invest in three feats (to get Riposte).
Compare then to Deflect Arrows (which I agree is a little less powerful). It has no pre-requisites (at least none that a monk will have trouble with), and it doesn't require you to fight defensively. When you compare the two options, I think Crane Style and its tree starts to look a lot more balanced -- particularly when you get to higher level play. Frankly, had you not taken MoMS and simply acquired the feats as normal, I doubt your GM would have blinked.
If, at the end of the day, the GM is still firm in his opinion that its too powerful for level 2, perhaps suggest that rather than change the feat as written, that you be allowed to keep the same wording, but simply change MoMS to require that you meet the level requirements. Then, with the rebuild that would be needed, you can select additional style feats and start fusing those together. Just a thought.
Melee weapons and Natural Attacks aren't listed in separate sections because they are different types of weapons, but because they have different mechanics of employment. (Manufactured) Melee weapons get iterative attacks from high BAB. Natural Weapons don't, but you make all your primary natural attacks at full-BAB and all secondary ones at BAB-5. That is why they are distinguished... not because natural weapons are not melee weapons.
Natural Attacks are Melee Attacks made with Natural Weapons. That, explicitly, establishes them as Melee Weapon Attacks. By contrast, shooting someone with a Bow is a Ranged Weapon Attack. By contrast, firing a scorching Ray at someone is a Ranged Magic Attack. Lastly, an attack with a Flame Blade is a Melee Touch Attack. It isn't a weapon, it's just wielded as if it were one. If you tried to Crane Wing a Flame Blade... well, you're going to have a bad time. If you tried to Crane Wing a Shocking Grasp delivered as a Touch Attack, you're going to have a bad time. However, if you tried to Crane Wing an Unarmed Strike made by a caster holding a Shocking Grasp charge, you're fine. Those are the mechanics of the matter.
So much of this. And if Natural Attacks were not intended to be treated just like another type of Melee Weapon Attack, one wonders why Amulets of Mighty Fists allow Melee Weapon enhancements to be used with Natural Weapons.
And I'm still wondering where the definition of "Melee Weapon" as a distinct thing falls. Where else does "Melee Weapon" occur?
Attack Bonus
Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is the following:Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier
Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage: You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead
Coup de Grace: As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace (pronounced “coo day grahs”) to a helpless opponent.
Are creatures with natural weapons not allowed to deal nonlethal damage or make Coup de Grace attempts, either? Does Channel Smite not work with a Natural Weapon? Can you not benefit from Combat Expertise if you're only using a Natural Weapon? Does Spirited Charge not work with bite attacks? What about Enforcer, does that feat not work with Natural Weapons? Does Net and Trident not work with claw attacks? Sword and Pistol?
I see no reason that any of these things can't and shouldn't work perfectly well with Natural Weapons. But if they're not "Melee Weapons" (a term which is never defined), then none of them work. I don't see the justification there.
Lemmy - If you reread my post about Crane Style/Wing you would see I specified that it only becomes hugely powerful IF combined with a high AC (relative to the CR of the encounter). In that case multiple opponents/attacks doesn't make much difference because they still only hit once a round on most rounds, which Crane Wing then deflects.
Ranged attacks still work, but they can be neutralized in many ways which is the reason that they aren't a common option.
If your AC is that high, that's what keeping you alive, not Crane Wing. It's like saying Weapon Focus is broken because it can be used with Power Attack. Also, what are these "many ways" in which a mundane character can neutralize ranged attackers? Unless you're talking about casters, but then it's pointless, because casters don't worry about Crane Wing at all. What's it? Cover? Concealment? Because if either works, then you're far away from the ranged attacker, which means melee is not an option, which in turn means Crane Wing is useless.
The game favors offense, going defensive is always a losing race. It seems fair to me that a guy who invests a lot to have great defenses should have a freaking great defenses. Crane Wing is not even close to "hugely powerful", no matter how high your AC. It's just a good option that has steep requirements. Monks are not known for their amazing damage output. If they focus on defense, chances are their offensive options are rather underwhelming. Especially if they gave up FoB, their main offensive tool.
Again, there are dozens of low level spells that are much more powerful than Crane Wing. Invisibility and Fly can negate melee attacks much more effectively than Crane Wing. Wanna ban or nerf those too?
This complaint about a balanced martial option that works is pathetic. Give anything remotely useful to martial characters and people cry foul. It's because of this sort of behavior that casters still dominate the game so thoroughly and mundane characters can't have nice things.