|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting notion. Can a magus get a cane pistol down to a free action reload?So, as written, with our without the errata, the Myrmidarch only works with light or one handed melee weapons that can be thrown.I'm rather partial to the idea of a myrmidarch with a sword cane pistol myself.
Sure. Rapid Reload (sword cane pistol) and alchemical cartridges, just like anyone else. Heck, myrmidarch and bladebound are compatible archetypes - you could even have a sword cane pistol that was a black blade if you wanted to.
EDIT: Technically, the mechanically superior option would probably be the axe musket. But I don't think it has the same amount of style as the sword cane pistol. Your mileage may vary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They should nerf flight too.
It negates all melee attacks, after all.
This trumps ANY argument the "pro-nerf" side of this argument uses.
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apologies for the long post, but I'd like to politely explain why this errata really upsets me.
I find the nerf frustrating because it absolutely obliterates one of the coolest, most worthwhile feat chains for monks. With this errata, would anybody even think of building a non-MoMS monk with Crane Style? Is anybody going to take a MAD 3/4 BAB class that fights with one-handed weapons (unarmed strike) and turtle up with the Total Defense action in the hopes of getting off a single AoO per round? Whoo, fear my mighty 1d8+5 Crane Riposte! Even if you pull out at Crane Wing and fight defensively, all you're getting is +4 against one melee attack. I don't believe that justifies expending three feats. Those same three feats could be much better spent on power attack, weapon focus, and improved critical - the usual drudgery of feat taxes that melee characters are subject to.
I tell you what that monk's going to get. That monk's going to get ignored by any creature with two points of INT to rub together. There's no aggro mechanic in Pathfinder, so the unhittable low-damage characters get put on hold until the squad of bad guys is done tying the wizard into a pretzel and wrapping the cleric in duct tape.
Meanwhile, the Invulnerable Rager barbarian with Come and Get Me is rocking DR15/all and harvesting 3-4 AoOs per round when attacked, without sacrificing his normal attack routine on his turn, while rocking full BAB, sky high strength, two handed power attack, the whole train of omgwtfbbq hurting power that barbarians are known for. Bad guys have to decide between two terrible options: Do I ignore the barbarian and let him whup the almighty tar out of me, or do I attack the barbarian, do near zero damage, and let him whup even more tar out of me?
Right next to that barbarian is the full-plate clad paladin rocking 100lbs of adamantine and the power of his faith to be a super tough, hard to kill combatant. You can't ignore him, though - that Smite Evil is racking up MAJOR damage. You get the same choice as the barbarian offers: Ignore him, get hurt. Fight him, get hurt even more.
So lets go back to the Crane Wing monk. Having the auto-deflect and AC bump from fighting defensively takes a ton of pressure off the MAD nature of the monk. Suddenly, we can afford a high enough strength score to be hitting and doing some damage. Sensei Crane Wing rolls up to the fight, dishes out a mid-level beating with flurry of blows, and deflects the retaliation for survivability and extra damage. How is this a problem?
The problem was never the Crane Wing monk. The problem was the two-level MoMs dip that got crane wing for cheap and early by ignoring prerequisites. All of a sudden, your magus or gunslinger or what-have-you gains an extremely powerful defensive move and AC boost for very little investment. A human character with dex 13 could get Crane Wing at 1st level and then do the rest of their adventuring career as normal. Crane Wing is not overpowered on a 5-7th level monk, but it's grossly overpowered on a first-third level anything.
The fix could have come in many forms. Simply inserting "Crane Wing does not function against attacks from creatures more than two sizes larger than you" into the feat description and editing Master of Many Styles to say "The master of many styles does not need to meet any other prerequisite of the feat in the style's feat path except BAB or level requirements" would have solved the PFS problem, toned down the Crane Style slightly, and preserved one of the most flavorful and coolest things that the poor stupid monk has ever been able to do.
Thank you for listening if you got through all that!
If I make ask a question / make a suggestion: why is this being applied universally instead of just to PFS? You said it yourself, it was the PFS people who listed it as their #1 complaint. In contrast, I've seen it mentioned here on the general forums once, where a LOT of people jumped to defend it. Why not just modify the PFS house-rules to ban this feat chain like you guys did Synthesist? If it's that huge a complaint for them, well, it seems like that'd give BOTH camps what they want.I'm going to try to correct a misconception here.
The change was not for PFS. The change was made because data from PFS proved to the designers that it was not appropriately balanced.
If people had a different experience with the Feat, they should post playtest data similar to Rogue Eidolon's, along with any house rules or adjustments they make in their campaign. That's the kind of data that would be instrumental in reversing or altering this decision, not anecdotal evidence and "we use it and it's fine."
House rules should not factor into it. This isn't a change to how a house-ruled system like PFS works, it's a universal change. As such, testing should include a variety of scenarios of different party composition, level, wealth, and skill/ability/feat choices, all based on CRB standards. As you can see, it's a bewildering variety of data that's needed to do a proper evaluation. PFS encompasses only a tiny fraction of this.
Nonetheless, I feel up for the challenge. I'll start something up and crunch some numbers while also updating the vote tally thread on this board. We'll see what that yields, eventually.
It is certainly ironclad.This trumps ANY argument the "pro-nerf" side of this argument uses.They should nerf flight too.
It negates all melee attacks, after all.
Yes, because Crane's Wing was otherwise unstopable
Modifying encounters to match the PCs' strengths and weaknesses goes both ways.
What, nothing with pounce in there? Opportunity missed, man.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is certainly ironclad.This trumps ANY argument the "pro-nerf" side of this argument uses.They should nerf flight too.
It negates all melee attacks, after all.
Yes, because Crane's Wing was otherwise unstopable
Modifying encounters to match the PCs' strengths and weaknesses goes both ways.
I'm not modifying anything to match anything. I'm responding to the ridiculous assertion that Flight negates all melee attacks.
What, nothing with pounce in there? Opportunity missed, man.It is certainly ironclad.This trumps ANY argument the "pro-nerf" side of this argument uses.They should nerf flight too.
It negates all melee attacks, after all.
Yes, because Crane's Wing was otherwise unstopable
Modifying encounters to match the PCs' strengths and weaknesses goes both ways.
I was mostly looking at low-level humanoids, as they are the ones most hosed by CW. Pounce either tends to be for higher levels, at the point where CW tended to block a much smaller percent of DPR, or monsters, who aren't nearly as negatively affected, most of the time.
If you have to nerf it, then you have to nerf it. Nerfing it to this level was too much. Is it possible to have a middle ground?Not at the moment. We plan to let it stand for a while and look at it as we go along (as we do all of our rules).
I just noticed this change...
I was just wondering what might be more of a middle ground... First thing that came to mind was:
Allow the Fighting Defensive aspect to allow one attack per round to automatically have it's Crit negated.
(before results known, possibly before you know if it will threaten a Crit)
Would that be too strong?
Fortification becomes a moderately common thing at higher levels anyways, and there are other Crit Negation abilities as well.
Even if those are usually at higher level, Crane Wing DOES also come with a cost (Fighting Defensively).
Otherwise I was thinking along the lines of doubling the +4 bonus vs. Crit Confirms, or maybe an Fortification-like % chance of Crit Negation vs. one or all attacks,
but with all these AC bonuses, I felt the net result wouldn't be too far apart, so why not just go for the simpler game play?
BTW, I see that Mirror Image was brought up in relation to this...
Maybe it's a good time to issue a FAQ on how the 'must be able to see' rule is applied in regards to people who close their eyes?
(after they have seen the mirror images already)
Follow up to that being action/turn dynamics governing closing/opening eyes, how often per turn you can do so, etc.
Assuming that closing eyes works, doing so means the attacker is stuck with 50% miss chance for the duration,
but if they can get Full Attacks (and/or have Blind Fight), that's probably better than not doing so.
(Whether or not they can open eyes at end of their turn in order to potentially take AoO's also plays into that balance)
I HATE this change. I'm literally shaking in anger at this. Maybe it's just the late hour, maybe it's I haven't been online here a few days. Either way I feel an intense desire to tell the Paizo devs why.
I understand that PFS, whom I don't give two flips about frankly, decided it was too powerful passed the ball onto the devs. I get that. I get that the devs decided the ability to negate attacks was very powerful, since they could do so along side making attacks. That still doesn't make it right imo. It was a martial option, an option for classes that can't cast spells that produce similar if not more efficient results. These classes need those options.
Even so, I can see why you'd nerf it since the buck was passed to you, even if martials don't have a lot going for them. I don't see why you couldn't leave it useable. In fact, I think loads of characters will soon switch to Snake style after this.
Snake and Crane were similar, they both offered the chance to negate an attack against the user of said style. The difference was, Crane was more consistent than the variable snake style, even though Snake works on ranged attacks. Snake also consumed action economy as where Crane suffered an attack penalty. Even so they both even allow the user to make a retaliatory strike. Snake even lets the User do so earlier on than Crane.
However now, Crane when compared to Snake is completely worthless. Snake is now more consistent since you have to guess which attack will hit with Crane now for it to be worth a damn when fighting defensively. If you actually total defense, you completely destroy your action economy for a single deflection/potential attack(which you still suffer an attack penalties on btw) as where the Snake Style user gets their full attack sequence and their skill based dodge and counter attack. Crane does affect more than one target I suppose, but I don't think mobs have ever been the issue with the feat.
So I ask, why is Snake fine but Crane isn't? Or is Snake Style up on the chop block next? All I know, if it is, I dare say that I imagine people will be very, very ticked off.
Also I for one wasn't happy with the changes to Sound Striker, but at least you guys started a dialogue before hitting the class with the nerf stick. Just announcing these changes feels a lot like bullying on an option that non-optimal classes relyed upon. I understand that you can't consult the forums for every change, but I would hope that the outrage over this shows you that maybe this was a bit much.
After reading the entire thread it seems to me that what some people want is a form of early preview errata prior to the actual reprint finalization.
In the thread, Jason mentions that they keep an eye on changes for possible adjustments down the line in relation to errata. While this is useful, it seems a bit misplaced in the order of things as the reprint errata changes are already out the door so to speak. One issue with this is that there is no guarantee of further reprints. This makes every initial first reprint the most important one for covering as much as humanly possible, with successive reprints left for refining any corner cases that may need to run the testing long game for possible changes.
This method might help both the public and publisher with the reprint errata process. While I understand that errata threads exist, they are usually a mixed bag of actual usefullness—as are internal documents for somewhat similar reasons. It seems that releasing preview errata for a one week round of public scrutiny may be a boon for all involved. For time frame, a month prior to hitting the old Send to China for Print button might not be a bad thing. This should be more than enough time to make the final InDesign adjustments based on a fresher consensus.
Note: This is based on the fact that errata is not done through a pdf living document structure in favor of a less reliable FAQ section.
If none of this is the case feel free to ignore this reply.
The problem was never the Crane Wing monk. The problem was the two-level MoMs dip that got crane wing for cheap and early by ignoring prerequisites. All of a sudden, your magus or gunslinger or what-have-you gains an extremely powerful defensive move and AC boost for very little investment. A human character with dex 13 could get Crane Wing at 1st level and then do the rest of their adventuring career as normal. Crane Wing is not overpowered on a 5-7th level monk, but it's grossly overpowered on a first-third level anything.
The fix could have come in many forms. Simply inserting "Crane Wing does not function against attacks from creatures more than two sizes larger than you" into the feat description and editing Master of Many Styles to say "The master of many styles does not need to meet any other prerequisite of the feat in the style's feat path except BAB or level requirements" would have solved the PFS problem, toned down the Crane Style slightly, and preserved one of the most flavorful and coolest things that the poor stupid monk has ever been able to do.
First, apologies to Red Rampage for only quoting the most crucial parts of your post. :-)
Totally agree re: the problem being the 2 level Monk dip... only 1 lost BAB to any other martial, several free Feats/equivalent, + all Good Saves.It's almost crazy to take this Feat any other way, certainly if you can start out in Monk and change alignments later if needed, e.g. Barbarian.
I like your fix, although I might suggest a bit less radical change re: Master of Many Styles' Pre-Req bypassing
is just saying that it bypasses any non-BAB pre-reqs LEADING INTO THE STYLE (Dodge & Monk Level in this case),
i.e. you can take the first Style Feat without Pre-Reqs, but you still need the 1st Style Feat to get the 2nd follow-on Style Feat.
That's probably more logical for full MONKS too, not to mention dip monkeys...
MoMS Monks still get their Styles started earlier, they can the 1st Feat with no Pre Reqs,
and will get more Style Feat over-all, but will just not get tons of mid/end-game stuff.
If anything, MoMS should get an ability at mid/late game that lets them skip to the end of Style Feat Chains.
Although that also leads into the sequencing of the Feats, clearly the opinion was that Crane Wing was more worth it than Crane Riposte.
So probably the order of those two Feats should have been switched, except that doesn't work as written since CR does use CW.
Instead, a Crane Riposte shifted down to the 2nd Tier (BAB/Monk 5) could be written so that you can choose 1 attack per round,
and if it hits you, you can perform an AoO against that target (after said attack resolves).
The upgraded to 3rd Tier (BAB/Monk 8) Crane Wing Feat would then negate that attack completely and allow the AoO irregardless whether it would have hit.
That feels reasonable compared to Barbarian Unexpected Strike (8th level)
which allows an AoO vs. Threat Entry, i.e. enemies closing to attack you with no limit per round (other than AoO)
and no stipulation that you must be using Fighting Defensively/Full Defense.
That incidentally does ensure that you are using up a limited AoO in order to take advantage of the attack negation, a reasonable value IMHO.
That leaves anybody who takes the full chain (none of which can be skipped, even for Monks) with the same end functionality,
but it just re-orders it so that it's not unbalanced with just one Style Feat.
Also I for one wasn't happy with the changes to Sound Striker, but at least you guys started a dialogue before hitting the class with the nerf stick. Just announcing these changes feels a lot like bullying on an option that non-optimal classes relyed upon. I understand that you can't consult the forums for every change, but I would hope that the outrage over this shows you that maybe this was a bit much.
Sound Striker is stiil 'up for debate' last time I checked. Was there a separate errata slipped in somewhere that I missed on Sound Striker or are you operating off the 'Sound Striker errata' thread and the PDT proposal?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I've been running Reign of Winter with a character who has Crane Style.
I'm happy about the change. The character was unhittable for three whole books. That's half an AP that Crane Style jacked up. Ironically, the errata comes a couple months too late, as that player just retired his Crane Style character (it made sense for story reasons).
You can argue about PFS being fringe, but the APs are Paizo's bread and butter.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tested the new Crane Wing out with my lvl 12 Hungry Ghost Monk tonight. Crane Wing and Crane Riposte were completely worthless as I said it would be.
Reasons:
1. You do not use the Total Defense as a monk once you get into up front combat. Monk damage is dependent upon the volume of attacks, not single hits.
2. +4 Dodge bonus is not significant against higher level enemies buffed with spells and potions using tactical movement like flanking. For example, a group of vampires buffed with haste potion in flanking position cancel out all but one point of bonus AC for that single attack, Completely worthless.
3. You never get the Crane Riposte because you never use the Total Defense action at higher level. You have to be fully engaged in combat to contribute to the battle or other classes will do damage while you're stand there looking defensive. Enemies will focus on those targets.
Thus Crane Wing and Crane Riposte are effectively useless and not worth a feat expenditure for a one point reduction in the penalty for fighting defensively. Paizo game designers made a decision that took Crane Style feat chain from too good at low level to worthless at higher levels after you've invested three feats in the chain.
We've been playing Crane Style for a while now and amongst the group have three characters with the style. It is over-powered until past about lvl 5 or 6. Once you're dealing with creatures with multiple attacks, it's power wanes dramatically. About the only creatures that still have major problems are single attack creatures like incorporeal undead.
Our group decided to leave Crane Wing and Crane Riposte as is until either Paizo or the group consensus comes up with a fix that doesn't completely ruin the Crane Style feat chain. We are closing out the Master of Many Styles exploit that allowed the feat chain to be taken at too low a level. That was always the real problem with the Crane Style feat chain. Our only other choice was to allow players that chose Crane Wing and Crane Riposte to change out the feats for more worthwhile feats that would be used. Crane Wing and Crane Riposte are now dead feats no matter how much Paizo tries to spin it otherwise. Far more useful feats to choose than those two.
On a side note we're giving D&D Next a shot when it comes out. It's not just because of this particular change, though this was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. It's the entire lack of awareness of how the game plays. When casters have immensely more powerful spell combinations than Crane Style could possibly match and they choose to take something away from monks because of an exploit with Master of Many Styles they created, you reach a point where you no longer trust game design decisions. This hurt the monk class immensely and they don't even realize it because they're too busy trying to stop the Master of Many Styles dipping players were doing.
Martials each had a few things going for them:
Barbarians have Invulnerable Rager Come and Get Me Greater Beast Totem builds.
Fighters had Two-hander style and archer builds. These were at least two builds that had near the top damage in the game (at least before Raging Brutality pushed the barbarian up).
Magus, Ranger, and Inquisitor have an awesome set of options for offense and defense.
Let's not even start with all the caster options.
Paladins against 90% of the enemies faced are destroyers.
Rogues are still hurting. The ninja is damn good, though still suffers from the lack of two good saves at higher level.
Monks had martial arts feats, Zen Archer (for bow users), and Quingong Monk options. The only style that was close to other top end combinations was the Crane Style Feat chain with possibly Dragon and Snake style a distant second.
I have very little experience with Samurais or Cavaliers. No one wants to play them because of the reliance on a mount. Creates too many logistical issues when not in outdoor settings that allow mounts to be used freely, which is rare.
Total hammer crush for the monk. Very sad to see.
I've been running Reign of Winter with a character who has Crane Style.
I'm happy about the change. The character was unhittable for three whole books. That's half an AP that Crane Style jacked up. Ironically, the errata comes a couple months too late, as that player just retired his Crane Style character (it made sense for story reasons).
You can argue about PFS being fringe, but the APs are Paizo's bread and butter.
I would be heavily surprised if the character was really "unhittable". In practice, Crane Style is more difficult to implement than one would think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
We've been playing Crane Style for a while now and amongst the group have three characters with the style...
If you have 3 guys in the same group that have all spend the same 4-5 feats or taken the same level dip. Then pehaps it was a littel to good?
I Like the old version, and we will keep it like that, and i think the answer to the problem should have been to allow more styles to work with weapons. But your post made me think.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
We've been playing Crane Style for a while now and amongst the group have three characters with the style...If you have 3 guys in the same group that have all spend the same 4-5 feats or taken the same level dip. Then pehaps it was a littel to good?
I Like the old version, and we will keep it like that, and i think the answer to the problem should have been to allow more styles to work with weapons. But your post made me think.
How many melee characters have taken Power Attack in your group? If the answer is "All" or "The Majority" perhaps Power Attack is too good and needs a nerf?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing being completely ignored is Crane Style does not stop spells, breath weapons, ranged attacks, swarms, attacks by multiple enemies, gaze attacks, and numerous other dangers faced at higher levels in the game. The most visible over-powered component of the Crane Style feat chain is in the first four or five levels when fighting all the low level martial enemies Paizo tosses in their APs.This isn't near as much a factor later on.
It's a short-sighted change to a conceptually and mechanically very cool feat chain that gave monks something that made them stand out. It definitely took my monk from that guy who looked very cool deflecting a crit here and there to having two useless feats and taking a whole lot more damage while at the same time dealing less damage.
I don't see how my occasional deflection is any different from the Paladin doing crazy damage with his Smite Evil or healing himself to stand up to an immense number of attackers or grating Smite to the party...all of which happened tonight during my game. Somehow my ability to deflect one attack a round overshadows this?
The Magus took out four vampires surrounding him with Spellstrike and his buffed up blade while having displacement on getting missed 50% of the time. Yet the Crane Wing deflection is over-powered? How does that work?
I don't get it. I don't at all see how a single deflection of an attack once per round stands up to the immense power other classes have that far overshadow this ability. The only way to explain it is Paizo is focusing on a very narrow level range and a very narrow exploit that allows the taking of this feat series in that level range.
The Crane Wing does not seem like much at all next to the powers other classes are putting out at higher level. I ran an Invulnerable Rager Come and Get Me Barbarian and a Crane Wing deflection pales in comparison to what they can do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
We've been playing Crane Style for a while now and amongst the group have three characters with the style...If you have 3 guys in the same group that have all spend the same 4-5 feats or taken the same level dip. Then pehaps it was a littel to good?
I Like the old version, and we will keep it like that, and i think the answer to the problem should have been to allow more styles to work with weapons. But your post made me think.
Do you have any idea how many adventure paths and adventures we've run?
Rise of the Runelords
Kingmaker
Carrion Crown (One character with Crane Style)
Second Darkness
Serpent's Skull (One character with Crane Style)
Way of the Wicked
Made up adventure in Kingmaker Kingdom
I guess we only have two characters with Crane Style. We average 5 characters per AP. Out of 35 characters, we have two with Crane Style.
A Crane Style build is a defensive build. That means you don't do as much damage as an offensive build. It also takes a while to warm up. Fighting Defensively at low levels does not make it easy to hit. There are other classes people enjoy with more bang for the buck than Crane Style.
We have a lot of experience. Which is why I know how this stuff works past lvl 5. I know Crane is not over-powered as you rise in level. Not at all, especially when compared to other options, Which is why all our players that know this don't go for Crane Style builds. They are not the most powerful and only seem that way when you're doing the first couple of AP modules.
The DM of Serpent Skull was really annoyed by Crane Style throughout the first couple of modules. The character with it was very hard to hurt in melee combat. He was hammered when we were ambushed by archers. He ended up just as screwed as the rest of us from special attacks and casters when we faced them. Past that second AP module, he wasn't near as annoying to the DM as nearly every enemy gained multiple attacks.
The Hungry Ghost Monk in Carrion Crown was never a problem. He didn't get Crane Wing early. So it never was an issue.
...
We've been playing Crane Style for a while now and amongst the group have three characters with the style...If you have 3 guys in the same group that have all spend the same 4-5 feats or taken the same level dip. Then pehaps it was a littel to good?
I Like the old version, and we will keep it like that, and i think the answer to the problem should have been to allow more styles to work with weapons. But your post made me think.Do you have any idea how many adventure paths and adventures we've run?
Rise of the Runelords
Kingmaker
Carrion Crown (One character with Crane Style)
Second Darkness
Serpent's Skull (One character with Crane Style)
Way of the Wicked
Made up adventure in Kingmaker KingdomI guess we only have two characters with Crane Style. We average 5 characters per AP. Out of 35 characters, we have two with Crane Style.
A Crane Style build is a defensive build. That means you don't do as much damage as an offensive build. It also takes a while to warm up. Fighting Defensively at low levels does not make it easy to hit. There are other classes people enjoy with more bang for the buck than Crane Style.
We have a lot of experience. Which is why I know how this stuff works past lvl 5. I know Crane is not over-powered as you rise in level. Not at all, especially when compared to other options, Which is why all our players that know this don't go for Crane Style builds. They are not the most powerful and only seem that way when you're doing the first couple of AP modules.
The DM of Serpent Skull was really annoyed by Crane Style throughout the first couple of modules. The character with it was very hard to hurt in melee combat. He was hammered when we were ambushed by archers. He ended up just as screwed as the rest of us from special attacks and casters when we faced them. Past that second AP module, he wasn't near as annoying to the DM as nearly every enemy gained multiple attacks.
The Hungry Ghost Monk...
Ok i was thinking that you had 3 guys with it in your current party. Thanks for the clarification.
I will say found crane style was high powered all the way from the start and i liked it. It gave somthing that if you had high AC would allow you to be really doable in melee and it was fine.I have been on the reciving end of crane style and it was great that there was a guy that was hard to take Down for the heavyhitters and where coordination was important. It added to the game. Now it is a non option unless you take the steelward feats.
How many melee characters have taken Power Attack in your group? If the answer is "All" or "The Majority" perhaps Power Attack is too good and needs a nerf?...
We've been playing Crane Style for a while now and amongst the group have three characters with the style...If you have 3 guys in the same group that have all spend the same 4-5 feats or taken the same level dip. Then pehaps it was a littel to good?
I Like the old version, and we will keep it like that, and i think the answer to the problem should have been to allow more styles to work with weapons. But your post made me think.
I ditent say that there was any need for the nerf. But reconsidering ones own position, when new evidence is put forward is kind of what makes it a position and not just an opinion. I have reconsidered and decided that my old position is still correct. The nerf is bad.
I think power attack is way better than most other options and i think a lot of options should be made at least somewhat as good as power attack. So there would be other feats to take at level 1.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, if I enter a home game and my DM says "This is going to be a zombie-survival themed game," my character will be a level 1 Ranger with favored enemy - undead. Why wouldn't I do that? I know exactly what is coming and this gives me a damage boost against almost everything. I'd probably even spend cross-class points on knowledge religion and I'd buy alchemist fires/holy waters when I got the chance. Now... if my GM is smart, he inserts a lot of fights that aren't all zombies. Maybe a crazed wizard is doing some badness... or an evil cleric is controlling undead... or there's a roving bunch of thieves to finish off... who knows, but not zombies.
Aka, carrion crown. Sure there are a lot of undead, but there are plenty of horror creatures who aren't undead, from cultists to werewolves to Flesh Golems, and so on. The writers of the AP recognized that without this variation, there would be little to prevent a specialized undead hunter from being overpowered. But apparently somewhere along the way, Paizo forgot that varying enemies is a legitimate way to prevent a certain option from being overpowered.
So, as written, with our without the errata, the Myrmidarch only works with light or one handed melee weapons that can be thrown.I'm rather partial to the idea of a myrmidarch with a sword cane pistol myself.
pepperbox.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Iterative attacks are not a problem for a player using Crane Wing.
Multiple Natural Attacks are, however. And there are a ton of options for multiple Natural Attacks.
Combat Maneuvers also get right around Crane Wing.
Ranged Attacks and Spells bypass it entirely. Metric f*$&-load of those available.
Single-attack/Iterative-attack enemies should exist, so that the Crane Wing user actually gets some use out of their feat. But it's wrong to punish the feat user when it's the writers who can't come up with a more varied list of challenges.
Ravingdork,
YOu can Riposte when you completely neutralize an attack. Since that happens only in Total Defense, you can only use Crane Riposte when in Total Defense and you totally neutralize an incoming attack, effectively allowing you a single attack even while in Total Defense.
Which is the major change raising howls from people, by the way. I think if Riposte had instead worked every time Crane Wing's target attack missed or was neutralized, there would be much less complaining.
--------
As for the comparison above with the Serpent Skull character:
He was tached by archers and spellcasters...like any other Melee, who also suck against those. That's not a comparison.
But in Melee, he was basically very hard to hurt...which is better then any other melee.
Being able to hurt him with stuff that hurts any melee, but being unable to hurt him with the stuff other melees have to deal with is clearly imbalanced.
And no, you aren't restricted to one-handed or finesse weapons while using Crane Wing. You simply have to have a free hand on your turn. it's made for bastard and long sword wielders. Take your hand off at the end of your turn, and you're golden to 2H your weapon on your turn.
If you are smart and use Crane Wing tactically, the only thing which is going to take you down is ranged attacks and spells, without some really extraordinary circumstances. Just being able to shut down the offense of 95%+ of the melee combatants in the game is hugely strong.
==Aelryinth
|
Still, nerfing it to working only when taking full Defense? you can't even move away effectively, since you're limited to a 5' step. If you added language to Crane Riposte allowing you to take normal movement when Crane Riposting in a full defense action, I think you'd actually have a decent feat chain, and hold pretty well to the swashbuckler style.
Actually Total Defense is a standard action - you can move just fine. It worked that way in 3.5 too: Kubota demonstrates.
Maybe it's because martials can be buffed via spells, but spells are not buffed via martial.
They're buffed in the sense that you can cast at all because the martial is keeping the tentacled horror with blindsight that ambushed the party out of your face.
2. +4 Dodge bonus is not significant against higher level enemies buffed with spells and potions using tactical movement like flanking. For example, a group of vampires buffed with haste potion in flanking position cancel out all but one point of bonus AC for that single attack, Completely worthless.
The "buffs" argument holds no water because players will have buffs too. I agree with you that the feats were overnerfed but this line of attack isn't helping.
|
|
Yeesh, more hyperbole. Crane Wing was not the be-all and end-all of the monk guys...
Personally I would lighten up the nerf by letting you choose to use the +4 before the attack roll, or letting the +4 apply to as many attacks per round as you had AoOs. And Crane Riposte should be usable on any attack that misses you due to the bonus AC or being deflected, rather than just the latter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Removed a post, didn't follow the first rule of the Paizo board.
After reading the entire thread it seems to me that what some people want is a form of early preview errata prior to the actual reprint finalization.
I actually don't want this. I suspect such a process would be dysfunctional in the literal sense of that word.
I don't want Paizo to drastically alter their design process. At most I want them to reconsider, based on feedback, some of the principles they apply within that process, such as whether fiddly little mechanics are desirable or whether to calibrate martial feats to such a low power level compared to various other things (like class features or spells).
The process itself? No, let's not take spilled milk on the floor as a reason to get rid of floors.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Post removed. Conversation is fine. Thoughts on the subject are fine. Snarky attacks are not.
After reading the entire thread it seems to me that what some people want is a form of early preview errata prior to the actual reprint finalization.I actually don't want this. I suspect such a process would be dysfunctional in the literal sense of that word.
I don't want Paizo to drastically alter their design process. At most I want them to reconsider, based on feedback, some of the principles they apply within that process, such as whether fiddly little mechanics are desirable or whether to calibrate martial feats to such a low power level compared to various other things (like class features or spells).
The process itself? No, let's not take spilled milk on the floor as a reason to get rid of floors.
I think it would be nice if Paizo didn't nerf things that aren't a RAW typo. Especially monk tricks.
World of difference between removing exploits and nerfing abilities.
I support the change to Crane Wing.
-Skeld
Reasons?
People keep bringing up this idea that single weapon characters can't hit someone using crane wing. A readied action allows you to attack before they use total defence or fight defensively, if they move away from you they provoke an attack of opportunity. It's not like you could't get around it already.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've read pretty much everything there is to read about this change and I have come to one conclusion: This ruling is chock full of hypocrisy.
I've also decided that I will not be implementing it in my games as is. We will be using the old version until such a time that they can fix it PROPERLY.
I've read pretty much everything there is to read about this change and I have come to one conclusion: This ruling is chock full of hypocrisy.
I've also decided that I will not be implementing it in my games as is. We will be using the old version until such a time that they can fix it PROPERLY.
agreed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Somehow the quality of paizos books seems to be much higher than the quality of their FAQs/Erratas. That's sad.
