So, how would you guys feel if Crane Riposte allowed you to take an AoO when someone misses you that you gained your +4 AC against?
Meh I could go with that.
Design Manager
|
I'm a little disappointed in the pathfinder community... Why so much hate? Yes it's different, but it's not bad.
If that were case, there wouldn't be so many people up in arms. The errata is in fact, bad. It imposes a high cost on a crap benefit, to solve something that shouldn't have been an issue in the first place, and breaks things by not even being a properly done errata with all of the affected feats and factors having been appropriately considered and corrected for. "OMG, something that costs upwards of 8 feats is allowing people to negate one attack a round and get an attack of opportunity in return!!"
Really? Seriously, really?
It's hard to discuss this without getting into a caster v. martials debate, but thats just because whenever you say "Compare it to what classes of the same level can do", the most obvious examples of things that are way more potent for far less investment are spell-based. But there's also Barbarian rage powers, cavalier murder-you-with-a-sharp-pointy-stick-in-one-shot powers, ninjas who can turn invisible and trip-murder you with kusarigama, gunslingers who can automatically knock you prone while targeting touch AC....
The list goes on.
I figured I'd offer my own suggestion on a simple fix. The feat (Crane Wing) stays exactly as is, but you add the following text to the end: "This feat can only be used to deflect attacks from creatures of your size or smaller. If you have a ki pool, you may expend one ki point to use this feat against a creature one size category larger than yourself." Something like that.
If you wanted to go a little bit further, you could make it require Combat Reflexes and use up an attack of opportunity. Thoughts?
EDIT: I meant "as is" as in the way it is in Ultimate Combat, not after the errata.
While I disagree with a lot of other things Erick has said here, I would totally get behind a fix like this. It keeps the deflection aspect (which, to me, is vastly more meaningful to the feat chain than the AoOs later on) while stopping wing-ers from dominating melee entirely. Fighters would still be able to use it and be masters of the 1v1 sword duel, but monks would actually get a leg up on them later on (one that couldn't be so easily co-opted by a dip into MoMS).
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.
The method I suggest does nothing fundamentally to change the design process prior to errata being "finalized". Items that are up for design change in a reprint are already known to Paizo, not so much to the public. My suggestion was a possible way to avoid thread debates like this one from taking place after the change has been made and set in print. The method you suggest is the exact definition of altering their design process.
Current process, as far as I am aware of how it works.
1. Playtest of only a portion of a book.
2. Feedback is taken into consideration and changes made as needed.
3. Product is finalized and first print happens.
4. People buy the product and can start looking for issues/errors.
5. Issues/errors are posted to both an errata thread and numerous individual threads. Some rules changes/ responses are added to the FAQ. This information is gathered internally.
6. Paizo makes reprint errata adjustments, prints the new version, uploads errata pdf of what was changed in the reprint to the public.
7. Repeat 4-6.
My suggested method, which only applies to reprints.
1. Months of information from errata thread, specific subject threads, and internal errata document information is gathered and put into a reprint errata preview pdf.
2. One month before Paizo knows they will finalize a reprint for print: Preview errata pdf is submitted to the public for a final one week round of further scrutiny.
- Anything that might be worth holding back can be discussed in threads like this, before it is actually printed. This is where threads like this can unfurl before, not after, the fact. A blog post discussing possible changes, like how it was with stealth, can be done for really "controversial" things that might need to be skipped in a reprint, in favor of something such as temporary PFS adjustments and/or a public revision preview.
- Any other changes such as typos, odd phrasing, and similar that were missed in the previous step 1 errata wrangle can be submitted for the final internal errata changes.
3. Paizo makes final changes and sends to print.
4. Repeat 1-3.
While I disagree with a lot of other things Erick has said here, I would totally get behind a fix like this. It keeps the deflection aspect (which, to me, is vastly more meaningful to the feat chain than the AoOs later on) while stopping wing-ers from dominating melee entirely. Fighters would still be able to use it and be masters of the 1v1 sword duel, but monks would actually get a leg up on them later on (one that couldn't be so easily co-opted by a dip into MoMS).I figured I'd offer my own suggestion on a simple fix. The feat (Crane Wing) stays exactly as is, but you add the following text to the end: "This feat can only be used to deflect attacks from creatures of your size or smaller. If you have a ki pool, you may expend one ki point to use this feat against a creature one size category larger than yourself." Something like that.
If you wanted to go a little bit further, you could make it require Combat Reflexes and use up an attack of opportunity. Thoughts?
EDIT: I meant "as is" as in the way it is in Ultimate Combat, not after the errata.
My thoughts exactly. I'm glad we agree on something. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My thoughts exactly. I'm glad we agree on something. :)While I disagree with a lot of other things Erick has said here, I would totally get behind a fix like this. It keeps the deflection aspect (which, to me, is vastly more meaningful to the feat chain than the AoOs later on) while stopping wing-ers from dominating melee entirely. Fighters would still be able to use it and be masters of the 1v1 sword duel, but monks would actually get a leg up on them later on (one that couldn't be so easily co-opted by a dip into MoMS).I figured I'd offer my own suggestion on a simple fix. The feat (Crane Wing) stays exactly as is, but you add the following text to the end: "This feat can only be used to deflect attacks from creatures of your size or smaller. If you have a ki pool, you may expend one ki point to use this feat against a creature one size category larger than yourself." Something like that.
If you wanted to go a little bit further, you could make it require Combat Reflexes and use up an attack of opportunity. Thoughts?
EDIT: I meant "as is" as in the way it is in Ultimate Combat, not after the errata.
ONE DOES NOT JUST 'AGREE' ON THE INTERNET!!!
DISHONOR ON YOU!
DISHONOR ON YOUR COW!
DISHONOR ON YOUR WHOLE FAMILY!
|
There is a lot to Lemmy's post and I appreciate your well rationed plea. Understand that there is no agenda to keep Martials down.
Jason and crew, I'd like to throw this out there before commenting further:
Folks being unhappy with changes to their hobby is understandable. The vitriol you guys are catching for it is not. Sorry that we can't all express ourselves constructively.
That said, I'd like to address the martial balance issues as I've seen them. While I personally don't see any reason any of the devs would want to keep martials down, some of the design and balance choices made are difficult to understand in the grand picture. From my experience, the game has several gems in terms of offensive martial abilities. For defense however, we have precious few gems by comparison. Crane Wing the first was among those key few defensive gems, and it's loss is a difficult thing for most defensive builds, and hurts monks keenly in particular.
As it was, Crane Style was particularly abusable by non-monks. A relatively simple 20th level build of halfling fighter [aldori swordlord] 7/aldori swordlord 1/duelist 10/monk [master of many forms] 2 with the full Crane line, 1 16k magic item, and 1 feat could gain a +13 dodge bonus to AC while fighting defensively with no penalty to hit. Yeah, that was problematic. A simple solution would have been to restrict style use to unarmed only, which I personally feel should have been the case from the start.
Likewise, using Crane Wing to deflect hits and level 2 or 3 was also problematic due to the number of attacks most characters would be making at that level. A simple solution there could have been to restrict the feat to 6th or higher level, when most enemies would be making multiple attacks.
Monks in particular, who I would at least hope were the center of and primary intention of benefit for the style feats, really relied on that feat working as was. They (and rogues) were among the most difficult of martial classes to build strong offense for, at least as comparable to a barbarian, fighter, and magus. Monks also suffer from being rife with class abilities that, while cool, are not typically very useful (Qinggong more or less corrected this issue). What the monk was able to boast at least was one of the best defenses in the game, and while the first feat in the Crane chain still helps with this, the remaining two now do very little to offset their lack luster ability to hit most enemies.
Crane Wing was hardly full proof either. Invisibility, surprise, feinting, etc. all served very well to negate it's use. Simply beating the monk in initiative was enough to negate Crane Wing's use for a round.
Just some thoughts regarding this issue. I'd be interested to hear the team's thoughts on any of those points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say I don't consider Magic Missile to be overpowered, especially given the changes to metamagic.
it doesn't stack well with most metas, it takes 9 levels to reach a damage potential most level 1 damage spells hit at 5th, it doesn't stack with elemental bloodlines or admixture abilities.
Now, bring back the force missile mage, and Arcane Thesis, and we can start to work on its power.
:)
==Aelryinth
My thoughts exactly. I'm glad we agree on something. :)While I disagree with a lot of other things Erick has said here, I would totally get behind a fix like this. It keeps the deflection aspect (which, to me, is vastly more meaningful to the feat chain than the AoOs later on) while stopping wing-ers from dominating melee entirely. Fighters would still be able to use it and be masters of the 1v1 sword duel, but monks would actually get a leg up on them later on (one that couldn't be so easily co-opted by a dip into MoMS).I figured I'd offer my own suggestion on a simple fix. The feat (Crane Wing) stays exactly as is, but you add the following text to the end: "This feat can only be used to deflect attacks from creatures of your size or smaller. If you have a ki pool, you may expend one ki point to use this feat against a creature one size category larger than yourself." Something like that.
If you wanted to go a little bit further, you could make it require Combat Reflexes and use up an attack of opportunity. Thoughts?
EDIT: I meant "as is" as in the way it is in Ultimate Combat, not after the errata.
ONE DOES NOT JUST 'AGREE' ON THE INTERNET!!!
DISHONOR ON YOU!
DISHONOR ON YOUR COW!
DISHONOR ON YOUR WHOLE FAMILY!
Huh, been a while since I've seen a Mulan reference on a message board. We need more Mushu here.
I have to say I don't consider Magic Missile to be overpowered, especially given the changes to metamagic.
it doesn't stack well with most metas, it takes 9 levels to reach a damage potential most level 1 damage spells hit at 5th...
The devs have explicitly stated that magic missile would probably be OP as a 2nd level spell, much less at 1st. You're completely ignoring its awesome range, auto-hit, and force damage characteristics. And if you want to talk metamagic synergy, you can't beat Toppling magic missile.
EDIT: But we digress...
My thoughts exactly. I'm glad we agree on something. :)While I disagree with a lot of other things Erick has said here, I would totally get behind a fix like this. It keeps the deflection aspect (which, to me, is vastly more meaningful to the feat chain than the AoOs later on) while stopping wing-ers from dominating melee entirely. Fighters would still be able to use it and be masters of the 1v1 sword duel, but monks would actually get a leg up on them later on (one that couldn't be so easily co-opted by a dip into MoMS).I figured I'd offer my own suggestion on a simple fix. The feat (Crane Wing) stays exactly as is, but you add the following text to the end: "This feat can only be used to deflect attacks from creatures of your size or smaller. If you have a ki pool, you may expend one ki point to use this feat against a creature one size category larger than yourself." Something like that.
If you wanted to go a little bit further, you could make it require Combat Reflexes and use up an attack of opportunity. Thoughts?
EDIT: I meant "as is" as in the way it is in Ultimate Combat, not after the errata.
For the record I wouldn't mind this version, though I think it would be nice if the size limitation scaled according to BAB since there are unarmed builds (unarmed fighter, martial artist, pugilist barbarian etc) that don't have access to Ki pools. That way the monk still has an advantage but all the variants will gradually enjoy the full flexibility of the feat.
I would also consider adding a provision that Crane Wing cannot deflect a natural 20.
It's still a viable and powerful defensive feat, but it's not the "safety net" for characters who already have so high ACs that they can only get hit on 20ies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The devs have explicitly stated that magic missile would probably be OP as a 2nd level spell, much less at 1st.
Is this for real and not just an underhanded attempt to discredit the devs?
The devs have explicitly stated that magic missile would probably be OP as a 2nd level spell, much less at 1st.Is this for real and not just an underhanded attempt to discredit the devs?
I don't think it discredits them at all. I completely agree with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it discredits them at all. I completely agree with it.The devs have explicitly stated that magic missile would probably be OP as a 2nd level spell, much less at 1st.Is this for real and not just an underhanded attempt to discredit the devs?
So did one of the devs say they think magic missile would probably be OP as a 2nd level spell, or are you exaggerating?
So did one of the devs say they think magic missile would probably be OP as a 2nd level spell, or are you exaggerating?I don't think it discredits them at all. I completely agree with it.The devs have explicitly stated that magic missile would probably be OP as a 2nd level spell, much less at 1st.Is this for real and not just an underhanded attempt to discredit the devs?
None of the designers think that. I think this is sarcasm.
None of the designers think that. I think this is sarcasm.
That's good to hear!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None of the designers think that. I think this is sarcasm.So did one of the devs say they think magic missile would probably be OP as a 2nd level spell, or are you exaggerating?I don't think it discredits them at all. I completely agree with it.The devs have explicitly stated that magic missile would probably be OP as a 2nd level spell, much less at 1st.Is this for real and not just an underhanded attempt to discredit the devs?
Oh thank God!
None of the designers think that. I think this is sarcasm.
I think the more important question is whether you think it is "Perhaps the best 1st-level spell in the game," as Ultimate Magic suggests. If so, I think you are playing in an entirely different paradigm than those that use Sleep or Color Spray.
And, likewise, a different paradigm than some or many of those that oppose the change to Crane Style.
None of the designers think that. I think this is sarcasm.So did one of the devs say they think magic missile would probably be OP as a 2nd level spell, or are you exaggerating?I don't think it discredits them at all. I completely agree with it.The devs have explicitly stated that magic missile would probably be OP as a 2nd level spell, much less at 1st.Is this for real and not just an underhanded attempt to discredit the devs?
It's not sarcasm. I think it may have been one of the 4e devs, but it was sincere. It came about during a discussion of magic missile in 4e and how they kept changing it around in response to public demand for it to work more like it did in the old days, but it was said in regards to 3rd ed, and as an example of how sometimes you keep things for no other reason than that they are sacred cows. I don't keep a notebook or anything, so I can't link you to the quote, but it's legit.
Jason, thanks for the post. Jiggy is right; we all appreciate that you and the other developers are listening to us. I think the frustration a lot of people have results from the essential power imbalance between casters and martials that has been ingrained in D&D (and by extension Pathfinder) from the very beginning.
I understand that there is theoretically little you can do about this without making major overhauls to the game. Pro-martial players, though, may ask themselves "Well, why don't they make those overhauls?" And this thought is where the problem begins. They look at an errata like this and say to themselves "Why are they changing this but they're not changing wall of force/magic missile/glitterdust/dominate person/black tentacles (etc, etc, etc)?" Then they get mad.
I understand people who think this way, but I also understand the designers' position. Ultimately, you just have to accept that casters were a mistake in the first place, but now they're a sacred cow and there's nothing that can really be done about that. Just accept this and move on and go on enjoying the game as best you can. When considering balance issues, just pretend casters don't exist, because otherwise you will never be able to rest and arguments will be never-ending. There is simply no other perspective that makes sense of things.
It is for this reason that I completely support the Crane Wing errata, despite being a player who overwhelmingly favors playing martial classes. The feats in question were definitely imbalanced when compared to similar feats and abilities that do similar things, and when you ignore the existence of casters entirely. That's the only way that balance can and should be measured in this game, if any of us are going to keep our sanity.
One problem with this approach is that there are very few similar feats and abilities to compare to. A lot of the time it seems like many martial feats don't try to provide the same type of ability as Crane Wing used to have, and a lot of the ones that are similarly ambitious are offensive. Even if you think that Crane Wing overshot slightly (I still do), which feats do you turn to, to compare against?
Crane Wing was more similar to spell defenses than it was to any [combat] feat save Deflect Arrows. So even if you don't want to bring the whole larger caster/martial debate thing into it (and I'll admit there's a lot of people here who do), that's one reason it seems so natural to compare against spells.
You can keep the grand-scale of the caster/martial debate out of it, at least as far as 9th level spellcasting and all that goes, by just comparing against spell-using martial classes whose magic is mostly focused on doing the same sorts of things, with spells, that other martial classes do in other ways.
I thought the comparison drawn a while ago by someone (sorry, someone, but the insane pace of posting even 48 hours later means I can no longer remember your actual name or find your post amongst the avalanche of posting that has followed it) with the magus is probably a decent place to start. Magus is a martial class, and can cast Mirror Image with Spell Combat in return for attack penalties, which is a quite similar sort of tradeoff to that which used to be offered by Crane Wing.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not sarcasm. I think it may have been one of the 4e devs, but it was sincere. It came about during a discussion of magic missile in 4e and how they kept changing it around in response to public demand for it to work more like it did in the old days, but it was said in regards to 3rd ed, and as an example of how sometimes you keep things for no other reason than that they are sacred cows. I don't keep a notebook or anything, so I can't link you to the quote, but it's legit.
Oh, that. Yeah, I was one of the 4e Devs who didn't think that, and argued against it (repeatedly). It took Essentials for that to change, but by then I was working on Pathfinder.
None of the Pathfinder designers believe this to be true.
None of the designers think that. I think this is sarcasm.I think the more important question is whether you think it is "Perhaps the best 1st-level spell in the game," as Ultimate Magic suggests. If so, I think you are playing in an entirely different paradigm than those that use Sleep or Color Spray.
And, likewise, a different paradigm than some or many of those that oppose the change to Crane Style.
The difference in perspective that you are discussing is absolutely central to this debate about the Crane errata, or really any balance debate at all. The whole idea of "balance" is elusive precisely because there are (at least) two very different methodologies of determining it, and they are mutually exclusive. The first tries to determine balance very narrowly via precise, side by side comparisons to similar game elements. This is the perspective that sees magic missile as overpowered.
The second tries to determine balance by a far more abstract, but also far more inclusive metric that factors in all of the different combinations and potential uses for the element in question. To this point of view, magic missile is fine.
I understand both methods, but tend to favor the first (or rather, I turn to the second only after the first demonstrably fails). Why? To begin with, it is far less crazy-making and less prone to ad nauseam digression. Second, theoretically if you applied this method universally then the resultant end system would be internally balanced. Often such attempts are frustrated, however, by people who favor the opposing viewpoint, and so we are stuck in the limbo of endless threads like this one.
EDIT: A better way to explain this might be that the first method tries to determine balance "in the lab," or outside of situational factors, and the second method tries to determine balance "in the field," or based on the way some people choose to play with the thing in question. That's not quite right either... I find I'm having a hard time with this. Maybe someone who understands what I'm saying can help me out...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not sarcasm. I think it may have been one of the 4e devs, but it was sincere. It came about during a discussion of magic missile in 4e and how they kept changing it around in response to public demand for it to work more like it did in the old days, but it was said in regards to 3rd ed, and as an example of how sometimes you keep things for no other reason than that they are sacred cows. I don't keep a notebook or anything, so I can't link you to the quote, but it's legit.Oh, that. Yeah, I was one of the 4e Devs who didn't think that, and argued against it (repeatedly). It took Essentials for that to change, but by then I was working on Pathfinder.
None of the Pathfinder designers believe this to be true.
Praise Asmodeus!
Praise Asmodeus!It's not sarcasm. I think it may have been one of the 4e devs, but it was sincere. It came about during a discussion of magic missile in 4e and how they kept changing it around in response to public demand for it to work more like it did in the old days, but it was said in regards to 3rd ed, and as an example of how sometimes you keep things for no other reason than that they are sacred cows. I don't keep a notebook or anything, so I can't link you to the quote, but it's legit.Oh, that. Yeah, I was one of the 4e Devs who didn't think that, and argued against it (repeatedly). It took Essentials for that to change, but by then I was working on Pathfinder.
None of the Pathfinder designers believe this to be true.
This is a digression. This thread is not about magic missile, specifically, and my posts that mention it weren't really supposed to be about it either. Whatever your opinions about that specific spell, the point stands, and Jason's post earlier seemed to me to more or less implicitly support it. That is, many things in this system are here because they're left over from the old editions and there's just no good way to change them without screwing the pooch. Namely, this is the case with a lot of spells and caster related elements. And that's why it's pointless to compare martial type things to spells, though I understand the desire to do it, particularly in this instance in regards to the comparison of Monk with Crane stuff to Magus with mirror image.
And that's why it's pointless to compare martial type things to spells, though I understand the desire to do it, particularly in this instance in regards to the comparison of Monk with Crane stuff to Magus with mirror image.
I don't think you can seperate casting from non-casting entirely when the two interact with each other in literally every game. Especially in Golarion and other PFS settings, where they actively compete against each other.
That said, this is a talk appropriate for another thread.
I understand both methods, but tend to favor the first (or rather, I turn to the second only after the first demonstrably fails). Why? To begin with, it is far less crazy-making and less prone to ad nauseam digression. Second, theoretically if you applied this method universally then the resultant end system would be internally balanced.
The first method has its merits, but also, it seems to me that it is going to demonstrably fail in a great number of cases. You can maybe compare Magic Missile to Scorching Ray. Even by a Baconesque iteration of degrees of connectedness, you're not going to end up with a chain linking Magic Missile to Invisibility that will let you compare the spells against one another by lab-worthy measures. They exist and function upon different planes entirely, not just as different points on the same line. So you won't end up with the internally balanced system without considering the broader-viewpoint (or field-comparison, or whatever) method.
That said...
Magus Mirror Image vs. Monk Crane Wing still seems like a fairly fruits-to-fruits comparison to me. Or at least, it seems like one of the more direct comparisons I can think of to consider outside of that to Deflect Arrows (which is also worth making, and has been made at length).
If you're looking to compare things on the level that you can compare Weapon Focus's +1 to Weapon Spec's +2 through the lens of the Power Attack tradeoff ratio... what do you have?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What can I say? I like to digress. And it's Friday. Have a good weekend, all. And please stay positive. Laugh, go play some games.
None of the Pathfinder designers believe this to be true.
Well, one of them wrote that Ultimate Magic quote though, eh?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What can I say? I like to digress. And it's Friday. Have a good weekend, all. And please stay positive. Laugh, go play some games.
Have a good weekend Stephen! I'll be sure to throw a magic missile for you in Jade Regent tomorrow morning.
That said...
Magus Mirror Image vs. Monk Crane Wing still seems like a fairly fruits-to-fruits comparison to me. Or at least, it seems like one of the more direct comparisons I can think of to consider outside of that to Deflect Arrows (which is also worth making, and has been made at length).
If you're looking to compare things on the level that you can compare Weapon Focus's +1 to Weapon Spec's +2 through the lens of the Power Attack tradeoff ratio... what do you have?
I mean, I totally see what you're saying. I'm just trying to deflect some of the frustration that seems to result from people who (correctly) view martial stuff as weak relative to spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, one of them wrote that Ultimate Magic quote, though, eh?
None of the Pathfinder designers believe this to be true.
There is a big difference between saying "Even if magic missile were a 2nd-level, smart casters would still learn it" and it should be a 2nd-level spell, or not be auto hit, or whatever. It is a good spell, that gets better as it goes up in level. Once could make similar statements about fireball or dimension door or invisibility.
I think the point was it was a benchmark spell in a section that gives advice on spell creation. I wouldn't read more than that into it.
Okay...really going home now. It's date night. Shoot a magic missile for me all. :)
|
Got through nine pages of this thread before I could not take any more. Go me! Really wish there existed such a thing as spell-check, but for logical fallacies...
First of all, I would like to add my voice to those who heartily thank the developers for putting so much of their time and effort into creating a game that I personally love. Furthermore, thank you (and the other wonderful people at Paizo) for taking the time to come onto these boards, read our (unfortunately often impolite) words, and actually respond. More than the game system, more than the world, it is the dedication of the company and its employees that obviously care about the game as much as we do that makes me happy, even proud, to be a loyal customer. I have daydreams of getting a job in Paizo's accounting department once I've finished my Bachelor's, if for no other reason than I would consider it a privilege to work for this company even if I'm not directly involved in the game aspect. A bit longer than I meant to go on about the subject, but yes, thank you all very much.
Secondly, I would like to thank my fellow players who share my passion for this game, enough to come on these boards, read endless threads and posts (probably with more patience than I do), and take the time to provide their opinions and feedback about the hobby we share. Even the ones I disagree with, even the ones who sometimes let their passions rise a little too high and cloud their judgement enough to become a bit vitriolic, I thank you for caring enough to bother. (That said, one of the main reasons I often cannot read too much of a big thread is that the back and forth rancor often turns me off to the point I no longer even care about what is being discussed. Can't we all just get along?)
My thoughts on the errata itself are pretty simple. I thought the feat seemed quite strong, but never actually saw it in play so I had no concrete data on just how strong. I am not surprised to see its power brought down, though I do have to concur that there are probably many other things that are more egregious in unbalancing the game. That said, this is not chess, and I do not expect perfect balance. If I wanted a game that I felt was all about balance and that one class was just a different flavor of another, I would be playing 4e. I do think that maybe the nerf was a bit too much, that the balance of power may have shifted too far in the other direction, and an Aldori character I was planning to play in the near future will likely no longer be taking this feat (and certainly not Riposte, because the number of times that taking Total Defense would be a sound tactical choice is vanishingly small). (Which reminds me, completely off-topic, but would LOVE to see an Aldori archetype for the Swashbuckler that synergized well with the prestige class. Maybe just wishful thinking...)
Anyhow, my opinion on the matter is just that, opinion. I do not have the extensive experience in game design that Mr. Buhlman and his team have, and do not for one moment think that I have any right to say they chose poorly. I am certain it was the best choice that they felt was before them at the time, and I am also certain that the very existence of this thread, not to mention the passion and vehemence being exuded from it, guarantees that this is not a matter that they will soon forget. This errata has been made for now. They will sit back (well, not really, they'll be busy with a thousand other things, but you get what I mean) and watch the results of how it plays with the new rules. Then, given enough time to make a proper assessment, I am sure they will revisit the matter for no other reason than that they know it matters a great deal to their players. At that time maybe they will decide it is now too weak and give it the nudge back up that many of us feel it needs. Then again, maybe they will not. Either way, I can assure you that the very fact that Paizo employees have already paid so much attention to this thread, and given us their opinions and clarifications, means that it is on their radar and this matter will not simply be swept under the rug.
Just my two coppers, thank you to anyone who took the time to read it.
The second concern, is when Crane Wing is compared to other similar capabilities and their effectiveness in a normal game. If they were to have limited Crane Wing to a # of...
How about 3+ 1/3th your character level each day?
The second concern, is when Crane Wing is compared to other similar capabilities and their effectiveness in a normal game. If they were to have limited Crane Wing to a # of...How about 3+ 1/3th your character level each day?
I do think that maybe the nerf was a bit too much, that the balance of power may have shifted too far in the other direction, and an Aldori character I was planning to play in the near future will likely no longer be taking this feat (and certainly not Riposte, because the number of times that taking Total Defense would be a sound tactical choice is vanishingly small).
I have seen this comment regarding Crane Riposte a lot since the most recent change. Mind you that I don't know Aldori character builds, but unless there's a way to drop the fighting defensively penalties to zero, the following general statement is true...
Taking Crane Riposte for a character that is going to fight defensively is essentially the same as taking Weapon Focus [smaller](which many characters will have already taken)[smaller] except that it has an additional rider that can be used in rare situations.
I do think that maybe the nerf was a bit too much, that the balance of power may have shifted too far in the other direction, and an Aldori character I was planning to play in the near future will likely no longer be taking this feat (and certainly not Riposte, because the number of times that taking Total Defense would be a sound tactical choice is vanishingly small).I have seen this comment regarding Crane Riposte a lot since the most recent change. Mind you that I don't know Aldori character builds, but unless there's a way to drop the fighting defensively penalties to zero, the following general statement is true...
Taking Crane Riposte for a character that is going to fight defensively is essentially the same as taking Weapon Focus [smaller](which many characters will have already taken)[smaller] except that it has an additional rider that can be used in rare situations.
There is. Steel Net is +2 AC, 2 lower penalty to hit when fighting defensively. So you can get it to 0 with Crane Style alone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Taking Crane Riposte for a character that is going to fight defensively is essentially the same as taking Weapon Focus [smaller](which many characters will have already taken)[smaller] except that it has an additional rider that can be used in rare situations.
Sort of. Its like taking weapon focus, if you always intend to fight defensively, and it doesn't qualify you for any feats weapon focus might open up, which is one of the larger reasons to take weapon focus. It also stacks with weapon focus, which is on the big pile of feats sword lords need(sword lord is pretty feat hungry). Edit: And... made somewhat moot by steel net for a sword lord I guess.
There is. Steel Net is +2 AC, 2 lower penalty to hit when fighting defensively. So you can get it to 0 with Crane Style alone.I do think that maybe the nerf was a bit too much, that the balance of power may have shifted too far in the other direction, and an Aldori character I was planning to play in the near future will likely no longer be taking this feat (and certainly not Riposte, because the number of times that taking Total Defense would be a sound tactical choice is vanishingly small).I have seen this comment regarding Crane Riposte a lot since the most recent change. Mind you that I don't know Aldori character builds, but unless there's a way to drop the fighting defensively penalties to zero, the following general statement is true...
Taking Crane Riposte for a character that is going to fight defensively is essentially the same as taking Weapon Focus [smaller](which many characters will have already taken)[smaller] except that it has an additional rider that can be used in rare situations.
Good to know. I am not aware of any such builds that accomplish this same thing within the core rulebook line, but I haven't looked. Is there a way to make Crane Riposte's reduction to defensive fighting penalties in any core rulebooks?
Taking Crane Riposte for a character that is going to fight defensively is essentially the same as taking Weapon Focus [smaller](which many characters will have already taken)[smaller] except that it has an additional rider that can be used in rare situations.Sort of. Its like taking weapon focus, if you always intend to fight defensively, and it doesn't qualify you for any feats weapon focus might open up, which is one of the larger reasons to take weapon focus. It also stacks with weapon focus, which is on the big pile of feats sword lords need(sword lord is pretty feat hungry).
True - Weapon Focus does open up more feats, specifically if you're a Fighter. Otherwise, it only opens up a few other specialized paths. I'd say outside of the Aldori Swordlord, Crane Riposte is still worth taking if you've already taken weapon focus. The point that I find interesting (and worth talking about a bit) is whether Crane Riposte comes too late for what it gives you. On a cursory glance, I would say yes, since it's similar to Weapon Focus. However, the Crane Style feat path does give some pretty big defensive bonuses for a few prices and the Crane Riposte feat reduces these prices for most builds, so it might be acceptable. Not sure though...
Weapon Focus is boring but practical. Its one of my least favorite feats though. Just a +1 to attack. Sometimes its a prerequisite for something I do what, but still, very boring. Just having numbers and not gaining options always urks me, personally.
I agree, Weapon focus is completely boring, and I generally try to avoid taking it. There are, however, certain builds for which taking it is just too necessary - Monks & Rogues, I'm looking at you.
It is really really sad to me that many of the spells I find amazingly broken will never be changed because of "sacred cow".
I would rather my cow be better instead of sacred :(
One man's improvement is another man's sacrilege. Look at a thread that suggest paladin's be something other than lawful, or changing the code. Quiet a few of those have exploded.
Mind you I have my opinions about that sort of thing. Don't want to drive us all off topic.
At the moment this feels like the Amulet of Mighty Fists or Flurry of Blows with a single weapon stories all over again.You mean where the community (outside of PFS, even!) wanted something and Paizo listened and acted?
Yeah, you're right, it is kind of like that!
Yep, and that only took YEARS of constant arguing to get minor changes.
:P
|
First off, I'd like to thank Jason, Stephen, and the rest of the Pathfinder Design Team for this errata, and specifically for responding to this errata. I don't agree with the amount of nerfing that this errata did, but considering Pathfinder is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, RPG in the world, the designers and developers of the game commenting on internet messageboards actively to let the general public know about potential changes is amazing.
Second, I agree that the feat needed a slight nerf, but this was way to large IMO. I mean, I didn't find the feat chain OP at all when I used it on my Champion of Irori in PFS, nor did any of the PFS GM's. He only survived by a hair even with the auto-deflect in many encounters due to lower WBL, because there are many things that can thwart this chain, and because of the lower than average HP. I probably would have done the following
Benefits: You increase the dodge bonus for fighting defensively by 1. In addition, once per round while you are aware of your opponent and using crane style, you may attempt to deflect one melee attack. To do so, you make an attack roll at your highest base attack bonus adding any dodge bonus you are getting for fighting defensively to the result. If your attack meets the attack roll your opponent made against you, you take half damage, and no additional effects from that attack. If it exceeds, you take no damage and the attack is deflected. This does not apply to combat maneuvers or touch attacks.
What do people think about this?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spring Attack comes online just when things are getting more attacks at you. Ah, he gets a full attack! No problem, I'll just limit him to one with Spring Attack. The synergy is incredible. And Spring attack allows you to avoid 'charge lanes', since it isn't limited to straight lines, and works really well with movement boosts.
So a seventh level fighter can spend all his feats on this trick and then, by limiting himself to single attacks that he has no feat support for, can remain impossible to hit. Seems like most enemies will just proceed to play rocket tag with the power attacking barbarian or paladin that is actually able to cause then noticeable injury.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We are looking to see if we went too far. Its clear to us that many of you think we have. We will take that into consideration going forward.
And how many years is that going to take?
This change was made 2.5 years after the release of Ultimate Combat, this is no simple clarification or fix of an editing mistake, I feel that as a customer I should be able to trust that major changes will not be made to the actual function of a rule book this far down the line under the guise of errata.
I'm not trying to be dramatic, but I feel like I can no longer trust the materials that Paizo puts out, if a feat looks like something cool to build a character around, should I even bother when you've demonstrated that you will step in and render it nearly useless with no warning?
Folks, if this is going to devolve into a martial vs caster debate this thread will be locked in the very near future. This errata was for Ultimate Combat... which is mostly about martial characters. Thats all there is to it. Anyone looking for some sort of grand conspiracy can look elsewhere.
(removed a few posts on this matter)
Jason Bulmahn
Lead DesignerThis is not about caster vs martial disparity, Jason, but said disparity is real and it's a big problem. And this errata makes it even bigger. But that's not my main concern.
My main concern is about options and variety.
Sadly, there are relatively very few feats that are actually useful, and most of them are some sort of boring numerical bonus. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone when I say that martial classes lack (viable) options. How many feats give Fighters the ability to do something cool, interesting or unique? How many of them are not locked behind a wall of unreasonable prerequisites?
I'd love to play more martial characters, but as long as my only decent options are saying "I full attack", it won't be a fun experience. Which is a shame. Repeating the same sentence and actions over and over is boring!
I usually play on a public area, where many people play all sorts of RPG, and I always allow new people to join the table and play with my group. Sadly, more than once I've seen new players give up on the game because they found out PF martial classes are very limited on what they can do. I've seen many people want to do cool stuff with their legendary warrior character just to be incredibly disappointed that all they could do with any chance of success was stand still and attack. I've seen player literally stand up and leave the table when they realize how harmful simply moving 10ft is to their effectiveness.
Crane Wing was one of the very few feats that allowed martial characters to do something different and cool. Now it's nerfed so hard I honestly can't see any player ever using it again.
It's bad enough that martial characters are almost forced into 2-handed or archery builds if they want to be effective (maneuvers scale really badly and took a serious and unnecessary nerf from 3.5, TWF needs high attributes, lots of gold and lots of feat just to stay relevant, crossbows are a joke, thrown weapons are pathetic, dueling is awful and just became even worse). Losing one of the very few interesting martial options in the game, (apparently because PFS GMs can't adapt, no less) is a big slap in the face of fans of martial classes everywhere. Especially considering how easy it's to get around CW (ranged attacks, spells, maneuvers, area effects, catching enemies flat-footed, multiple attacks, etc).
I love this game, as it can be seen by the fact that I spent hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours on it. I have pretty almost every hard cover book, many player companions, quite a few APs, all PFS novels, lots of HeroLab packs, official campaign dice sets (RotRL is my favorite). Every time I talk to someone moderately interested in RPG, I try to convince them to play with my group at least once and try the system. I always welcome new player in my table unless I already have 8+ players there.
Now, thanks to this errata, for the first since I started playing Pathfinder, I'm sad to say I considered the idea of stop playing the game. And not because of CW, specifically. I don't think it's that good... I've never even used a character with CW (but already GMed for 3 of them).
That's how disappointed I'm.
And I'm disappointed not because martials got nerfed while casters still have all their overpowered toys to play with... I'm disappointed because I see this happening time and time again with no indication of changing any time soon.
I'm disappointed because Paizo seems to be more concerned with removing, nerfing or banning options for martial character, (despite how underpowered they are, like during the 2-handed/armor spike ruling) than with increasing character variety.
I'm disappointed because Paizo seems to favor nerfing everything else instead of buffing weak options.
I'm disappointed because all of that reduces character variety, which in turn, reduces player fun.
And most of all, I'm disappointed because the design team doesn't seem to care about any of these issues. No matter how often players point them out.
Quoted for truth.
casters enable the melees to melee effectively and well.
comparing apples to oranges gets you an invalid comparison.
The nerf was long over due in regards to crane wing. It was ridiculously strong to the point of "why would you not take crane wing"
Because I would have gotten tired of being peppered with arrows and would find a shield far more effective.