Why would a Power Attacking fighter 2h'ing a longsword on his turn and one handing at the end to get Crane Wing not be doing respectable damage to an opponent?
Or are you talking about a finesse fighter with no Strength who wouldn't be doing any damage even without Crane Wing? Meaning the two are utterly unrelated?
==Aelryinth
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.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?
You might have deflected the first one, but you clearly haven't accounted for iterative attacks. ;)
casters enable the melees to melee effectively and well.
comparing apples to oranges gets you an invalid comparison.
Yeah guys. Casters are what let martials do anything at all we should be grateful for the nerf of what should have been the perfect example of a martial feat. Furthermore, the nerf was practically asking for it since it allowed Defense to scale up to the Offense as the game progresses.
Crane Wing was only one of the single most anti-rocket tag abilities in the game after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"why would you not take crane wing?"
- Because I don't enjoy taking penalties to my attacks
- Because I don't want to take all those prerequisites- Because I don't want to delay my BAB, caster level and/or class features by taking Monk levels
- Because I'm not a monk
- Because I wield a 2-handed weapon and enjoy being able to make AoO with it.
- Because I use TWF
- Because I have a shield
- Because deflecting 1 melee attack a round is good, but not incredible
- Because I have other priorities for my character
- Because I don't need it.
- Because it doesn't help me to deal with ranged attacks or spells.
- Because it doesn't fit my character concept
And these are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head...
In a lot of our worlds...."Conan kills Mages"
|
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"
I've tinkered with several character ideas for PFS, and I had exactly 1 character thinking on taking Crane Wing. And that was the Dawnflower Dervish Bard character I was working on. And now, I probably won't take the feat at all.
Hell, my PFS Monk wasn't planning on taking the Crane Style feat chain, even though she met the prerequisites.
I have far more characters I've planned but not played taking Power Attack over the Crane Style chain.
Suffice it to say, with the way Crane Wing is worded, I probably won't consider ever taking it. (I might reconsider if it allowed the +4 Dodge bonus after the attack roll has been made, because then it's at least useful).
Perhaps we should carefully look at Deflect Arrows and nerf that feat as well? After all, it uses similar mechanics, just for ranged attacks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Were you surprised by the depth of reaction regarding the change to Crane Wing?A bit. We expected some reaction, but I am a little surprised by how much this has upset some folks.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer about to head off to a playtest for a bit
Hello Jason,
I think the intensity of the reaction is due to the intensity of the change. I think that there were several options to reduce the power of the feat that could have been implemented without such a drastic change. Off the top of my head:
You can't deflect a natural 20 or critical hit.
You can't deflect when you are denied dex or flanked.
You have to declare before the attack roll is resolved.
You have to spend an immediate action eating your swift for next turn.
You take a penalty on all your AC checks for the rest of the round after using the deflection.
Or probably the best option since the abuse seems to be mostly from getting the feat too early: MoMS can only choose the first style feat in a path as a bonus feat at level 1, but they don't have to meet the prereqs. at 6th and 10th the could choose the second and third respectively without meeting the prereqs.
Out of curiosity did you and your team consider any milder changes to the feat? If so would you be open to sharing what ideas were discussed and why this option was decided to be better?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is based in Real Life, and Real Life isn't "fair". In real life a dog with a bow and a longsword is just strictly superior to a cat with crossbow and dagger.
There's a game called "Fourth Edition D&D" that is all about 'fairness' instead of modeling reality, maybe you should be playing that instead of Pathfinder.
I was unaware that dragons existed in real life. Or that crashed space ships could be found in Europe.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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).
That's already been answered though, it's working as intended. "Water balloons", realistically speaking, are just going to be inferior to bows.
...
"I want my water-balloon-throwing fighter to be able to deal the same damage as a longbow-shooting fighter. Why does Pathfinder have trap options for some ranged characters?"Replace "water-balloon-throwing" with any of the following
axe-throwing
blowgun-firing
dagger-throwing
dart-throwing
javelin-throwing
sling-using
spear-throwingand the complaint is no less ridiculous.
Some options are worse than others because the game actually tries to model that some options in life are worse than others. And by "worse" I mean "does less damage per round."
.
.
.
And the dagger fighter can take two extra feats and still deal less damage than a greatsword fighter. Because daggers can't deal as much damage as greatswords. There's a reason why soldiers used swords instead of daggers as their primary weapon.
.
.
.
Game stats for dogs are more powerful than game stats for cats. Why? Because in real life dogs are more dangerous than housecats. Is this "gimping" the "I have a guard cat" character compared to the "I
Except that Crossbows are, in real life, actually VERY effective and can take out many of the same things that a Compound Bow can...
As for the Dagger thing, it should be noted that Daggers are actually quite effective, especially in a very close quarters area like a dungeon or cell...
Personally I think the best thing for weapons liek daggers would be to bring back the Invisible Blade prestige class from 3.5 but update it as an archetype.,.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's already been answered though, it's working as intended. "Water balloons", realistically speaking, are just going to be inferior to bows
I have heard again and again how disappointing the water balloon posts were to so many people, but I think that it is really best to let it be water under the bridge. I felt similarly at the time, too, and the snark was irrepressible when the sting was fresh... but that's old, now.
Move forward, provide feedback, try to effect positive change, don't let it pain you like an old wound. And don't use it as a reason to be bitter (...I remind myself).
If you can change developers' minds about those things through useful feedback rather than through anger, then there will be no more reason to care about what once was.
So talk about constructive things. Perhaps how you want your slings calibrated to fantasy expectations, like the sling of Karajuk the Shepherd of Turkish story, which was so powerful that it threw up earth like artillery shells do when it missed. Not about that old post again and again.
"I want my water-balloon-throwing fighter to be able to deal the same damage as a longbow-shooting fighter.There's a class for that.
Man, its scary how deadly waterballons can be. All about what you fill them with. When 4 bombs with a separate debuff each all hit your touch AC and go "BOOM!" you just wince.
Edit: Huh... realization. They might not be filled with water... I mean they can still get a commoner, but maybe not filled with water.
That's already been answered though, it's working as intended. "Water balloons", realistically speaking, are just going to be inferior to bows.
...
"I want my water-balloon-throwing fighter to be able to deal the same damage as a longbow-shooting fighter. Why does Pathfinder have trap options for some ranged characters?"Replace "water-balloon-throwing" with any of the following
axe-throwing
blowgun-firing
dagger-throwing
dart-throwing
javelin-throwing
sling-using
spear-throwingand the complaint is no less ridiculous.
Some options are worse than others because the game actually tries to model that some options in life are worse than others. And by "worse" I mean "does less damage per round."
.
.
.
And the dagger fighter can take two extra feats and still deal less damage than a greatsword fighter. Because daggers can't deal as much damage as greatswords. There's a reason why soldiers used swords instead of daggers as their primary weapon.
.
.
.
Game stats for dogs are more powerful than game stats for cats. Why? Because in real life dogs are more dangerous than housecats. Is this "gimping" the "I have a guard cat" character compared to the "II agree with your point that weapon and combat style choices do not have to be equal. But what we have here is that some choices have been exclusively catered to. Why not some version of Rapid Shot with the sling, or feats that enable/buff poison darts? Instead we have a half dozen longbow feats.
...Okay. So now I want to know, was I the only one who passed my Sense Motive check to interpret OgreBattle's post as ironic criticism, or did I just fail it utterly?
...Okay. So now I want to know, was I the only one who passed my Sense Motive check to interpret OgreBattle's post as ironic criticism, or did I just fail it utterly?
I think you're the only one who passed it.
...Okay. So now I want to know, was I the only one who passed my Sense Motive check to interpret OgreBattle's post as ironic criticism, or did I just fail it utterly?
Now that I think about it... You're probably the only one who passed it.
This might show that I'm starting to become a bit too defensive about this whole thing... I'll do something else to cool down before I get frustrated and end up being unnecessarily hostile...
|
...Okay. So now I want to know, was I the only one who passed my Sense Motive check to interpret OgreBattle's post as ironic criticism, or did I just fail it utterly?
Probably the only one who passed it, and if so, bravo. It must be difficult to overcome the +30 or to the DC so granted by the internet.
I would like to point out though that the peole who claim that the crossbow is so much weaker than the bow have not crossbow hunted before xD.
|
There are a large number of process concerns that make it very difficult for us to release errata before it is final, the largest of which is a time and manpower issue.. but I dont want to get pulled off on that debate.
I'm not saying that all the errata that is worked on is bad. Or I don't appreciate the work you do on errata I do. The update to Antagonize was needed. I just think a little more quality control is needed. You have a good track record. Yet at the same time don't throw rule changes into the game and hope it goes over with the fanbase. We are a picky an sometimes annoying bunch as a fanbase. So the less headaches and work for yourself and the other devs the better.
As for the number of errata problems, we actually have a very solid track record on this. There have been thousands of individual changes to the books over the past 5 years and relatively few issues that we've had to revisit. Now it so happens that some of the more high profile ones have been recent, on the whole its not nearly so flawed a system as you seem to think.Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Again you do have a good track record. Yet lets be honest. You have thrown a few bad errata changes our way. Some that imo should never have left the drawing board. But by and large I have no major complaints. I am critical because I care. Contrast this to Palladium books. Who never listens to anything the fanbase have to say. No matter how constructive. People forget they used to be in the top ten along side Wotc and White Wolf. No rules updates. Poor errata if any and a determination to do things their way. While ignoring any real issues with the rules. Now they are nowhere near the top ten let alone the top 20. While also having financial problems and moving less product. I know with them it's a lost cause. Not with Paizo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to point out though that the peole who claim that the crossbow is so much weaker than the bow have not crossbow hunted before xD.
Technically, Sean didn't say crossbows are weaker than bows. He said they take longer to reload, which is undeniable. However...your post illustrates exactly why such discussions of realism tend to be the opposite of helpful. People start showing up talking about their real life crossbow hunting/MMA/etc experience, which frankly just makes the rest of us tune out. No offense, btw. I actually think it's cool that you crossbow hunt. I also think it is completely irrelevant to my experience of Pathfinder.
EDIT: Well, okay. Not completely irrelevant. But realism considerations, in my mind, are miles behind game balance and/or genre/aesthetic considerations in terms of importance.
...Okay. So now I want to know, was I the only one who passed my Sense Motive check to interpret OgreBattle's post as ironic criticism, or did I just fail it utterly?Now that I think about it... You're probably the only one who passed it.
This might show that I'm starting to become a bit too defensive about this whole thing... I'll do something else to cool down before I get frustrated and end up being unnecessarily hostile...
Ogre super hates the new errata.
Ogre super hates the new errata....Okay. So now I want to know, was I the only one who passed my Sense Motive check to interpret OgreBattle's post as ironic criticism, or did I just fail it utterly?Now that I think about it... You're probably the only one who passed it.
This might show that I'm starting to become a bit too defensive about this whole thing... I'll do something else to cool down before I get frustrated and end up being unnecessarily hostile...
... and that means I've become too hostile as well.
I think I'm going to spend tomorrow not responding to talk about this so I cool down.
|
|
Ah, tell me more about how realistic PF mechanics are... I'd love to know how dragons mirror "real life" and how it's perfectly realistic for everyday humans to shoot fireballs.
I do love it when gamers insist that D&d is realistic. Last time I looked through a medival history book There was no mentions of dragons, beholders, ettin and so on. Ars Magica is a realsitc medival rpg. D&D is just not at all.
Such a constructive addition to the discussion. Thank you sir, in my ignorance, I was blind to the fact that other games exist... I guess there is no point in balancing stuff, right??But if that's the case... Why errata/FAQ anything? Like... At all? Why put yourself through the trouble of buffing/nerfing/changing rules? Balance doesn't matter, so why nerf CW?
Finally... Please, enlighten me. Tell me how water balloons are exactly the same as lethal weapons used in real-life warfare? You know, just because an argument was used by a designer, it doesn't mean it's a good argument.
Ah yes the "if you don't like rules changes get out and go play some other game and don't let the door hit you on the way out line of reasoning. I guess asking for better quality control from a company is apparently a bad thing. I'm not asking for perfection. I'm not asking for the best rpg. I would like to have a consistent set of rules that does not change on the whim of PFS. I used to love running Rifts. The rules are a nightmare.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's already been answered though, it's working as intended. "Water balloons", realistically speaking, are just going to be inferior to bowsI have heard again and again how disappointing the water balloon posts were to so many people, but I think that it is really best to let it be water under the bridge. I felt similarly at the time, too, and the snark was irrepressible when the sting was fresh... but that's old, now.
Move forward, provide feedback, try to effect positive change, don't let it pain you like an old wound. And don't use it as a reason to be bitter (...I remind myself).
If you can change developers' minds about those things through useful feedback rather than through anger, then there will be no more reason to care about what once was.
So talk about constructive things. Perhaps how you want your slings calibrated to fantasy expectations, like the sling of Karajuk the Shepherd of Turkish story, which was so powerful that it threw up earth like artillery shells do when it missed. Not about that old post again and again.
This. So much this.
Especially concerning unarmed monks.
|
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"
I've tinkered with several character ideas for PFS, and I had exactly 1 character thinking on taking Crane Wing. And that was the Dawnflower Dervish Bard character I was working on. And now, I probably won't take the feat at all.
Hell, my PFS Monk wasn't planning on taking the Crane Style feat chain, even though she met the prerequisites.
I have far more characters I've planned but not played taking Power Attack over the Crane Style chain.
Suffice it to say, with the way Crane Wing is worded, I probably won't consider ever taking it. (I might reconsider if it allowed the +4 Dodge bonus after the attack roll has been made, because then it's at least useful).
Perhaps we should carefully look at Deflect Arrows and nerf that feat as well? After all, it uses similar mechanics, just for ranged attacks.
comparing the dmg of an arrow to the damage of a BBEG with two very powerful attacks is not quite the same.
I can't think of any boss fights that require a single arrow attack to take out PCs, I can think of plenty of fights however with one large attack (or an interative or two) that the first attack was the only one likely to hit and hurt.
Deflect arrows and deflect the first melee attack are far from similar or on the same playing field. Most arrows do a single die of dmg with little to no modifiers, melee cannot have the same said.
As it stands you can STILL use crane wing with it's glorious "remove that attack" you just can't be a fullly offensive character while negating an attack without fail each turn.
As it stands you can STILL use crane wing with it's glorious "remove that attack" you just can't be a fullly offensive character while negating an attack without fail each turn.
To be fair, you couldn't before.
|
|
As it stands you can STILL use crane wing with it's glorious "remove that attack" you just can't be a fullly offensive character while negating an attack without fail each turn.To be fair, you couldn't before.
pretty sure before you negated an attack each turn for a little small modifier to your attacks... it was a very overwhelming advantage for very little (virtually no) disadvantage.
Heavy feat investment for a one-trick pony isn't a disadvantage?
(I think we all agree MoMS is the problem, not CW.)
I think we all agree MoMS is the problem, not CW.
Actually, I think this is a useful topic to debate.
I would personally argue that MoMS in combination with CW is the problem. Neither is really good for the system, IMO. I would argue that MoMS only helps to reveal the true problem, since there are certain situations in which a single attack is somewhat relied upon by monsters beyond 5th level. (Flyby attack and Greater Vital Strike by Ancient Dragons when their breath weapon is unavailable, etc.)
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to re-iterate that the problems arising in PFS from Crane Wing are almost entirely due to early and cheap access with a 1-2 level dip in Master of Many Styles.
My plea would be to revert Crane Wing to its previous state and errata Master of Many Styles instead.
Going forward from here, I think a lot of good feedback has been generated on the issue of 'martials can't have nice things'. Flavorful, powerful abilities that don't revolve around dishing out massive damage for the face-punching-types would be a great thing to include in future releases. Nerfing Crane Wing (to the ground, baby!) wouldn't upset people nearly as much if it were one of many awesome feat chains instead of one of the few standouts.
I would also like to suggest that in the future, feedback be solicited before making drastic changes to wildly popular character choices. Even if the outcome is the same, many people's feelings would be soothed if we have an indication that big changes are in the works and are given a chance to give input about this game that we all love playing.
Thank you for your attention, Paizo team! Even when I'm upset with decisions, I appreciate all the hard work you put into the game.
Heavy feat investment for a one-trick pony isn't a disadvantage?
(I think we all agree MoMS is the problem, not CW.)
Not when the trick is auto-deflecting one melee attack per round. And anyway, it's a three trick pony.
And no I don't agree that MoMS is the problem. CW is the problem, which is only exacerbated by MoMS. Think about it. What's the problem with MoMS without Crane Style? MoMS is the main (practically the only) thing making varied and effective Monk concepts possible. Let's please not persuade them to errata that too.
Not when the trick is auto-deflecting one melee attack per round. And anyway, it's a three trick pony.Heavy feat investment for a one-trick pony isn't a disadvantage?
(I think we all agree MoMS is the problem, not CW.)
What are the three tricks? You fight defensively, then you get deflect, and you can... you probably won't riposte to be honest. But hey! You can. If you fight defensively... which you might... probably... not.
Actually its kinds of nice to see feat chains that have to do with one another. Too bad you have to learn to punch people without spiked gauntlets and you have to get dodge first.
I'm not sure I'd call it a heavy feat investment...
Dodge and IUS. "twirls fingers" woo I don't think anyone that used these feats had a hard time getting them, or a lack of desire to get at least one of them even if they weren't getting crane.
With the exception of those dipping MoMS for Crane Style, for many people it's going to be a 5 feat investment.
For example, a Bard or Magus (people inclined to take the feat to go with Dervish Dance) have to spend 5 feats for Imp. Unarmed Strike, Dodge, Crane Style, Crane Wing and Crane Riposte. Out of the 10 feats a character gets over 20 levels, that is 50% of their available choices. Magi have to spend 2 more feats to get Dervish Dance. That's a 7 feat investment over the course of 13 levels to round out their 1 handed fighting technique.
Now, of course there are bonus feats, such as from being a Human, or the bonus feats Magi get, but, for the most part, you're talking about sinkng half of the feats a character gets into one style of combat. This is a not something to do lightly.
The real problem, is dipping MoMS to gain 1 or 2 bonus feats that don't really count against the characters feat selection. Now he can spend his 10 normal feats on things like Weapon Finesse/Dervish Dance, Arcane Strike, Instensify Spell etc.
Even classes like Unarmed Fights still dip MoMS for the early access. Sure, they get Imp. Unarmed Strike for free, but the earliest they would be able to have Crane Wing is 5th level regardless because of the normal BAB requirement.
If it weren't for the early access from MoMS, I think Crane Wing wouldn't be such a problem for people. Crane Wing was designed with ~5th level in mind, and it's MoMS that is throwing that design off.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure I'd call it a heavy feat investment...
Dodge and IUS. "twirls fingers" woo I don't think anyone that used these feats had a hard time getting them, or a lack of desire to get at least one of them even if they weren't getting crane.
Fun fact, most of my characters don't want either of those(actually... any, unless they were totally free. I don't do unarmed and I think dodge is boring), and it usually ate up my feat slots unless I multi-classed specifically to get those to get crane wing.
|
|
For example, a Bard or Magus (people inclined to take the feat to go with Dervish Dance) have to spend 5 feats for Imp. Unarmed Strike, Dodge, Crane Style, Crane Wing and Crane Riposte.
Yes lets look at the bard situation....
If he did all that he could start a bard song, and wade into a fight and not get hit by at least one attack if not more while doing his job (singing) (I don't know why you'd want crane riposte on a bard though...) (fun fact, the errata is misapplied in the PRD... go download the actual document)
• Page 93—In the Crane Wing feat, replace the entire
Benefit entry with the following:
Benefit: Once per round, when fighting defensively
with at least one hand free, you can designate one melee
attack being made against you before the roll is made.
You receive a +4 dodge bonus to AC against that attack.
If you using the total defense action instead, you can
def lect one melee attack that would normally hit you.
An attack so def lected deals no damage and has no other
effect (instead treat it as a miss). You do not expend an
action when using this feat, but you must be aware of the
attack and not f lat-footed.
At any rate, complaining about the feat investment is a bit trivial when 1-2 lvl dip in MoMS, Brawler, Ranger, Fighter, Warpriest, being a tengu, human, or anything else that "counts as IUS" or grants bonus feats alleviates many of your complaints.
While I have never understood the amount of anger these things can generate, I did want to add voice to those who disagree with this change. I can't really speak to the "balance" of crane wing, (I am by no means a game designer and don't think my small group is representive of the game as a whole) but I can say the feat as it is now would never be chosen by someone in my group. There is simply too many parts to track (one free hand, entering the style, fighting defensively, then choose one attack). Now this change will not affect my group. We already have Ultimate Combat, we don't use the PRD, and no one is going out to buy a new copy of a book they already have. What does bother me is both the fact that the change arose because of problems in PFS and that those "problems" were that GMs couldn't hurt PCs.
For example, a Bard or Magus (people inclined to take the feat to go with Dervish Dance) have to spend 5 feats for Imp. Unarmed Strike, Dodge, Crane Style, Crane Wing and Crane Riposte.Yes lets look at the bard situation....
If he did all that he could start a bard song, and wade into a fight and not get hit by at least one attack if not more while doing his job (singing) (I don't know why you'd want crane riposte on a bard though...) (fun fact, the errata is misapplied in the PRD... go download the actual document)
At any rate, complaining about the feat investment is a bit trivial when 1-2 lvl dip in MoMS, Brawler, Ranger, Fighter, Warpriest, being a tengu, human, or anything else that "counts as IUS" or grants bonus feats alleviates many of your complaints.• Page 93—In the Crane Wing feat, replace the entire
Benefit entry with the following:
Benefit: Once per round, when fighting defensively
with at least one hand free, you can designate one melee
attack being made against you before the roll is made.
You receive a +4 dodge bonus to AC against that attack.
If you using the total defense action instead, you can
def lect one melee attack that would normally hit you.
An attack so def lected deals no damage and has no other
effect (instead treat it as a miss). You do not expend an
action when using this feat, but you must be aware of the
attack and not f lat-footed.
Ooh, fun fact! I downloaded the document on the first day! /snark
Ooh! Fun Fact! With the exception of MoMS and Unarmed Fighter, you can't take Crane Wing until 5th level by any of the above! Ooh! /snark
As far as I am aware, only the MoMS and Unarmed Fighter can take a style feat and ignore prerequisites.
A Pure Magus, a Pure Bard, a Pure Monk (not a MoMS), a Pure Inquititor etc. has to spend between 4 and 5 feats to gain the full Crane Style chain.
So first level Imp. Unarmed Strike.
Third level Dodge.
5th level Crane Style.
7th level Crane Wing.
9th level Crane Riposte.
Monk's can finish the chain by 7th level, a Fighter can finish the chain at 8th level and everyone else has to wait until 9th level to finish the change.
A PFS character spends the vast majority of his career just building up to Crane Riposte. While 20th level characters spend almost half their career finishing the chain.
The exception, of course, is MoMS and Unarmed Fighter. A Human MoMS can finish the entire chain at level 2, while a Human Unarmed Fighter can get Crane Style and Crane Wing at level 1, but still has to wait until 8th level to get Crane Riposte.
-Thought, actually, a non-Human Unarmed Fighter can take Crane Wing before taking Crane Style, and then pick up Crane Style at second level, allowing him to use Crane Style + Crane Wing at second level. Probably not intentional, but it is RAW. He could also take Crane Riposte, then pick up Crane Style and Crane Wing when he can.
The fact remains that you are looking at a serious feat investment, with the exception of MoMS and UF. With the amount of investment involved, characters should be getting something good out of it.
|
|
Now this change will not affect my group... what does bother me is both the fact that the change arose because of problems in PFS and that those "problems" were that GMs couldn't hurt PCs.
Why do you assume it's only due to PFS? I've put in my two cents about this feat before PFS was ever played by us.
but I can say the feat as it is now would never be chosen by someone in my group
How many times has anyone in your group taken monkey style and it's chain?
|
|
I think you missed the point of me posting the text of the erratta, the PRD mistakenly has crane riposte with wings erratta.
I don't get why you would want riposte on some of these character types.
In the case of your regular old monk (not MoMS) at lvl 1, dodge, IUS, cranestyle all at lvl 1. then combat ref lvl 2, lvl 3 whatever it wants, 5 wing, 7 riposte... seems ok to me...
likewise plain fight
lvl 1 dodge and IUS
lvl 2 crane style
lvl 3 combat reflexes
lvl 4 whatever it wants
lvl 5 wing
lvl 6-7 whatever it wants
lvl 8 riposte.
Everyone else is waiting until lvl 9+ anyhow due to their innately slower BAB.... and that's if you're super serious about riposte. Which seems a silly thing to get super worked up over without combat reflexes.
The classes that are meant to have easier access to it, still do and it doesn't change anything for them. It's a tool to add in their toolbox and it's a pretty freaking sweet tool at that. It's just not a tool they will use in literally every combat now.
Which btw what are feats meant to do again?
Which btw what are feats meant to do again?
You use them to get more feats?
Now this change will not affect my group... what does bother me is both the fact that the change arose because of problems in PFS and that those "problems" were that GMs couldn't hurt PCs.Why do you assume it's only due to PFS? I've put in my two cents about this feat before PFS was ever played by us.
Because of the designer that posted this problem arose in PFS.
but I can say the feat as it is now would never be chosen by someone in my groupHow many times has anyone in your group taken monkey style and it's chain?
I took monkey style with my MoMS but not the follow feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My original point is, outside of MoMS and Unarmed Fighter, characters aren't getting early access to Crane Wing. I want to know how many of these complaints that PFS had involved level dips into MoMS for early access to Crane Wing.
Crane Wing is only really 'super strong' at low levels. Around 5th level is when you start seeing multiple attack monsters more reliably, and at 6th level, any full BAB class gets 2 attacks.
Crane Wing becomes less effective as the number of attacks a creature is threatened with increases. Crane Wing was has BAB 5 or Monk level 5th for a reason, because that's what the feat was designed for. If it was designed to be accessed at level 1, it would probably resemble what it is now.
I firmly believe it's the level dips into MoMS that is turning the molehill that is Crane Wing into a mountain of a problem for PFS.