Neo2151 |
Neo2151 wrote:I, for one, have never said either of these two things, both of which (especially the second) seem foolish.Wanna know what really kills me in this thread?
Okay, so in like, 99% of the REST of the Pathfinder forums, you'll notice two truths:
1 - AC is a bad investment, because eventually monsters WILL hit you because their stats way outpace yours.
2 - A single attack is bad in a game that is designed to full-attack.
Hence why I said 99%. You're my margin of error. ;)
Scavion |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And everything you're saying is true, but it's no less true of casting etc. The whole game is math. When you break the math down, melees, archers, casters, whoever...they're all going to defeat (actually, demolish) CR appropriate challenges if they're remotely well built. Partially the game takes this into account. It's supposed to be a game of attrition played over a series of encounters, so obviously individual encounters are not likely to take you down regardless of what you're built for.
But my point is where is the goalpost? If CR isn't reliable, when is a character "good enough" (at melee or whatever else he's doing)? If the GM just keeps upping the challenges as you get more powerful, what's the point of min-maxing? That just sounds like a tedious Red Queen race to me. Why would we want the game to be that?
Alternatively you can look at the whole thing as purely competitive, in terms of trying to be more effective than the other PCs. But the end result of this is we arrive at the One True Build, the most optimized build possible, before which all others are senseless. Again, tedious and frustrating.
This was my thought when, earlier, someone was saying that the Bard/Paladin/Rogue build I presented was "not min-maxed" because if you traded the Rogue levels in for Bard you'd get 3rd level spells. Well, sure...but viewed from that perspective, the build is not min maxed at all because of its failure to trade all of its class levels in for Wizard. Then I'd have 6th level spells! That build routinely curbstomps CR appropriate encounters, to the point that it is capable of soloing many of the tier 10-11 mods. If a build can do that and someone will still call it "not min-maxed" then where are we? This all seems like total madness.
Oh yeah. It's definitely madness. But herein comes what being a good GM is all about. Ultimately, PFS is a constrictive set of rules, rules that if someone cares to, can easily become viewed as overpowered. In a home game, a good GM can let you have your cake and eat it too while still making the encounters challenging. He or she isn't bound to run the scenarios as written and can make adjustments for the group.
This is essentially why I'm angry. An interesting tool for martials was taken away. I say taken because Crane Wing in it's current form is pretty worthless. And since they mentioned it was PFS fault that it was such a big number on their radar, I'm keen to put the blame on it.
Further study just makes me believe more and more.
Cairen Weiss |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Erick Wilson wrote:Oh yeah. It's definitely madness. But herein comes what being a good GM is all about. Ultimately, PFS is a constrictive set of rules, rules that if someone cares to, can easily become viewed as overpowered. In a home game, a good GM can...And everything you're saying is true, but it's no less true of casting etc. The whole game is math. When you break the math down, melees, archers, casters, whoever...they're all going to defeat (actually, demolish) CR appropriate challenges if they're remotely well built. Partially the game takes this into account. It's supposed to be a game of attrition played over a series of encounters, so obviously individual encounters are not likely to take you down regardless of what you're built for.
But my point is where is the goalpost? If CR isn't reliable, when is a character "good enough" (at melee or whatever else he's doing)? If the GM just keeps upping the challenges as you get more powerful, what's the point of min-maxing? That just sounds like a tedious Red Queen race to me. Why would we want the game to be that?
Alternatively you can look at the whole thing as purely competitive, in terms of trying to be more effective than the other PCs. But the end result of this is we arrive at the One True Build, the most optimized build possible, before which all others are senseless. Again, tedious and frustrating.
This was my thought when, earlier, someone was saying that the Bard/Paladin/Rogue build I presented was "not min-maxed" because if you traded the Rogue levels in for Bard you'd get 3rd level spells. Well, sure...but viewed from that perspective, the build is not min maxed at all because of its failure to trade all of its class levels in for Wizard. Then I'd have 6th level spells! That build routinely curbstomps CR appropriate encounters, to the point that it is capable of soloing many of the tier 10-11 mods. If a build can do that and someone will still call it "not min-maxed" then where are we? This all seems like total madness.
I agree. I think PFS rules and limits placed on the GMs made this Crane Wing seems much more powerful than it really is.
Also, for some reason, this post made me think of Malcom Reynolds in Serenity when he said, "I aim to misbehave".
Samuel Stone |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Samuel Stone wrote:chaoseffect wrote:Add a caster to the all melee enemy group. Oh man, Crane Wing guy will shut down that one T-Rex? Add another that will attack the rest of the party or gang up on him. You don't have to completely rewrite encounters here.Problem is, adding in another T-Rex takes a CR 9 encounter up to CR 11. That's a decent jump in difficulty when one character is problematic, and this is my main problem with Crane Wing. It makes it that much more difficult to balance an encounter, because scaling monsters up or adding in more monsters can potentially lay waste to the rest of the party who has their front-liner tied up. If the T-Rexes are only attacking the Craner, that's fine until one hits and uses its grab/swallow whole, and then there are two T-Rexes that turn towards the rest of the party that no longer have their "defense guy."Alternatively you can not throw in single solo boss mobs?
I mean really it's a fairly well known fact that a solo boss is a joke in terms of difficulty relative to it's CR simply as a result of action economy so if that was your master plan it was a crappy idea before Crane Style even got involved. The only difference is that IF your player uses crane style that single hit that would probably have to take him from roughly 100-0 hp in order for the boss to be a real challenge does nothing.
Frankly I don't see a problem with DMs being punished for bad encounter design.
The problem is that I am running an AP, so the as-written monsters don't really function in a lot of cases. I'm fine with running a heavily modified version, but it is much easier to simply use the errata and run the encounters as they are written.
The main problem is that I need to scale up encounters based on one player, which makes the encounters rather unfair to the rest of the party, especially if the Craner is knocked unconscious, hit with a status effect, etc. I feel like I'm punishing the party because of one person's actions.
Erick Wilson |
I agree. I think PFS rules and limits placed on the GMs made this Crane Wing seems much more powerful than it really is.
So you're saying the feat is not too powerful as long as there are no objective limits on power? Isn't that...meaningless?
This is admittedly hyperbole, but do you see what I mean? If a game element causes problems when put up against a random assortment of challenges not specifically targeted at it, then it is OP. The only alternative is the endlessly subjective Red Queen style of play, which many of us do not find appealing at all.
RJGrady |
RJGrady wrote:Played with a color spray oracle lately?Things pre-errata Crane Wing completely hosed:
- Powerful Charge. Any creature, no matter how powerful, whose offense was centered on this, has no powerful charge.
- Any reasonable use of True Strike in melee.
- Monsters with single natural melee attacks.
- Vital Strike and all its improvements, for melee.
- Spring Attack
- Cleave (if Crane Wing is the first target, it never even goes off)
- pretty much any of the grabbers, like a wolf
- move action and standard attackIf you're looking at around APL 6, this is a lot of stuff.
Are you aware that color spray allows a saving throw? Because you're acting as if a spell that causes conditions and allows a saving throw is something strange and amazing. I'm trying to figure out how this is significantly different from, "Played with a falchion barbarian lately?"
gnomersy |
The problem is that I am running an AP, so the as-written monsters don't really function in a lot of cases. I'm fine with running a heavily modified version, but it is much easier to simply use the errata and run the encounters as they are written.The main problem is that I need to scale up encounters based on one player, which makes the encounters rather unfair to the rest of the party, especially if the Craner is knocked unconscious, hit with a status effect, etc. I feel like I'm punishing the party because of one...
Alot of things in the game will break an AP it's not hard to do and it's not limited to crane style monks. Laziness and GMing do not work together this has always been true.
Neo2151 |
If a game element causes problems when put up against a random assortment of challenges not specifically targeted at it, then it is OP.
This is true.
This is also not the case of CW in PFS games.The challenges are very specific, and just happen to mostly be challenges that CW is powerful against. If the challenges truly were random in that you could expect to find yourself against any variety of different challenge types, then CW wouldn't register anywhere near as "broken" as PFS GMs claim it is.
Because, again:
Natural Attackers don't care about CW.
Spellcasters don't care about CW.
Ranged Combatants don't care about CW.
Combat Maneuvers don't care about CW.
Mob Tactics don't care about CW.
And finally, PFS games don't use very much of the above list, instead relying on "T-Rex-style" encounters.
Samuel Stone |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Samuel Stone wrote:Alot of things in the game will break an AP it's not hard to do and it's not limited to crane style monks. Laziness and GMing do not work together this has always been true.
The problem is that I am running an AP, so the as-written monsters don't really function in a lot of cases. I'm fine with running a heavily modified version, but it is much easier to simply use the errata and run the encounters as they are written.The main problem is that I need to scale up encounters based on one player, which makes the encounters rather unfair to the rest of the party, especially if the Craner is knocked unconscious, hit with a status effect, etc. I feel like I'm punishing the party because of one...
Again, my problem is not "man, it sucks having to modify encounters." It's the fact that I feel like one player has forced me into what is essentially an arms race to continually scale up monsters, while ensuring that those monsters don't outshine the rest of the party.
And while a lot of things can break APs, its usually a combination of spells, feats, or somesuch that breaks it, rather than a single feat (even if the feat is part of a feat chain).
Samuel Stone |
To expand, it's what I call the "Pony Problem," in that having a Craner is similar to having a One-Trick Pony character in the party. They do one thing very well (in this case, it's dealing with a small number of melee attacks), but aren't always as well suited to dealing with problems outside of that scope.
So, how does a GM deal with the Pony? The GM has to cut down on the number of encounters where the Pony shines, because those fights tend to all go the same way. The GM then needs to up the number of non-Pony encounters to keep the game interesting. To me, at least, this feels like I'm punishing the Pony for making their character that way, and like I could have made a wider variety of encounters if the player hadn't made a Pony character; I could have included more single attack monsters or the like in the case of the Crane Style feats. Therein lies my fundamental problem with Crane Wing. I feel like it hampers my options as a GM.
Cairen Weiss |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cairen Weiss wrote:I agree. I think PFS rules and limits placed on the GMs made this Crane Wing seems much more powerful than it really is.So you're saying the feat is not too powerful as long as there are no objective limits on power? Isn't that...meaningless?
This is admittedly hyperbole, but do you see what I mean? If a game element causes problems when put up against a random assortment of challenges not specifically targeted at it, then it is OP. The only alternative is the endlessly subjective Red Queen style of play, which many of us do not find appealing at all.
Is a cleric that has been optimized for killing undead extremely powerful* in an undead campaign? Yes.
Is a cleric that has been optimized for killing undead extremely powerful* in a campaign with little-to-no undead? No.
*By extremely powerful, I meant over and above the strength of a normal cleric.
PFS happens to be a series of encounters that CW is strongest against. Enemies with iterative or single attacks. These encounters are also of the weakest from a design standpoint, as they don't pose very much threat against even a moderately well built party.
I mean, I've seen Strength 24 (while raging) Human Barbarians with Power Attack and Cleave 2-handing a Falchion in PFS before. I've seen them go up against Level 1 Kobolds and Level 1 Goblins. You're talking 2d4+13 points of damage against creatures with 5 or 6 HP. With an average damage of 18 on each hit, these level 1 guys are able to kill level 2, 3 and sometimes 4 characters in a single hit.
When you're doing over 3 times their HP in damage in a single hit, you are killing your foes so badly their father, and their father's father feel the blow.
In these situations, the Barbarian is being put into a situation perfectly designed for him to completely smash face and there is little the GM can do about it (in PFS).
Is Power Attack OP here? Is Cleave? Is it the Barbarian class? Is it the Falchion? Is it the Point Buy?
Or is it simply bad encounter design?
The point is, when you are analyzing something to see if it's really brokenly powerful or not, you can't be looking at the data where everything is in favor of the thing in question, you have to look normal scenarios, scenarios where it's stacked against the thing, and all the ones in between.
PFS happens to be the 'most reliable' information Paizo has (despite being rife with house rules). However, it's also the situation that is most heavily stacked in favor of Crane Wing.
I have a wizard named Cairen Weiss that is built around being the best Fireball caster she can be. She can do lots of things with Fireball and her Fireballs hurt a lot. She also packs a lot of other fire spells, like Burning Hands, Flaming Sphere, Wall of Fire etc.
The GM went and watched Frozen and decided to put our party in a 'Frozen themed' mini-adventure. Everything had vulnerability to fire. I was cackling with mad glee at the absolute destruction I unleashed. One of the players mentioned that my character was too powerful, and I pointed out, "The GM put us in a situation where my character is at her very best. How is that OP? I mean, everything here takes 50% more damage from fire spells and effects!"
Was my character OP? Or was the encounter in my favor?
PFS is in Crane Wing's favor, and it's not the fault of Crane Wing that it appears so powerful when the deck is stacked in it's favor.
Night Saber |
So, I have a question. Why is Deflect Arrow game balanced and this feat (as it was originally)not game balanced? I mean this feat has significantly higher prerequisites and more or less provides the exact same mechanic as deflect arrows but does it to melee instead of ranged? For real, if this mechanic is SOOOO overpowered why is no one crying to nerf Deflect Arrows? I mean for real, you can deflect a freaking BULLET with deflect arrows but a martial artist can't do the same thing to a sword? how does that make sense? I kind of thought that being able to deflect and avoid hits in combat was part of what martial artists are so famous for. Just a thought.
RJGrady |
Deflect Arrows really isn't balanced. However, there are few monsters that have only a single projectile attack, and most dedicated archers have Rapid Shot, so it doesn't come up as often. For instance, there's no real ranged equivalent to powerful charge for Deflect Arrows to mess up.
Coriat |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To expand, it's what I call the "Pony Problem," in that having a Craner is similar to having a One-Trick Pony character in the party. They do one thing very well (in this case, it's dealing with a small number of melee attacks), but aren't always as well suited to dealing with problems outside of that scope.
So, how does a GM deal with the Pony? The GM has to cut down on the number of encounters where the Pony shines, because those fights tend to all go the same way. The GM then needs to up the number of non-Pony encounters to keep the game interesting. To me, at least, this feels like I'm punishing the Pony for making their character that way, and like I could have made a wider variety of encounters if the player hadn't made a Pony character; I could have included more single attack monsters or the like in the case of the Crane Style feats. Therein lies my fundamental problem with Crane Wing. I feel like it hampers my options as a GM.
Do you feel the same way about, say, a paladin who makes any saving throw on a 2, that you have to cut down on saving throws against the whole party now?
Jeff Merola |
So, I have a question. Why is Deflect Arrow game balanced and this feat (as it was originally)not game balanced? I mean this feat has significantly higher prerequisites and more or less provides the exact same mechanic as deflect arrows but does it to melee instead of ranged? For real, if this mechanic is SOOOO overpowered why is no one crying to nerf Deflect Arrows? I mean for real, you can deflect a freaking BULLET with deflect arrows but a martial artist can't do the same thing to a sword? how does that make sense? I kind of thought that being able to deflect and avoid hits in combat was part of what martial artists are so famous for. Just a thought.
Okay, I'm against the current Crane Wing errata and I still find this whole "why is Deflect Arrows still okay?" argument stupid. Here's why:
1. Deflect Arrows explicitly fails against magic attacks (ranged touch) and natural attacks, while Crane Wing worked on some magic attacks (melee touch) and on natural attacks.2. Archers generally have more attacks that do less damage than each, although this isn't exactly an absolute.
Coriat |
I know all of this. I would go further than you have gone and say that CR is not only imperfect, it's become barely useful if not actively misleading. So the question is: how can you have a meaningful system of organized play when this is the case? The non-PFS community is going to continue to be affected by what happens within PFS, so I'd say this issue is pretty important. Unless of course you think that there can be no meaningful organized play, which is also an interesting conversation. If that's the case, then organized play should be abolished as it is meaningless in and of itself, yet impacts home style play.
Well, no it shouldn't. Not if people enjoy playing it and are having fun and the system is working in its own right.
I'm not sure it is working perfectly, mind, given how many people have been ranting about how easy-mode PFS is, which seems like it might be a problem for PFS even outside of any balance concerns for the rest of us, just when talking about you guys having fun with your thing? But you could answer that better than I.*
For my own part, it seems like I have learned at least one new thing about how different PFS scenario designs, GMing rules, player rules, and all, are, for every single page of this thread.
But if it works for you guys and it's what you need to do to play organized, then by all means keep doing that.
In that case all you need to do is keep your stuff from messing up people who play the regular game. Or at least, that's how it kind of seems to me. But what is the downside?
(and by "you" I mean, probably not specifically you, Erick)
I could see if PFS guys just tend to ban, then maybe pushing a nerf through for the main game as an alternative could be more desirable, I guess... maybe I answered my own question.
*(I have always held as a general approach to evaluation, though, that it's the really challenging encounters that reveal the most about game balance; if you're fighting a kobold warrior 1, then 1d6 sneak attack on your hand crossbow looks just awesome)
Neo2151 |
Samuel Stone wrote:Do you feel the same way about, say, a paladin who makes any saving throw on a 2, that you have to cut down on saving throws against the whole party now?To expand, it's what I call the "Pony Problem," in that having a Craner is similar to having a One-Trick Pony character in the party. They do one thing very well (in this case, it's dealing with a small number of melee attacks), but aren't always as well suited to dealing with problems outside of that scope.
So, how does a GM deal with the Pony? The GM has to cut down on the number of encounters where the Pony shines, because those fights tend to all go the same way. The GM then needs to up the number of non-Pony encounters to keep the game interesting. To me, at least, this feels like I'm punishing the Pony for making their character that way, and like I could have made a wider variety of encounters if the player hadn't made a Pony character; I could have included more single attack monsters or the like in the case of the Crane Style feats. Therein lies my fundamental problem with Crane Wing. I feel like it hampers my options as a GM.
This.
gnomersy |
Again, my problem is not "man, it sucks having to modify encounters." It's the fact that I feel like one player has forced me into what is essentially an arms race to continually scale up monsters, while ensuring that those monsters don't outshine the rest of the party.And while a lot of things can break APs, its usually a combination of spells, feats, or somesuch that breaks it, rather than a single feat (even if the feat is part of a feat chain).
Except there's no reason you should have to continually scale up. You know the simplest solution to deal with a Crane wing monk? Throw in creatures with more high hit lower damage attacks. If a critter has 2 attacks that deal half as much damage it is infinitely more effective on the crane wing pc with no effect on it's overall damage. Problem solved.
Also this isn't a single feat this is 4 feats in with 3 skill points spent and a 2 level dip(usually) in a non favored class. This is not a huge investment you say, but I've seen broken combos using 1 trait 1 spell and 1 feat with no variation off of your desired class. which of these is easier to accomplish? Why is it worse when it's a defensive combo for a random melee? For that matter you can easily hit the same AC just running around as a fighter 2h'ing a shield as your primary weapon.
Stephen Ede |
Wanna know what really kills me in this thread?
Okay, so in like, 99% of the REST of the Pathfinder forums, you'll notice two truths:
1 - AC is a bad investment, because eventually monsters WILL hit you because their stats way outpace yours.
2 - A single attack is bad in a game that is designed to full-attack.
Your "Truths" aren't true. They are part of the common meme of those that like to post a lot, and even then they are far from absolute but a lot of people have given up arguing because you just get back "but I can design a creature to get past your AC".
It's a bit like the impression a reader would get that most people play campaigns at the level 15+ area. The facts are that only a tiny percentage of games are at that point and the majority never go beyond 10th level.
MrSin |
Your "Truths" aren't true.
Except when they are, of course.
There isn't some conspiracy or meme.
Stephen Ede |
Aelryinth wrote:Lemmy wrote:Aelryinth wrote:How is having 1 less attack per round against 1 specific character make melee useless?Being unable to deal with characters using melee NPC's means melee is now useless to the GM, and the game is now all ranged combat and spells.
Doesn't sound like much fun, does it?
Crane Wing nerfed too many other things. Things that nerfed Crane Wing, in turn, actually nerfed EVERYONE, so there is no specific tactic you can aim at Crane Wing to shut it down. You're not countering Crane Wing when you do all that, you're attempting to counter the whole party and move the fight to a non-melee basis.
==Aelryinth
If the GM's meleers can't do beans to your melees, which is basically what a decent Crane build does, why should the GM even bother to play meleers?
Come on, quit tossing the goalposts around. Sure, one attack neutralized isn't much. One attack that would otherwise hit, do great damage, and is all the enemy gets? That's invulnerability.
==Aelryinth
Crane gives you +1 dodge bonus to AC and the ability to deflect 1 attack.
In exchange for...
A- Five freaking feats. (2 of which are pretty weak)
or
B- Delaying your BAB, caster level and class features by 2 levels
or
C- Being a Monk with no FoBAll of those are a significant investment.
OH, and no matter what route you take, you still gotta have one hand free, so no 2-handed weapons for you.... Or, if you're using a 1-handed weapon, no extra damage for using it with 2-hands.
Crane Wing require 4 feats - Improved Unarmed Strike, Dodge, Crane Style, Crane Wing. You can get all of that from 2 Monk levels, with great saves and Evasion thrown in. You lose 1 BAB (not 2).
And as has been pointed out you can do this while using a 2-handed weapon.
Destinar Orion 3 |
First and foremost as a DM i agree with paizo's decision. As a DM i have found this feat to be unbalanced where as deflect arrows less so because an archer can stand still and make full attacks where as a melee character cannot always move and make a full attack thus making crane wing so much more powerful against melees than deflect arrows vs an archer.
You know what a great fix would be to deflect arrow and crane wing?
Once per round you can give yourself a +10 ac bonus against an oncoming attack rather than negate it, this way the ac balance is not upset and a 27 that would hit your monk would miss if his AC jumped to 37.
Remember if your enemy is that much more skilled than you the attack should not miss ever, but a +10 bonus is not something to laugh about, it is a game changer.
Remco Sommeling |
So, I have a question. Why is Deflect Arrow game balanced and this feat (as it was originally)not game balanced? I mean this feat has significantly higher prerequisites and more or less provides the exact same mechanic as deflect arrows but does it to melee instead of ranged? For real, if this mechanic is SOOOO overpowered why is no one crying to nerf Deflect Arrows? I mean for real, you can deflect a freaking BULLET with deflect arrows but a martial artist can't do the same thing to a sword? how does that make sense? I kind of thought that being able to deflect and avoid hits in combat was part of what martial artists are so famous for. Just a thought.
1) Rapid shot, many shot, haste
2) ranged characters can full attack often at range
3) melee character can often only make a single attack
4) Many people would like to see ranged attacks downgraded a bit.
5) I don't think deflect arrows should be automatic either, but I think some archer feats and items are over the top too so I am kinda just keeping it as is since I would feel like house ruling multiple feats at once to address my beef with ranged attacks.
MrSin |
First and foremost as a DM i agree with paizo's decision. As a DM i have found this feat to be unbalanced where as deflect arrows less so because an archer can stand still and make full attacks where as a melee character cannot always move and make a full attack thus making crane wing so much more powerful against melees than deflect arrows vs an archer.
I'm a little confused here. Its overpowered because the archer is making more attacks and doing more damage?
Coriat |
I've seen people build characters to get to a specific feat many a time... but I've never seen anyone build a character to get Deflect Arrows. I've not sure I've ever seen anyone take Deflect Arrows as a regular feat, which suggests that the closest mechanic to Crane Wing, applied to ranged, is not very good.* Every PC I can recall seeing who actually possessed Deflect Arrows had it because they were handed it as a bonus feat.
I think it's hard to say that the melee version wasn't flat out better, just for that reason. That said, being better than bad is not necessarily the same thing as crazy broken, there seems to me to be a lot of design space available in between "Deflect Arrows" and "too powerful." One more reason to look to Mirror Image instead as the baseline comparison.
*I won't absolutely swear to the second point, though, my memory is not perfect when it comes to details like that going back over a decade. The first I am sure of.
RJGrady |
Deflect Arrows does have the same design issue, but not the same consequences. In part, this is because Rapid Shot is at least as common as powerful charge, which means Deflect Arrows usually provides much less mitigation than CW. Also, being targeted by multiple archers is a lot more common than being targeted by multiple melee opponents who specialize in big hits. "Flanked by T-Rexes" is not a normal thing.
Coriat |
Also, being targeted by multiple archers is a lot more common than being targeted by multiple melee opponents who specialize in big hits.
I am not sure this last one is true as a general rule of thumb. I'm certain it isn't true for me. Since I began playing Pathfinder I have not played a single adventure over the course of which I got targeted by multiple melee attackers fewer times than the same happened with archers.
MrSin |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every PC I have ever seen who actually possessed Deflect Arrows had it because they were handed it as a bonus feat.
Ditto. Then again, I don't see too many unarmed characters, which is probably why. Feat Taxes make things look a lot more unattractive. That said, guys who have gotten unarmed strike I have seen get deflect arrows. The last free hand fighter I played with did(dipped into monk to qualify for styles easier) and the monk before the last monk I played with nabbed it.
gnomersy |
Ditto. Then again, I don't see too many unarmed characters, which is probably why. Feat Taxes make things look a lot more unattractive. That said, guys who have gotten unarmed strike I have seen get deflect arrows. The last free hand fighter I played with did(dipped into monk to qualify for styles easier) and the monk before the last monk I played with nabbed it.
As someone playing a monk personally I ended up picking it because it was the least bad feat choice available at level 2. Frankly if I'd had the ability to choose any combat feat I had the prereqs for it would not have been chosen. That being said I had the choice of going into crane style I went into dragon style and frankly it's mostly because my DM often has monsters and those monsters throw out 3+ high hitting attacks a round so crane didn't look as good as being able to put damage through DR.
Remco Sommeling |
I'd rewrite it like this:
Crane Wing (Combat)
You move with the speed and finesse of an avian hunter, your sweeping blocks and graceful motions allowing you to deflect melee attacks with ease.
Prerequisites: Crane Style, Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +5 or monk level 5th.
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 an attempt to counter the attack by making an opposed attack roll with a +4 bonus, this otherwise works like the duelist PrC's parry ability except that you can only parry attacks made against yourself and counts as an AoO for the round rather than one f your attacks on your turn, if you can't make an AoO you can't use this feat. If you using the total defense action instead, you can attempt to deflect one melee attack(even though you can't make any AoO usually when in total defense) with a +8 bonus instead. An attack so deflected 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 flat-footed.
Special: Monks use their monk level instead of their BAB for the purpose of this feat.
* I'd have to smooth out the wording, but the mechanics work well with crane riposte. I would also have the crane riposte have the parried target lose his dexterity bonus versus the riposte.
Rynjin |
6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hrmph. I'll say my piece now, though it's pretty pointless at this point given the large gap of time between some of the things I want to hit on.
The Feat did not need to be nerfed this hard. I can see where people are coming from on wanting it changed, but calling the change "making it into something reasonable" is just blatantly untrue. It was taken from, at best, mildly overpowered, on down to garbage tier. A conditional, guesswork required +4 to AC is terrible, especially given the prerequisites involved to get that.
You may as well take Combat Expertise, use a Shield, and be done with it, you'll be getting far more benefit in the long term out of that one Feat and an item than sinking 4 Feats into getting a similar, maybe slightly more, benefit.
Plenty of other alternatives have been given in this thread. ALL are better than what this errata has provided.
On the topic of MoMS being the issue...possibly. Though I'm doubtful that the people who think it's OP at level 2 think it's any less OP at level 5.
However, nerfing MoMS (especially with one of the suggestions way up thread, about pretty much entirely removing the ability to ignore prereqs) is not the way to go about it. It's already a weak archetype beyond a dip. Nerfing it will make it undesirable as both a dip AND as a full class option. Which would be very saddening, considering it's really the only way to make a real martial artist in this game.
I'd argue BUFFING it would be a better option. Give people incentive to stay in the class for more than two levels. Don't discourage dipping, however, mostly because a little MoMS makes a lot of things so much tastier. A Brawler/MoMS with a pair of Styles (Dragon and Snake are my preferred) is heavenly.
I'll also say while I don't think Crane Wing was OP (or at least not by a lot), Deflect Arrows is a bad comparison. The mechanics are almost identical, but the context is very different. Ranged attacks tend to be rarer, less damaging per shot, and come in volleys. Blocking one arrow of 6 is a lot worse than blocking one melee attack of 3.
The decision to to Crane kick this Feat so hard was a poor one, whether it was spurred by PFS or not. It bears further looking at, on a quicker timescale than Paizo might want. I understand you guys are busy (though you've likely stopped reading this thread very closely now, more's the pity), but pushing something as half-baked as this out the door was a bad move IMO. You've made more problems for yourself in the long term than you ever would have leaving the Feat as-is until you came up with a solution more palatable to everyone.
Hope that's "professional" enough.
Raith Shadar |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind one other thing.
The above combination of Monk w Crane Wing vs Paladin vs Magus is comparing 3 characters, one of whom gets his power from his feats, and is using a class with substandard combat potential; the next is using a Paladin with class features; and the third is a Magus using class features.
the correct combination would have been Monk using Crane Wing; Paladin using Crane Wing; and Magus using Crane Wing.
In all cases, the latter two examples would have worked EXACTLY THE SAME...with the addition of Crane Wing's invulnerability to the mix.
Which is because class features for the paladin and magus are better then the class features of the monk, NOT because of anything to do with Crane Wing.
==Aelryinth
Which is why martial arts should have been limited to monks. That would end this discussion and the errata wouldn't have been needed.
Raith Shadar |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
true on the whole comparison point, but you are also ignoring the reality of playstyle and tactics.
A Crane Wing player is motivated to gain a high AC. That reduces the risk from all melee attacks, PARTICULARLY secondary attacks.
The primary attack, the most likely to hit him, is the enemy's best and most damage, and 100% ineffective.
Next, a player with cunning can keep an enemy down to 1 attack, except perhaps a hydra. He can be out of charge lanes (flying does this nicely), he can single attack and move to a corner, he can force the enemy to move, and with very few exceptions, they are limited to one attack when following.
This is again a win for Crane Wing, and it's a problem because of what Melee is, and how to take advantage of it. Crane Wing totally destroys a one attack fighting style, and a cunning player can virtually force that style, particularly if the rest of the group backs him up.
Addendum, swarming a high AC character with mooks is not going to be effective. He has a high AC. They aren't going to hit much, and he's going to neutralize one of them, and his own offense is unabated. They are going to die, and die easily. Melee toons LOVE mook encounters.
Third, Crane Wing does not do inferior damage. The character and his class features determine that. As I've pointed out numerous times, you can use a 2h style with Crane wing...just take your hand off the one-handed weapon you are 2h'ing at the end of your turn. You can wear heavy armor. You can use Power attack and have a high Str score. There's nothing stopping you from doing that.
Players complaining about lack of damage from their Crane Wing users do NOT have an argument. Using a finesse single weapon with Crane Wing sucks because using a finesse 1H weapon sucks, it has nothing to do with Crane Wing. Crane Wing works perfectly with 2H style. The dex-fighter class is not done well in PF, period, for damage output. Crane Wing has NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.
Riposte just doubles your damage output. You limit the enemy...
You cannot use a 2h style save with a DM you can run over.
I do not allow one-hand free because you take your hand off your two-handed weapon. You are using that weapon the entire round and cannot wield it properly holding it with one hand. Sorry, not allowed. You use the weapon within a round, you have two hands on it.
Same with the bow.
You may allow this kind of rules interpretation. I do not and never have nor ever will.
Rynjin |
You cannot use a 2h style save with a DM you can run over.
I do not allow one-hand free because you take your hand off your two-handed weapon. You are using that weapon the entire round and cannot wield it properly holding it with one hand. Sorry, not allowed. You use the weapon within a round, you have two hands on it.
Same with the bow.
You may allow this kind of rules interpretation. I do not and never have nor ever will.
A reasonable houserule. However, less a rules interpretation than something that you are explicitly allowed to do.
Raith Shadar |
icehawk333 wrote:Well,this feat is now worthless.Here are my thoughts ;
The original feat was WAY too powerfull - auto deflecting Thor hammer is .... Wrong.
The feat now is still a great one, lowering the minus for fighting on the defence and adding some AC.
It's -2 to hit for +4 AC - and +8 once a round .... Not a bad deal
You don't have to take Crane Wing or Crane Riposte for this.
No one is arguing Crane Style is not still useful. The other two feats are no longer worth taking. There are better feats to take Crane Wing and Crane Riposte. After you take the first feat, you're done with the Style.
Raith Shadar |
Felix Gaunt wrote:
That being said I've GM'd and played enough PFS to say that while CW was good, it's by no means all-powerful. Leave it to Monk's and it's fine, it's when people do a 2 level MMoS dip to get it that it can become an issue. And again that appears to be only with PFS (and even then it's workable), I've both played with it in home games, and GM'd people who had it, and it was by no means all-powerful.Oh yeah you can retrain it in PFS, so I wouldn't worry about that. Although it's just the feats you can retrain, not everything, which can suck if you based an entire character off the feat chain. :-/
Neither of the two problematic characters I mentioned just dipped MoMS to get Crane Wing. My character ended as a Monk 8/Duelist 3, and my friend's was a Bard 5/Paladin 4/Rogue 2.
And yes you can pay a massive 15 prestige to retrain the 3 feats affected by this errata, but I for one would not be too excited about having to do that, especially at a relatively low level. But the second part of your statement was more important- typically your entire build is going to be based on a feat chain like this one, so retraining, cool as it is, may not help you much.
Just about anyone can make their AC high. I've dealt with a ton of paladins who build their AC to insane levels and then use Smite Evil. They're virtually unhittable by the evil opponent they are fighting and they do utterly insane damage against the same target.
I've seen Magus build up their ACs. Then cast a defensive spells for the few times an opponent gets lucky against them. Their damage output is far higher than their opponent.
If you build for AC, you can build it high with or without Crane Wing and Crane Riposte. This will not significantly alter high AC builds. All it will do is prevent the one lucky hit from getting them. If that is what is making the character impossible to beat, I would be quite surprised. I know I haven't had problems with it. Plenty of other ways to deal with Crane Wing. They are strong versus a very select group of attacks. What is wrong with that? How is that any different from many other classes?
King_Of_The_Crossroads |
Quote:I never claimed it was, "lan" tzkev. :-/I'm very confused by your choice of where to place quotation marks...
*shrug* I was confused your adding quotations to my name in the first place. It wasn't really needed in order to make whatever point you were attempting. I followed your example.
Erick Wilson |
A reasonable houserule. However, less a rules interpretation than something that you are explicitly allowed to do.
Did they explicitly rule on this? I devoted a thread to it at one point and marked it for FAQ and could get never get an answer. That is, broadly speaking, what kind of action is it to change handedness, and what kinds of effects does that have, if any?
Anyhow, it doesn't seem to make much sense that the balance intention behind "you must have a hand free" was preventing sword and board or TWF people from using the feat while ensuring that two handers still can. And if it was, well, that is the exact opposite of good game design.
Raith Shadar |
Things pre-errata Crane Wing completely hosed:
- Powerful Charge. Any creature, no matter how powerful, whose offense was centered on this, has no powerful charge.
- Any reasonable use of True Strike in melee.
- Monsters with single natural melee attacks.
- Vital Strike and all its improvements, for melee.
- Spring Attack
- Cleave (if Crane Wing is the first target, it never even goes off)
- pretty much any of the grabbers, like a wolf
- move action and standard attackIf you're looking at around APL 6, this is a lot of stuff.
What's wrong with this?
Aren't a bunch of classes immune to attacks that can't penetrate their DR? Or immune to attacks that can't penetrate their far more versatile spell defenses? Or immune to spells that affect humanoids if playing a native outsider race? Or have ACs so high they are virtually unhittable without Crane Style? Or can do so much AoE damage that opponents don't get a chance to attack them back? Or can put creatures to sleep negating anything they do?
Is one deflection and being immune to a small group of enemies any more powerful than other available options?
My players certainly don't take Crane Wing over and over again. It's cool for particular builds. There are lots of powerful options in the game. The best way to defend yourself is to kill your opponent. There are far better classes and abilities for killing your opponent than Crane Wing and Crane Riposte.
I don't see how Crane Wing is any more powerful than the numerous options available to other classes on offense and defense other than you can take it at such a low level unlike many other top abilities.
My lvl 18 cross-blooded Draconic/Orc sorcerer murdered tons of strong enemies in a single round with AoE attacks. You think Crane Wing and Crane Riposte for a lvl 18 monk compares? At lvl 18 Crane Wing and Crane Riposte are a minor cool ability. He mostly stands there watching (along with the other martials) while the sorcerer unloads on the entire battle field leaving a few near dead stragglers for the martials to clean up. If they manage to have energy resistance against my attack, I have a rod for handling that. Does the monk have anything for when Crane Wing doesn't work? No, he does not.
Yet Crane Wing is too powerful. I'd rather see them make it a higher level feat than change it to a useless ability.
Raith Shadar |
the point is that it was an unlimited resource, had no real downside compared to it's benefit. And shut down anything but full attacks/pounce types from lvl 1-20.
Now it still does that, but to do it, you must yourself give up all your attacks.
You think casters run out of spells or abilities very often? They don't in my experience. For average gameplay, all the other classes have functionally unlimited resources.
It works once a round. Doesn't work against combat maneuvers, spells, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, auras, gaze attacks, and the like. Plenty it doesn't work against. You have to be in melee to use it. That means up in the fight, not firing ranged attacks from a safe position like say an archer?
Explain to me how Crane Wing is any more powerful than archery?
Rynjin |
Rynjin wrote:Did they explicitly rule on this? I devoted a thread to it at one point and marked it for FAQ and could get never get an answer. That is, broadly speaking, what kind of action is it to change handedness, and what kinds of effects does that have, if any?A reasonable houserule. However, less a rules interpretation than something that you are explicitly allowed to do.
Anyhow, it doesn't seem to make much sense that the balance intention behind "you must have a hand free" was preventing sword and board or TWF people from using the feat while ensuring that two handers still can. And if it was, well, that is the exact opposite of good game design.
Hrm, I'm not sure if that was the intent. It may indeed be an unintended side effect, or they felt it was justified (after all, you can't RETALIATE with the weapon in hand, you have to use an Unarmed Strike, Natural Attack, Armor Spike etc. to take any AoOs that round).