Crane Wing Errata in latest printing


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1,201 to 1,250 of 2,304 << first < prev | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Tels wrote:
3 day ban and 900 posts later...

I know that feel brother. May I never utter the phrase "that sucks" on Paizo's boards again.

Well except for that time.

Well, when something sucks, it has to be said. Otherwise we get stuck in situations like this, where a rather vocal minority get to dictate game policy due to constant whining.


Rynjin wrote:
Raith Shadar wrote:

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.

It isn't a house rule. A two-handed weapon by its nature is wielded in two hands. There is nothing that says you can wield a two-handed weapon and shoulder and dance around with one hand at the end of your round. If this is another one of those "It doesn't say you can't either", then so be it. I as a DM do not allow it. If you're wielding a two-handed weapon, you're wielding it the entire round unless you drop it completely. You cannot simply adjust it and hold it in a single hand whenever you feel like it.

Rounds are free flowing. You can take a hand off it during your round to swift action heal yourself as you can touch a wrist or the other hand for a LoH or spell. As far as shouldering and dancing around, there is no reason a DM should allow this. You're using a two-handed weapon. The disadvantage of doing so applies. You are not considered to have a free hand for purposes of Crane Style.

If at any point in a round you don't have a free hand, Crane Style ceases to function. That is just as accurate a rules interpretation as any out there. Crane Style says you have to have a hand free, if you don't have a hand free for the entire round then you're Crane Style doesn't work.

It's a fighting style that works that way. Absent a specific ruling, it's a DM call. I don't allow that kind of exploitation of rules.


Samuel Stone wrote:

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 is totally the problem. A similar anecdote: my friend was running a Star Wars Saga game and one of the players made a grappler. You can easily make grappling ludicrously good in that game, which meant that if this character got into melee range of someone, he ended them. When my friend (the GM) got frustrated with this, the player was indignant. How could the GM be upset with his grapple build when the jedi players could do 20 different things better than him? And it's true that jedi are just mo' better in that system.

But what was frustrating the GM was that the idea of badass melee villains in general had essentially been taken off the table entirely because of this character. That meant (among other things) no evil Sith lightsaber duelists, which were like his favorite thing. It also put him in a very awkward position. He could make bosses like that with the knowledge that he was making them essentially for the sole purpose of making that one player feel good when he curbstomped them, or he could avoid such enemies altogether, in which case he would have essentially rendered that player's build useless through mere omission.

Sczarni

King_Of_The_Crossroads wrote:
lantzkev wrote:
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.

it was to make light of your "improvement" being in quotes. It's just odd to take a user name and put quotes in part of it, and that part doesn't even form a word. like if you had done "lantz" kev... it'd of at least made some sense.

Just trying to figure out why on earth you did that, glad to know it was something unimportant.

Sczarni

Quote:
Well, when something sucks, it has to be said. Otherwise we get stuck in situations like this, where a rather vocal minority get to dictate game policy due to constant whining.

can I complain now that quick draw is situational and not very beneficial, or that earth child is situational and not optimal, that a myriad of other feats are not optimal must have. That they don't do something so awesomely amazing that it's hard not to pick them?

I'd love for improved will to do more than "just" add a +2 to the will save... the fact is crane wing was so strong that if you were considering styles, there was never a reason to take any other style than it for defense, survivability, and even to add offense in. It unlike snake style, is guaranteed to work.


lantzkev wrote:
Quote:
Well, when something sucks, it has to be said. Otherwise we get stuck in situations like this, where a rather vocal minority get to dictate game policy due to constant whining.

can I complain now that quick draw is situational and not very beneficial, or that earth child is situational and not optimal, that a myriad of other feats are not optimal must have. That they don't do something so awesomely amazing that it's hard not to pick them?

I'd love for improved will to do more than "just" add a +2 to the will save... the fact is crane wing was so strong that if you were considering styles, there was never a reason to take any other style than it for defense, survivability, and even to add offense in. It unlike snake style, is guaranteed to work.

The difference being that those feats are fine the way they are, while Crane Wing was fine and now isn't.


lantzkev wrote:
King_Of_The_Crossroads wrote:
lantzkev wrote:
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.

it was to make light of your "improvement" being in quotes. It's just odd to take a user name and put quotes in part of it, and that part doesn't even form a word. like if you had done "lantz" kev... it'd of at least made some sense.

Just trying to figure out why on earth you did that, glad to know it was something unimportant.

Lol, oops. I actually meant "lantz", but I guess I slipped up. My bad :p


lantzkev wrote:
Quote:
Well, when something sucks, it has to be said. Otherwise we get stuck in situations like this, where a rather vocal minority get to dictate game policy due to constant whining.

can I complain now that quick draw is situational and not very beneficial, or that earth child is situational and not optimal, that a myriad of other feats are not optimal must have. That they don't do something so awesomely amazing that it's hard not to pick them?

I'd love for improved will to do more than "just" add a +2 to the will save... the fact is crane wing was so strong that if you were considering styles, there was never a reason to take any other style than it for defense, survivability, and even to add offense in. It unlike snake style, is guaranteed to work.

If Sense Motive is a class skill, and you put a rank into it every level, and your Wisdom isn't complete s+$$e, Snake Style should almost never fail. You're looking at 5 + the number of ranks and the wisdom modifier as a base if you're using Snake Style. In addition, there are a number of magical items that give bonuses to Sense Motive that one can further use to bump up Sense Motive. They could also take Skill Focus (Sense Motive) if they wanted too as well.

Plus, if you can get your AC high enough, and Snake Fang at 9th, every miss becomes an AoO. Sure, it's an unarmed strike, but it's still a free attack.

Sczarni

King_Of_The_Crossroads wrote:
lantzkev wrote:
Quote:
Well, when something sucks, it has to be said. Otherwise we get stuck in situations like this, where a rather vocal minority get to dictate game policy due to constant whining.

can I complain now that quick draw is situational and not very beneficial, or that earth child is situational and not optimal, that a myriad of other feats are not optimal must have. That they don't do something so awesomely amazing that it's hard not to pick them?

I'd love for improved will to do more than "just" add a +2 to the will save... the fact is crane wing was so strong that if you were considering styles, there was never a reason to take any other style than it for defense, survivability, and even to add offense in. It unlike snake style, is guaranteed to work.

The difference being that those feats are fine the way they are, while Crane Wing was fine and now isn't.

well compared to dodge (a +1 dodge bonus) a +4 seems pretty huge even if you're taking a minus to your own attacks, it's in proportion to power attack...

and it's pre-req gives an additional ac buff to your fighting defensively. so you've done what spent (assuming you got IUS out of a class) three feats to get...
-2 rather than -4 when fighting defensively.
+4 dodge to ac/cmd
+4 dodge further to ac/cmd vs one attack.

for three feats you get dodge, shield mastery, and greater shield mastery for a +2 to ac... it's not even a dodge bonus. and a +1 to dodge.

compared to other feats it seems pretty freaking sweet to me and far from "not fine"


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm late to this.

He ONLY thing wrong with Crane Wing, was that it's a defensive tree that paid off.

This game hates defense.

That's why DMs hate monks.
It's why rogues are squishy.
It's why fighters only get 1 good save.
It why armor, as a sub system, is lacking.

It's why Power Attack is a foregone conclusion but Combat Expertise is derided.

The ONLY thing that matters is Offensive capacity and anything that deviates gets a healthy dose of Nerfium.

Stuff like this just shows the cracks in d20 system fundamentals.


lantzkev wrote:
Casters are limited resources,

Not that limited. We have several in each game we play. And if you mean spells... not really. Normally the only one running out of spells is the healer. After that the martials ask to rest because they don't want to fight without a healer at their back.


Casters aren't limited resources after lvl 5.
They can make their own wands which effectively ends them running out of spells.


lantzkev wrote:
Quote:
Also, Brawler does not count as IUS

you might need to read up on a few thigns that have been stated by developers and faqs etc.

If you have it, even temporary it functions. now in the barbarian situation, he can't use crane wing except while he's raging because during other points he does not have all the pre-reqs.

Maybe there's an FAQ I'm unaware of (quick search didn't yield anything). There is a rule that says that if you have a bonus for 24 hours, it counts as permanent, and so you can use it to qualify for stuff, but you can't really rage 24 hours with a lvl 6 barbarian.

If this was the case, the ACG brawler would qualify for every feat with combat feat prereqs by default.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I’d like to commend Paizo and Jason for having the gumption to make their Crane Wing decision. Right or wrong, they must have known they’d take a lot of heat for this. Nerfing Crane Wing won’t fix all the problems in the game, but restoring its original function won’t fix them either. At least the nerf fixes one potential headache for GMs. Sure, the non-PFS GMs could have just house ruled, but why should they have to? Sure, PFS could have just banned the feat, but now it doesn't have to.

Crane Wing fans in home games can still work with their GMs if they feel their PC is "too weak". Giving a PC extra powers which the group agrees are helpful seems much less likely to cause acrimony than taking away powers the player desperately wants but the GM and or group think are excessive. Just because the GM has legitimate authority to nerf things doesn't mean that players won't rebel against it. I mean, Paizo has the legitimate authority to nerf things too, but we still have this thread. I'd rather see bitter arguments here online than at tables across the world.

I also have some sympathy for folks who designed their PCs based on the original feat and now feel disenfranchised. Seeing supporters of the nerf called a "vocal" minority" and described with latently insulting terms like "whining" and "immature" by supporters of the original feat while people's GMing skills and "right to GM" are questioned doesn't enhance that good will in any way though.

As an aside, I find the Brawler vs IUS prereq discussion interesting and think I'll start another thread on it.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the issue is not so much about Crane Wing. It's that when it comes to Errata. Either legitimate problems with the rules get ignored. Or they go too far with a nerf. They seem to have a hard time finding that middle ground between a good errata ruling and proper nerfing. That is what imo is starting to annoy the fanbase to a limited extent. Six years into the development cycle they should be able to find the proper middle ground with errata easily. After a certain point and even with a pretty decent track record you have to wonder if they learn from their mistakes.

Shadow Lodge

Samuel Stone wrote:

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).

I've read/skimmed through AP's and they seem pretty easy, much like PFS Scenarios (possibly why they are sanctioned for PFS). If you're not running it for PFS and you have a player that min-maxes/twinks/metagames/whatever, then that's your problem, not CW. I don't have enough fingers or toes to count the amount of times I've heard this issue from GM's, and you know what most of them do? They say nicely to the person "Look, you need to scale it back. No one else here is making PC's as powerful as you." If they can't or don't do that they are politely asked to leave, no harm no foul. I've also GM'd where one player has a much firmer grasp of the rules than the others (possibly like mentioned above), and you run into the same thing, and yes you gotta adjust, but that's not the fault of CW.

CW is not not the issue, the Scenarios's\AP's that put GM's in that situation are. How many times have people run a Scenario\AP where there is one BBEG, heaven forbid you have to fight a whole diverse group! Yeah I've seen that happen, but it's an extreme rarity and generally just a mid-game encounter and not the end. I've GM'd and played for a long time, I would never in a million years design my home game like an AP or Scenario. Ever ever ever, and I've played in enough home games to say other GM's don't either. Scenario\AP's are a different breed, not bad, just different. They are meant to accomplish a different task, to appeal and be playable by the average player. They are not in any way shape or form difficult. I've heard soooo many times about people one-shotting the final boss (singular) in PFS, heck I hear this happen in the final high-tier of Season 4 (well that wasn't a one shot, but he died the first round).

Also again I've GM'd numerous CW characters as well as played one myself, there are ways around it, it's really not that big a deal. If you're in a home game there are even more ways around it. You know what sucks? When someone has a nigh indestructible Eidolon that sets off and destroys all traps, poor poor Rogue! The list of game-breaking mechanics are a mile long and CW is at the veeeerrrry end, if on it at all.

I understand people's pain with the feat, I just think it's misplaced and this misplacement has taken yet another good feat (and for Monk's at that) and tossed it in the trash. Want to avoid that 2 level MMoS dip and keep the feat intact? Make it Monk only and have a higher level requirement, possibly 4 for MoMS and 5 or 6 for regular Monk. If someone wants to spend 4 levels of Monk to get a single Feat, more power to them! ;-)

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neo2151 wrote:

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.

Except, apparently, in this thread. In this thread (and no other) it seems the opposite is true! In this thread:
1 - AC is stopping almost all the attacks! Except for that one single one that just barely managed to get through, and that's where CW comes in handy.
2 - A single AoO is HUGE and makes you capable of keeping up with Pouncing Barbarians!

I just...
Really?

Well said.

One can make an extremely tanky AC character. This is entirely possible. The issue is that, by and large, the options for defensive feats/magic items/class features are no where near as strong as the options for offensive feats/magic items/class features.

Crane Wing was a bit much at very low level, but that has a simple solution - make it impossible to take below 6th or so level.

What frustrates and confuses me is how Crane Wing can be looked at, and decided that it's just too good of defense. Yet we look at pounce, firearms touch AC, bombs touch AC, signature deed + up close and deadly carnage, clustered shots, and whole host of other offensive feats and powers and believe it's all just fine. I just cannot understand that.


Just make it so you can use crane riposte on any attack that missed you due to successfully using crane wing (full defense or not) and it might yet be balanced.


@Lormyr - I agree with some of the complaints you're making regarding excessive offensive powers especially surrounding guns and bombs. Did you notice the Up Close and Deadly errata taking away the scaling damage though? It doesn't "fix" the Gunslinger to exactly the power level I'd like, but it plus the weapon cord nerf combined actually seem like they could make a pretty big difference. Not nerfing Crane Wing doesn't really address any of those problems though, but I think you can rest assured that if they did get nerfed there would be a similar outburst on the boards.


zagnabbit wrote:

I'm late to this.

He ONLY thing wrong with Crane Wing, was that it's a defensive tree that paid off.

This game hates defense.

That's why DMs hate monks.
It's why rogues are squishy.
It's why fighters only get 1 good save.
It why armor, as a sub system, is lacking.

It's why Power Attack is a foregone conclusion but Combat Expertise is derided.

The ONLY thing that matters is Offensive capacity and anything that deviates gets a healthy dose of Nerfium.

Stuff like this just shows the cracks in d20 system fundamentals.

From trying to understand a lot of the "alternative" side feedback, I think there are points here. But it isn't quite right. Or... this is part of it, but not all of it. Or whatever, you get the idea.

Another issue, for at least a lot of people (Erick Wilson's posts have been helpful in pointing this out) is how "in your face" Crane Wing was.

It reached out and took away an attack that was going to hit, and said, no, no it doesn't.

Whereas an archer turret paladin takes the same hit, and heals it away as a swift action on his next turn while still machine gunning away and dealing twice the damage of the Crane Style monk on both turns... that may be more powerful, but it doesn't seem to antagonize (some) GMs the same way, because they at least got to put a hit on the board.

Look at the number of GMs who have said "but it doesn't matter if mirror image would be two or three times as potent in a given situation, it's not as broken because at least there's a chance, something for me to roll against."

Or look at the people who have said old Crane Wing would be okay if it still let natural 20s through.

It's the same reason that in football, many fans will often feel a little better about losing 45-14 than 20-0.

"Sure, we lost by more, but at least we gave it a shot and got on the board."

Or at least, this is something I have seemed to observe over the course of this thread?

I know as a player I can get overcome with righteous wrath when one of my natural 20s is snatched away by some ability (which happens not inconsiderably often, though mostly due to magic; not sure I've ever lost one to Crane Wing) so I could totally understand the same happening in regard to GMs and this feat.

Shadow Lodge

Lormyr wrote:

One can make an extremely tanky AC character. This is entirely possible. The issue is that, by and large, the options for defensive feats/magic items/class features are no where near as strong as the options for offensive feats/magic items/class features.

Crane Wing was a bit much at very low level, but that has a simple solution - make it impossible to take below 6th or so level.

What frustrates and confuses me is how Crane Wing can be looked at, and decided that it's just too good of defense. Yet we look at pounce, firearms touch AC, bombs touch AC, signature deed + up close and deadly carnage, clustered shots, and whole host of other offensive feats and powers and believe it's all just fine. I just cannot understand that.

So true, so true. There is a reason PFS has no (at least as far as I've seen) Gunslinger NPC's in their Scenarios. :-P Oh and I don't want to hear that's because they are rare, that's a crock. lol


RJGrady wrote:
Eirikrautha wrote:
RJGrady wrote:

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 attack

If you're looking at around APL 6, this is a lot of stuff.

Played with a color spray oracle lately?
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?"

There's no significant difference between either of those and "played with a crane wing monk" either. And that's the point. All of the above are one-trick-ponies that are very good at what they do. The barbarian slaughters with high damage, the heavens oracle drops DC 19 color sprays that treat 7HD mobs like 1HD ones, and the crane wing monk doesn't get hit. All change the nature of encounters, all require GM adjustment of playstyle, but only one of them creates all the GM whining. All should be viable and allowed...

Lantern Lodge

Devilkiller wrote:
@Lormyr - I agree with some of the complaints you're making regarding excessive offensive powers especially surrounding guns and bombs. Did you notice the Up Close and Deadly errata taking away the scaling damage though? It doesn't "fix" the Gunslinger to exactly the power level I'd like, but it plus the weapon cord nerf combined actually seem like they could make a pretty big difference. Not nerfing Crane Wing doesn't really address any of those problems though, but I think you can rest assured that if they did get nerfed there would be a similar outburst on the boards.

Perhaps I am misreading the errata, but I am not seeing the scaling damage lost. The errata says to "delete the third sentence". I see that as:

Up Close and Deadly (Ex): At 1st level, when the pistolero hits a target with a one-handed firearm that is not making a scatter shot, she can spend 1 grit point to deal 1d6 points of extra damage on a hit. If she misses with the attack, she grazes the target, dealing half the extra damage anyway. This is precision damage and is not multiplied if the attack is a critical hit. This precision damage increases to 2d6 at 5th level, to 3d6 at 10th level, to 4d6 at 15th level, and to 5d6 at 20th level. This precision damage stacks with sneak attack and other forms of precision damage. This deed replaces the deadeye deed.

Did I miss something?


@Lormyr - When I first looked at it I thought it was the scaling damage which was the 3rd sentence. I stand corrected. I guess maybe they just removed the bit about the d6s not being multiplied on crits since it was superfluous or something. I guess maybe Paizo is going to stand firm on the Gunslinger. I think that's unfortunate, but I don't see how not nerfing Crane Wing would help fix it.

Grand Lodge

Coriat wrote:
Samuel Stone wrote:

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?

That's a bit different. A Craner can hold a chokepoint while keeping the party from being hit by melee. A paladin who makes a saving throw only saves itself. Most AoE saving throws expect that at least a few members of the party make the save. Melee monsters tend not to expect that they rarely hit, if ever.

I get what you're trying to say, and there are other optimized combinations of feats, spells, classes, etc. that can lead to problems, but my problem still comes back to the fact that Crane Wing is a single feat that lets the character become a One-Trick Pony.


Lormyr wrote:
Devilkiller wrote:
@Lormyr - I agree with some of the complaints you're making regarding excessive offensive powers especially surrounding guns and bombs. Did you notice the Up Close and Deadly errata taking away the scaling damage though? It doesn't "fix" the Gunslinger to exactly the power level I'd like, but it plus the weapon cord nerf combined actually seem like they could make a pretty big difference. Not nerfing Crane Wing doesn't really address any of those problems though, but I think you can rest assured that if they did get nerfed there would be a similar outburst on the boards.

Perhaps I am misreading the errata, but I am not seeing the scaling damage lost. The errata says to "delete the third sentence". I see that as:

Up Close and Deadly (Ex): At 1st level, when the pistolero hits a target with a one-handed firearm that is not making a scatter shot, she can spend 1 grit point to deal 1d6 points of extra damage on a hit. If she misses with the attack, she grazes the target, dealing half the extra damage anyway. This is precision damage and is not multiplied if the attack is a critical hit. This precision damage increases to 2d6 at 5th level, to 3d6 at 10th level, to 4d6 at 15th level, and to 5d6 at 20th level. This precision damage stacks with sneak attack and other forms of precision damage. This deed replaces the deadeye deed.

Did I miss something?

So the issue an errata for a very powerful offensive item for an already very powerful offensive class/build... but the errata makes them even more powerful?!

Yes. Because Crane Wing is the real issue here.

I play a lot of video games, and in most of the video games, very powerful offensive options are often nerfed into more reasonable (yet still powerful) options, so as to extend the life of the game, create more engaging battles requiring better tactics and strategy, and to create opportunities for people to explore other potential builds and/or strategies.

Sometimes this involves buffing defensive options, sometimes it involves buffing weaker offensive options. Here in Pathfinder, however, it seems there is this mindset to encourage extremely powerful offensive options, turning everyone into glass canons.

I'm not sure which adventures or hero stories Paizo has been reading, but in the ones I enjoy reading, the hero (or heroes) often take a beating. Standing fast in the midst of a horde of orcs, shrugging off blows and cutting a swath of destruction. Or being tortured for hours, even days, before seizing an opportunity to escape and confront his torturers. Or fighting against an overwhelmingly powerful foe, but thanks to his strength of will, his unbreakable spirit (and a certain amount of foolish bravery) he presses on, only to emerge triumphant.

In nearly all the stories, the heroes aren't just unstoppable powerhouses of destruction, they are also incredibly resilient. Able to shrug off blows that would split lesser men in half, standing strong after suffering thousands of little nicks and blows, or continuing on long after his body has lost it's strength.

Instead of getting to create incredibly resilient heroes, we're almost encouraged to instead, sacrifice defense to throw out bigger damage numbers.


Samuel Stone wrote:

That's a bit different. A Craner can hold a chokepoint while keeping the party from being hit by melee. A paladin who makes a saving throw only saves itself. Most AoE saving throws expect that at least a few members of the party make the save. Melee monsters tend not to expect that they rarely hit, if ever.

I get what you're trying to say, and there are other optimized combinations of feats, spells, classes, etc. that can lead to problems, but my problem still comes back to the fact that Crane Wing is a single feat that lets the character become a One-Trick Pony.

I'm having a hard time believing that the Dervish Dancing Magus chucking Intensified Elemental Shocking Grasps is of a less problem than Crane Wing. Especially since he could then also Spell Combat mirror images in as well.

Also the chokepoint scenario is true for anyone with a high AC and/or DR.


Samuel Stone wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Samuel Stone wrote:

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?

That's a bit different. A Craner can hold a chokepoint while keeping the party from being hit by melee. A paladin who makes a saving throw only saves itself. Most AoE saving throws expect that at least a few members of the party make the save. Melee monsters tend not to expect that they rarely hit, if ever.

I get what you're trying to say, and there are other optimized combinations of feats, spells, classes, etc. that can lead to problems, but my problem still comes back to the fact that Crane Wing is a single feat that lets the character become a One-Trick Pony.

Crane Wing is a 4 feat investment for most characters, 3 for others, 5 and 4 respectively if they want Crane Riposte.

Keep in mind, a character gets 10 standard feats to choose from in their career. If you're spending even just 3 of those feats for Crane Wing, you're talking about a serious investment of your character strength. If you go for the full Crane Riposte and you aren't a class that has Imp. Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat, you're sinking half of your total feat options into a feat chain.

Playing a Fighter or a Monk mitigates this to some extent with their number of bonus feats, but for every one else (those who don't dip), it's nothing to sneeze at. Making the decision to put even 30% of your power into something, should have dramatic effects on your character.

Archery is a combat style widely regarded as feat intensive, but worth the pay off. The Crane Style chain is the same way. Well, it was the same way. It was a feat intensive defensive option that was worth the payout. But it's not worth it anymore. The single Crane Style feat is still worth it, but only as long as you get Imp. Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat somehow. Then it's just a 2 feat investment with a good payoff.


Scavion wrote:
Samuel Stone wrote:

That's a bit different. A Craner can hold a chokepoint while keeping the party from being hit by melee. A paladin who makes a saving throw only saves itself. Most AoE saving throws expect that at least a few members of the party make the save. Melee monsters tend not to expect that they rarely hit, if ever.

I get what you're trying to say, and there are other optimized combinations of feats, spells, classes, etc. that can lead to problems, but my problem still comes back to the fact that Crane Wing is a single feat that lets the character become a One-Trick Pony.

I'm having a hard time believing that the Dervish Dancing Magus chucking Intensified Elemental Shocking Grasps is of a less problem than Crane Wing. Especially since he could then also Spell Combat mirror images in as well.

Also the chokepoint scenario is true for anyone with a high AC and/or DR.

Oooooo. I'm going to have to try that.

Grand Lodge

Scavion wrote:
Samuel Stone wrote:

That's a bit different. A Craner can hold a chokepoint while keeping the party from being hit by melee. A paladin who makes a saving throw only saves itself. Most AoE saving throws expect that at least a few members of the party make the save. Melee monsters tend not to expect that they rarely hit, if ever.

I get what you're trying to say, and there are other optimized combinations of feats, spells, classes, etc. that can lead to problems, but my problem still comes back to the fact that Crane Wing is a single feat that lets the character become a One-Trick Pony.

I'm having a hard time believing that the Dervish Dancing Magus chucking Intensified Elemental Shocking Grasps is of a less problem than Crane Wing. Especially since he could then also Spell Combat mirror images in as well.

Also the chokepoint scenario is true for anyone with a high AC and/or DR.

I'll concede that point, but part of the issue (or at least, MY issue) is the fact that Crane Wing is a defensive build. Arguably, part of the point of minor encounters - ie, "easy" encounters prior to a more challenging encounter - is to force the players to expend resources. Spells for casters, HP for melee (which leads to divine spell consumption, or potion consumption), and X times per day abilities for both. Crane Wing removes a lot of the consumption of those resources because it can be used once per round, and the prevention of HP loss can remove any lasting impact of the encounter to the party as a whole.

Going back to what Coriat said, I'd rather lose 45-14 than 20-0 if it means that the upcoming matches are going to be more interesting as a result.

And the chokepoint problem holds true for high AC/DR, but at least there's some potential for damage being put on the board. Coupling high AC/DR with Crane Wing reduces the chance of getting through even further.


Samuel Stone wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Samuel Stone wrote:

That's a bit different. A Craner can hold a chokepoint while keeping the party from being hit by melee. A paladin who makes a saving throw only saves itself. Most AoE saving throws expect that at least a few members of the party make the save. Melee monsters tend not to expect that they rarely hit, if ever.

I get what you're trying to say, and there are other optimized combinations of feats, spells, classes, etc. that can lead to problems, but my problem still comes back to the fact that Crane Wing is a single feat that lets the character become a One-Trick Pony.

I'm having a hard time believing that the Dervish Dancing Magus chucking Intensified Elemental Shocking Grasps is of a less problem than Crane Wing. Especially since he could then also Spell Combat mirror images in as well.

Also the chokepoint scenario is true for anyone with a high AC and/or DR.

I'll concede that point, but part of the issue (or at least, MY issue) is the fact that Crane Wing is a defensive build. Arguably, part of the point of minor encounters - ie, "easy" encounters prior to a more challenging encounter - is to force the players to expend resources. Spells for casters, HP for melee (which leads to divine spell consumption, or potion consumption), and X times per day abilities for both. Crane Wing removes a lot of the consumption of those resources because it can be used once per round, and the prevention of HP loss can remove any lasting impact of the encounter to the party as a whole.

Going back to what Coriat said, I'd rather lose 45-14 than 20-0 if it means that the upcoming matches are going to be more interesting as a result.

And the chokepoint problem holds true for high AC/DR, but at least there's some potential for damage being put on the board. Coupling high AC/DR with Crane Wing reduces the chance of getting through even further.

I hear wands of Cure Light Wounds are pretty popular in PFS. Wouldn't HP damage be just superficial?


Raith Shadar wrote:
RJGrady wrote:

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 attack

If 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?

No.

Quote:


Or immune to attacks that can't penetrate their far more versatile spell defenses?
Quote:


Or immune to spells that affect humanoids if playing a native outsider race?

Yes.

Quote:


Or have ACs so high they are virtually unhittable without Crane Style?

No.

Quote:


Or can do so much AoE damage that opponents don't get a chance to attack them back?

Not sure what you mean.

Quote:


Or can put creatures to sleep negating anything they do?

Only if said creature fails a save!

In fact, most of the those either aren't true, aren't immunities, or... are fine, because they're appropriate. "I am a low level monk, who is immune to all powerful charges, no matter what you do," is just not a thing that should be.


Erick Wilson wrote:

This is totally the problem. A similar anecdote: my friend was running a Star Wars Saga game and one of the players made a grappler. You can easily make grappling ludicrously good in that game, which meant that if this character got into melee range of someone, he ended them. When my friend (the GM) got frustrated with this, the player was indignant. How could the GM be upset with his grapple build when the jedi players could do 20 different things better than him? And it's true that jedi are just mo' better in that system.

But what was frustrating the GM was that the idea of badass melee villains in general had essentially been taken off the table entirely because of this character. That meant (among other things) no evil Sith lightsaber duelists, which were like his favorite thing. It also put him in a very awkward position. He could make bosses like that with the knowledge that he was making them essentially for the sole purpose of making that one player feel good when he curbstomped them, or he could avoid such...

I gm'd Saga for several years. Some things you mention strike me as odd:

Spoiler:

Grapplers suffered against Lightsaber weilders in specific. I know, a player played a big Grappler type, with access to all the feats and such that let him do full strength damage on a missed attack(such as a grapple attempt) and let every successful grapple knock someone down the condition track. Against non Jedi, it was brutal.

Jedi & Sith tho could just deflect the attempt. That alone was huge. Secondly, even if they got off the grapple, it didn't stop a Jedi or sith from full attacking, since lightsabers were light weapons. Since they likely already buffed with Dark Rage(being virtue of being evil) and it was incredibly hard to maintain grip when you're being massively out damaged.

Also the most powerful class in the game was likely a gunslinger/bounty hunter, which could down anyone in under 3 turns at ranged without fail regardless of whether or not their attacks were negated via abuse of the condition track.

However I think my point is that system mastery is a big deal. Loads of people have established ways to get around Crane. They've also established the moral implications of countering a spec'd character, and instead letting their Players shine.


Scavion wrote:
I hear wands of Cure Light Wounds are pretty popular in PFS. Wouldn't HP damage be just superficial?

It is an expectation that you will heal up between encounters, preferably using a wand. You can buy a wand for 2pp, which is what you usually get for completing a single mission. They can be pretty rough without healing between encounters. Debilitating effects like ability damage might stay between missions though, and similarly death is a condition that can be pretty hard to remedy between encounters.


RJGrady wrote:


Quote:


Or have ACs so high they are virtually unhittable without Crane Style?
No.

Really?

So, lessee here.

Level 5 Fighter. Full Plate. Fights Defensively, with Combat Expertise. Uses a heavy shield. Only 14 Dex. Waffling on whether he should have Dodge and Shield Focus or not...

AC: 27-29 (+2 Combat Expertise, +9 Armor, +2 Shield, +2 Fighting Defensively) (Dodge and Shield Focus)

Before any magic items or effects that might be in play at this point, to any possible Natural Armor from race. Let's pick 5 random monsters from the bestiary, CR 5.

Mummy: Attack bonus +14. Needs a 13 to hit the lower, 15 to hit the higher.

Manticore: Attack bonus +10. Needs a 17 to hit the lower, 19 to hit the higher.

Phase Spider: Attack bonus +10. Needs a 17 to hit the lower, 19 to hit the higher.

Black Dragon (Very Young): Attack bonus +9. Needs an 18 to hit the lower, 20 to hit the higher.

Basilisk: Attack bonus +10. Needs a 17 to hit the lower, 19 to hit the higher.

Now, perhaps my examples were ill chosen, and I just landed on most of the ones with +10 or lower and the Mummy's +14 is more the norm. But it seems to me that the average bestiary for that level has a hard time hitting the Fighter, regardless of Crane Style.

If you invest in AC you get a high AC.

RJGrady wrote:
In fact, most of the those either aren't true, aren't immunities, or... are fine, because they're appropriate. "I am a low level monk, who is immune to all powerful charges, no matter what you do," is just not a thing that should be.

Why do you decide what's appropriate? I don't think it's appropriate that you should be advocating letting a Powerful Charge one-shot your players (because it certainly has that potential) and are saying it's inappropriate for them to have a good defense against it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Devilkiller wrote:
I’d like to commend Paizo and Jason for having the gumption to make their Crane Wing decision. Right or wrong, they must have known they’d take a lot of heat for this.

How very brave it must have been, to do something that would have no effect on their lives in any meaningful way.


So the fighter in full plate is supposed to be concerned the basilisk is biting him? Being hit an average of 0.3 times a round by a manticore with no favorable bonuses is "immune?"


RJGrady wrote:
So the fighter in full plate is supposed to be concerned the basilisk is biting him? Being hit an average of 0.3 times a round by a manticore with no favorable bonuses is "immune?"

The word used wasn't immune. It was "virtually unhittable". And remember, this is a lowball estimate. No Ring of Protection or Amulet of Natural Armor. No Magic Armor or shield. No buffs.

Like I said, I picked random monsters from the bestiary to see their attack bonuses. Other factors (such as Gaze and Paralysis) weren't taken into account.

Your second bit really baffles me. I'm no mathematical genius but it seems to me getting hit ".3 times" a round (translated "Once every 3 rounds", I believe?) isn't a huge issue. Especially when the thing is probably dead by the end of Round 3 or the one after.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Rynjin wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
So the fighter in full plate is supposed to be concerned the basilisk is biting him? Being hit an average of 0.3 times a round by a manticore with no favorable bonuses is "immune?"
The word used wasn't immune. It was "virtually unhittable". And remember, this is a lowball estimate. No Ring of Protection or Amulet of Natural Armor. No Magic Armor or shield. No buffs.

If the monsters in question need a 17+ to hit (which is about average for a CR 5 monster against an AC 27), then it's worth looking at the number of attacks they get too. A "typical" CR 5 monster has 3 attacks at that level (the ones of your sample that don't - the basilisk and the phase spider - are more limited because their primary attacks are exceptionally powerful for reasons that have nothing to do with their attack bonuses). So with three attacks at a 20% success rate, the odds of hitting at least once in a full attack are 48.8%. That's not "virtually unhittable."

However, to get past a pre-errata Crane Wing, such a character would need to be hit at least twice - and the odds of that are only 10.4%. That's actually more protection than a character who could only be hit on a nat 20 would have.


Shisumo wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
So the fighter in full plate is supposed to be concerned the basilisk is biting him? Being hit an average of 0.3 times a round by a manticore with no favorable bonuses is "immune?"
The word used wasn't immune. It was "virtually unhittable". And remember, this is a lowball estimate. No Ring of Protection or Amulet of Natural Armor. No Magic Armor or shield. No buffs.

If the monsters in question need a 17+ to hit (which is about average for a CR 5 monster against an AC 27), then it's worth looking at the number of attacks they get too. A "typical" CR 5 monster has 3 attacks at that level (the ones of your sample that don't - the basilisk and the phase spider - are more limited because their primary attacks are exceptionally powerful for reasons that have nothing to do with their attack bonuses). So with three attacks at a 20% success rate, the odds of hitting at least once in a full attack are 48.8%. That's not "virtually unhittable."

However, to get past a pre-errata Crane Wing, such a character would need to be hit at least twice - and the odds of that are only 10.4%. That's actually more protection than a character who could only be hit on a nat 20 would have.

Okay, the math on this is not adding up...

How is being hit only 1 out of 10 times more protection than being hit only 1 out of 20 times? Even if you factor in the idea of the natural 20 having two attacks, it still comes down to being roughly equal.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The odds of getting at least one nat 20 in 3 attacks is 1-(.95)^3, or .142625. So, in three attacks from a monster that could only hit a target on a nat 20, there would be a 14.2625% chance of a hit getting through. Obviously ~14.3% is better odds than 10.2%.


Shisumo wrote:
The odds of getting at least one nat 20 in 3 attacks is 1-(.95)^3, or .142625. So, in three attacks from a monster that could only hit a target on a nat 20, there would be a 14.2625% chance of a hit getting through. Obviously ~14.3% is better odds than 10.2%.

So would you fellas think that getting maybe hit once a round is challenging melee combat?


CR = APL is not a challenging encounter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
The odds of getting at least one nat 20 in 3 attacks is 1-(.95)^3, or .142625. So, in three attacks from a monster that could only hit a target on a nat 20, there would be a 14.2625% chance of a hit getting through. Obviously ~14.3% is better odds than 10.2%.
So would you fellas think that getting maybe hit once a round is challenging melee combat?

The only thing that continues to confound me is how much people just want to melee.

There are safer, better means of fighting, but everyone just wants to get in there and swing a sword.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

While I know there are plenty of characters with Crane Wing who were not super-optimized, and who were actually using total defense sometimes and fighting defensively other times (i.e. taking total defense when they thought that's what their character would do, not because actually fighting defensively was the most optimized war-gaming choice)...

I've seen Crane Wing used enough times where characters are fighting defensively 100% of the time. Games are more fun when there are choices to be made - Power Attack comes with a choice (not counting pre-iterative play and Furious Focus), which makes it more interesting to debate whether you power attack on a swing or not. Crane Wing had become too much "always on" for folks with certain traits/builds - this was good food for people who thrive on the meta-game, but at the cost of the actual non-meta-game itself.

I fully empathize with everyone who had great and powerful characters that are affected by this, but really believe the bigger picture of the overall game has been improved. It's a game, after all, and one that isn't supposed to be "won". More characters now have a choice when they decide to employ the feat to either be supremely defensive, somewhat defensive, or not defensive at all (by not using the feat).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wakedown wrote:

While I know there are plenty of characters with Crane Wing who were not super-optimized, and who were actually using total defense sometimes and fighting defensively other times (i.e. taking total defense when they thought that's what their character would do, not because actually fighting defensively was the most optimized war-gaming choice)...

I've seen Crane Wing used enough times where characters are fighting defensively 100% of the time. Games are more fun when there are choices to be made - Power Attack comes with a choice (not counting pre-iterative play and Furious Focus), which makes it more interesting to debate whether you power attack on a swing or not. Crane Wing had become too much "always on" for folks with certain traits/builds - this was good food for people who thrive on the meta-game, but at the cost of the actual non-meta-game itself.

I fully empathize with everyone who had great and powerful characters that are affected by this, but really believe the bigger picture of the overall game has been improved. It's a game, after all, and one that isn't supposed to be "won". More characters now have a choice when they decide to employ the feat to either be supremely defensive, somewhat defensive, or not defensive at all (by not using the feat).

The thing is wakedown, I've seen far more often where powerattack is the always on button. In fact I rarely see the scenario where the fighter/paladin/ranger is not using power attack. there to-hit bonus is high enough that it is literally the least interesting choice they make in combat.

Crane Wing is similar in that regard, that if you optimize for it, it is an always on button. But is that really a problem? I rarely see (actually have never seen) a post with people complaining that Power Attack is too powerful and needs to be nerfed so that it isn't an auto-use option. Even the devs have pretty much said they expect it in most builds.

As I've said, (far too many times) Crane Wing might have needed a small debuff (20's always hit, doesn't work on creatures 2+ size categories bigger, lose fighting defense bonus after the deflect), but it didn't need to be taken out back and shot in the head with a bazooka, torched with a flamethrower, and then nuked (this last part is hyperbole in case someone didn't catch on. Just the bazooka and flamethrower is all that's needed :D ).

Shadow Lodge

Shield is an always on, it nullifies Magic Missiles. There are a bazillion "always on" things, just because Crane Wing is good to have on doesn't mean it should be effectively removed from the game. Also like others said, melee is the most dangerous place to be. If someone wants to invest potentially half their feats to prevent one attack in melee, good for them. Just fix the two-level MoMS dip and make it so you need to like be MoMS 4 and Monk 6, problem solved. You keep good feats in the game and give players more options, instead of taking stuff out (especially for martials).


Shisumo wrote:
The odds of getting at least one nat 20 in 3 attacks is 1-(.95)^3, or .142625. So, in three attacks from a monster that could only hit a target on a nat 20, there would be a 14.2625% chance of a hit getting through. Obviously ~14.3% is better odds than 10.2%.

Only if you're talking about 25+ attacks per round.

When you're talking about 5-6 attacks per round, there is no significant difference between them.

So the only case where that applies is in a case where the melee fighter has been swarmed by a large number of opponents... in which case they're going to die anyway.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
wakedown wrote:

While I know there are plenty of characters with Crane Wing who were not super-optimized, and who were actually using total defense sometimes and fighting defensively other times (i.e. taking total defense when they thought that's what their character would do, not because actually fighting defensively was the most optimized war-gaming choice)...

I've seen Crane Wing used enough times where characters are fighting defensively 100% of the time. Games are more fun when there are choices to be made - Power Attack comes with a choice (not counting pre-iterative play and Furious Focus), which makes it more interesting to debate whether you power attack on a swing or not. Crane Wing had become too much "always on" for folks with certain traits/builds - this was good food for people who thrive on the meta-game, but at the cost of the actual non-meta-game itself.

I fully empathize with everyone who had great and powerful characters that are affected by this, but really believe the bigger picture of the overall game has been improved. It's a game, after all, and one that isn't supposed to be "won". More characters now have a choice when they decide to employ the feat to either be supremely defensive, somewhat defensive, or not defensive at all (by not using the feat).

I am having trouble understanding your sentiment. When you build a character, you typically make selections you intend to use. Always benefiting from a feat is a large portion of the reason you choose to select a particular article.

I can't the remember the last time I saw a Two-Handed archetype Fighter or a Barbarian not essentially have Power Attack "always on".

The circumstances in which using total defense is viable, let alone fun, is so amazingly rare as to barely be worth considering. Speaking strictly from a "these are just the mechanics of the game" mentality, the only times I can see total defense being a fine option is when the scenario is allowing you to bottle neck enemies, or being on the verge of death and using total defense because their is a solid mathematical chance doing so will forestall your death long enough to get healing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samuel Stone wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Samuel Stone wrote:

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?

That's a bit different. A Craner can hold a chokepoint while keeping the party from being hit by melee. A paladin who makes a saving throw only saves itself. Most AoE saving throws expect that at least a few members of the party make the save. Melee monsters tend not to expect that they rarely hit, if ever.

I get what you're trying to say, and there are other optimized combinations of feats, spells, classes, etc. that can lead to problems, but my problem still comes back to the fact that Crane Wing is a single feat that lets the character become a One-Trick Pony.

I guess I feel like if you have an ideal defensive specialist holding an ideal defensive position with a whole party following ideal defensive tactics, then it's okay to let it work.

But yeah... the other thing you mentioned is a big deal to me. In this idealized, perfect circumstance (because his foe isn't surprising him, or invisible, or uses something other than melee, or whatever), holding the breach scenario for the Crane Stylist, consider what might happen if you have a plain old vanilla Paladin in shining full plate holding the breach instead.

Is he going to hold it any worse?

Nope. Differently, sure. He'll hold it by using his powers to make the wounds miss (heavy armor proficiency and Smite) or go away (Lay on Hands), instead of miss (monk AC and defensive fighting) or get deflected (Crane), but it's not going to actually work out any worse for him, is it?

And since the Paladin can hold the breach, not only a one big attack monster, but also just as well against a many little attacks monster, or a saving throws monster, or an invisible monster, or whatever... and he may well be doing more damage, too, depending on his build. It seems hard, to me, to make the argument that a plain, vanilla Paladin not trying too hard is still going to be a more versatile and effective breach-holder even in such a situation as this, specifically designed to show off a situation where the Crane guy is too good.

1,201 to 1,250 of 2,304 << first < prev | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Crane Wing Errata in latest printing All Messageboards