Crane Wing Errata in latest printing


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1,251 to 1,300 of 2,304 << first < prev | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | next > last >>

Rynjin wrote:
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.

This more a NPC Fighter as you have no magic items.

Add in standard AC items: +1 Ring, +1 armor, +1 Shield, +1 NA Armor, +1 Insight (Ioun stone): means cheaply (5K + 1K+ 1K+ 2K+ 2K=11K)you get +5 AC.

So average attack roll to hit is:
Mummy: Needs a 18 to hit lower, 20 to hit higher
Manticore: 22 lower, 24 higher
Phase Spider: 22 lower, 24 higher
Black Dragon (very young): 22 to hit lower, 24 to hit higher
Baskilisk: 22 lower, 24 higher

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Let me put it this way. In the context I was:describing - a PC with AC 27 being attacked by a monster with three natural attacks at +10 each - in order for the same PC to be threatened with a roughly-similar number of hits if that PC has pre-errata Crane Wing, the monster's to-hit bonus has to be increased to +15. Doesn't that seem really good to you?


Shisumo wrote:
Let me put it this way. In the context I was:describing - a PC with AC 27 being attacked by a monster with three natural attacks at +10 each - in order for the same PC to be threatened with a roughly-similar number of hits if that PC has pre-errata Crane Wing, the monster's to-hit bonus has to be increased to +15. Doesn't that seem really good to you?

Problem?


Shisumo wrote:
Let me put it this way. In the context I was:describing - a PC with AC 27 being attacked by a monster with three natural attacks at +10 each - in order for the same PC to be threatened with a roughly-similar number of hits if that PC has pre-errata Crane Wing, the monster's to-hit bonus has to be increased to +15. Doesn't that seem really good to you?

Actually, no, it doesn't. Especially since that single creature would never get enough attacks off to be a serious threat to the person with the feat anyway. The other party members would see to that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hah... By 5th level you can have a Warrior with AC 28 if you want. I guess warriors are OP and should be nerfed.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

This whole direction of the thread has me wondering. How do people handle PC's when they're good at something.

If a halfling has a +20 hide at 3rd level, do you let them sneak into most place? Or does the guard get an obscenely high perception check, because it'd be unfair if the halfling was "undetectable"?

If a barbarian has an insane attack bonus, do you scale the AC to make him only hit 1/2 of the time?

If the PC's have focused on damage output and they're DPR is really high, do you arbitrarily increase an enemies hp total's to make them last longer?

If the PC's have planned an extremely well thought out plan to beat the BBEG, without getting hurt, do you ruin it, so that your BBEG has a moment to shine?

If you do, then you're engaging in a race against the PC's where you are trying to co-opt the thing they are trying hard to be good at. In this case, where does it stop?

How is this relevant to crane wing? Simple, you have a character who is being built towards being really good against melee characters, especially melee's that use 1 big swing. Rather then let them have that, the thought seems to be "nerf that feat".

I have a strong feeling this comes from the fact that GM's like to create scenario's where the PC's just barely win. In this world, they need to get multiple good licks on the PC's and make it so the PC's come out bloody and exhausted. This isn't even a bad thing. It's fun when you just barely win, but that doesn't mean that you make the PC's class features and feats useless to make it that way. If you run an entire dungeon that prevents all casting, it might be a close adventure, but ask the wizard how much fun he had. My bet is not much.


Sub_Zero wrote:
If a halfling has a +20 hide at 3rd level, do you let them sneak into most place? Or does the guard get an obscenely high perception check, because it'd be unfair if the halfling was "undetectable"?

Depends on the place. In some cases, I'll let them shine. When appropriate, they'll find out about magical protections and the high level PCs they didn't know about (however, these can be discovered in other ways, so a very smart rogue can be virtually undetectable if they do their homework).

Quote:
If a barbarian has an insane attack bonus, do you scale the AC to make him only hit 1/2 of the time?

Nope. Besides, I tend to mix things up a bit, so sometimes that high attack bonus doesn't help... especially when the barbarian is getting pelted by fireballs from a distance.

Quote:
If the PC's have focused on damage output and they're DPR is really high, do you arbitrarily increase an enemies hp total's to make them last longer?

No, but I do sometimes toss in more powerful enemies to give them more of a challenge.

Quote:
If the PC's have planned an extremely well thought out plan to beat the BBEG, without getting hurt, do you ruin it, so that your BBEG has a moment to shine?

Nope. That's one incredibly dead BBEG. In fact, I sometimes litter the BBEG's room with disabled traps so that some party members can do constant damage to him without ever actually attacking him by reactivating the traps. A smart group could easily utilize that to make the BBEG into a pincushion without taking any damage at all. Needless to say, a rogue unoptimized for combat isn't necessarily useless at combat... just they may not be dealing damage with their weapons.

Quote:
I have a strong feeling this comes from the fact that GM's like to create scenario's where the PC's just barely win. In this world, they need to get multiple good licks on the PC's and make it so the PC's come out bloody and exhausted. This isn't even a bad thing. It's fun when you just barely win, but that doesn't mean that you make the PC's class features and feats useless to make it that way. If you run an entire dungeon that prevents all casting, it might be a close adventure, but ask the wizard how much fun he had. My bet is not much.

Actually, the main problem with this was first said by PFS. PFS games tend to specialize in encounter types where Crane Wing would be overpowered... of course, PFS games also, from what I have heard, utilize bad tactics. They also can't change the design.

Shadow Lodge

We live in a game with GMs. The GMs have really one responsibility - give the players a fun time. If you have a good GM, then they should know how to best achieve this.

If that's giving a PC Crane Wing in it's original form, then they should do that. Talk to your GM, and problem solved if you're one of these players.

Maybe your GM looks at his work schedule coming up and thinks - "hey this AP wasn't written with a feat that negates flyby attacks, and the next section of this AP will be so much more interesting if how they use Crane Wing isa more deliberate decision for this player" - I'd say give the GM the benefit of the doubt and see how it goes. If the new version results in the monk dying, I'd think most GMs would be pretty good about including a Raise Dead scroll in the cache - since that's a lot easier to improv than "how do I make this Young Adult Dragon more interesting for tonight's game?"

I assume most of the posts here are from folks with organized play characters with the feat in question? To which I empathize - "nerfs" suck in organized, living games. But, depending on how small and tight knit your organized games are, you can still ask your GM if they'll let you use the original version if it's *that* important to you. Just don't bring the crane wing monk out at cons if this shatters your universe - grab a beer, drown your sorrows, and seize the opportunity to roll up a fresh new character, which is one of the best parts of this game. :)


wakedown wrote:
I assume most of the posts here are from folks with organized play characters with the feat in question?

Actually, I think this assumption is wrong. Most of the posts complaining about it seem to be from people who don't play PFS. Including myself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yep. I'VE never played PFS.

The problem with nerfs and the "just houserule it" argument is a table where GMs want to keep houserules to a minimum, don't care about teh Feat, a player feels uncomfortable asking for something special (social pressure is a powerful thing), and so on. It's not a cure-all.

More people are likely to go with the RAW if there's no immediate gamebreaking repercussions, so an overnerfed Feat is a problem in home games too.

Shadow Lodge

MagusJanus wrote:
Actually, I think this assumption is wrong. Most of the posts complaining about it seem to be from people who don't play PFS. Including myself.

It's helpful to know this. So, what's the deal? Did you talk to your GM about just letting you finish playing out your character as it was before? Did they say no? Why?

I tend to stick to the rules for convenience sake as much as possible, but in this case it's quite easy to stick to the rules in the hardcopy of Ultimate Combat and simply not print out the errata page for the remainder of a currently open campaign.

Are there a lot of unbending GMs out there, and they're the ones really causing the problem? :)


Coriat wrote:


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.

Very much so but you miss the other part.

The players themselves find the combats less satisfying when they feel they weren't threatened. If I set up an encounter I generally intend the Players to win (I'm not trying to kill them after all). If they "win" the encounter but take some damage, even though they were never is serious threat, they feel accomplished. If they win without taking any damage, even when the enemy rolled 20's to hit, they are unhappy. Sure they have this moment of "see how good my build worked" but then there is a clear, often spoken, unhappiness that it was a walkover and the enemy was no threat.

The football fans of the winning side generally enjoy games they win 45-14 over those they win 20-0 as much as the losing fans prefer the 45-14.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MagusJanus wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:
I have a strong feeling this comes from the fact that GM's like to create scenario's where the PC's just barely win. In this world, they need to get multiple good licks on the PC's and make it so the PC's come out bloody and exhausted. This isn't even a bad thing. It's fun when you just barely
Actually, the main problem with this was first said by PFS. PFS games tend to specialize in encounter types where Crane Wing would be overpowered... of course, PFS games also, from what I have heard, utilize bad tactics. They also can't change the design.

well yes PFS games specifically seem to have had a problem (which should not have been addressed with an errata). I'm speaking to those though that have come here and said that they are happy with the errata, because they thought it was OP. I'm just trying to point out that it ruins everyone's fun time when your answer to a problem is "I don't want my PC's to be good at X, even if they're trying to specialize in X".

I have a fighter who's specialty is super high AC. Mooks and even the BBEG have a hard time hitting him. So after the first bought, the BBEG has learned to steer clear of a 1v1 match against said fighter. Instead he throws multiple beasts to bog him down, while archers, and casters hit him from afar. I've also had luck using a MMA fighter character who tossed him around like he was a rag doll. In the end though, his AC is powerful and I don't diminish it by giving others really high attacks. Let the peasants think he's a living embodiment of Gorum.

In this case, let the crane wing user have his fun deflecting 1 attack per turn. There are other ways to challenge him. When melee breaks out he gets to be (insert kung fu master here), and the rest of the party gets hit. Crane wing won't help him later though when the enemy bandits start raining down arrows upon him. At that point it will be the wizard with his wind wall that gets to play hero.

Then later.... you know what I'm rambling, I think I've made my point. Kinda. maybe. i hope so....


Abraham spalding wrote:

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.

Back when I was young and naïve and just starting to play this game, I only wanted to play martials. I wanted to get into the action, kick butt, and none of that sissy casting or archery stuff. A real man stands the front lines and gets into the action! The idea that I can get in there, defend everyone, wear cool looking spikey plate armor, that's why I love martials. Besides, someone has to be the guy in front of you. There's a lot of excitement in being up there, and its not about being safe, its about having fun! That's the goal of playing any game right?

Spoiler:
Over the years I've changed a lot though. I still really like the idea of playing a kick-butt martial, but I get a lot of my fun in table tops out of the options I have and what I can do, and I'm really just not entertained by full attack spam so I have a lot of trouble playing a frontline martial.

I swear I tell that story a lot...


wakedown wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
Actually, I think this assumption is wrong. Most of the posts complaining about it seem to be from people who don't play PFS. Including myself.

It's helpful to know this. So, what's the deal? Did you talk to your GM about just letting you finish playing out your character as it was before? Did they say no? Why?

I tend to stick to the rules for convenience sake as much as possible, but in this case it's quite easy to stick to the rules in the hardcopy of Ultimate Combat and simply not print out the errata page for the remainder of a currently open campaign.

Are there a lot of unbending GMs out there, and they're the ones really causing the problem? :)

Believe it or not, but my complaint is from a GMing perspective. I need to keep a copy of the original version of the feat on hand if I am going to use that version, as there are no reference copies.

Plus, this is a feat I was actually planning to use for at least one BBEG. The idea was to build an antipaladin BBEG who has several other items to also counter martial prowess... mainly so he can go up against the players and not get slaughtered in two rounds.

See, the players are not the only ones who get to use special tricks... my BBEGs do as well, and they tend to learn new tactics from the players if the players use those tactics enough.

Now, I'm looking at the idea it may require upping the minion count.


wakedown wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
Actually, I think this assumption is wrong. Most of the posts complaining about it seem to be from people who don't play PFS. Including myself.

It's helpful to know this. So, what's the deal? Did you talk to your GM about just letting you finish playing out your character as it was before? Did they say no? Why?

I tend to stick to the rules for convenience sake as much as possible, but in this case it's quite easy to stick to the rules in the hardcopy of Ultimate Combat and simply not print out the errata page for the remainder of a currently open campaign.

Are there a lot of unbending GMs out there, and they're the ones really causing the problem? :)

My problem with it is since the ruling was mainly made based off PFS complaints, people who want to play the game officially(as close to RAW) are essentially being told they need to conform to PFS rulings. Crane Wing was a great feat and I'm sad to see it nerfed but that is what I'm mainly angry about.

The Devs said themselves that PFS gives "accurate" data and its also true that it'd take too much time and energy to inquire after home games. Thus when they state that the decision wasn't based majorly off PFS I'm keen to skepticism especially when they say Crane Wing was the "#1 Problem Child of PFS".

I don't like PFS and I don't want them to cause rules changes for the Pathfinder I play at home with friends.

Now we'll circle back to "Well why don't you just houserule it then?"

Because if I'm just houseruling a bunch of stuff anyways why bother playing Pathfinder anymore?


Tels wrote:

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.

Their are some mixed claims here that don't actually work together but are been put together to make Crane Wing appear far more expensive than it is.

I keep seeing the claim that a PC get's 10 feats to choose over their career (20 levels).

And I keep seeing the claim that Crane Wing uses 5 of these, or at least as this poster says, maybe as few as 3.

News Flash. If you are talking about the the feats you gain every odd level then you can get Crane Wing for Zero Feat Cost. 2 levels of Monk - MOMS and you have Crane Wing for the loss of flurry which is of little use to a Monk dip build and without spending a single one of those 10 feats.

Indeed lets be honest about it. The talk about characters having 10 feats to choose is BS. Characters have far more feats than that over 20 levels of development. How many depends on the build the player chooses. Yes, the player chooses the build so they also ]b]choose[/b] the feats, including the feats attached to specific class levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Ede wrote:
I keep seeing the claim that a PC get's 10 feats to choose over their career (20 levels).

You could have also pointed out that some classes, such as fighters and wizards, get significantly more than 10 feats.

Of course, ultimately, what you show is a problem with MoMS. Which would be easy to fix without losing the flavor. Only required one line of text.

Shadow Lodge

I think some people are excluding bonus feats, I think there was a build on here that had CW without taking MoMS (or even Monk). That was a ton of feats! lol Yes MoMS is probably the culprit, so if they just made it min 4th for MoMS and CW, and level 6 Monk for it normally then that'd solve a lot of the complaints. You want to dip 4 levels into Monk to get CW? More power to you! Given that PFS were the ones with the biggest issue (still unclear why, never seen it as an issue in PFS), and the regular level cap there is 11th, I really don't see a lot of people "dipping" for 4 levels. lol

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Human fighter 5. Crane Style, Crane Wing, Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (longsword), Weapon Specialization (longsword). Assuming Dex 14, +1 full plate and a ring of protection +1, has AC 28 when fighting defensively. So... yeah. Not a MoMS problem.


Shisumo wrote:
Not a MoMS problem.

Fighter am OP! Especially the human ones.

Spoiler:
Actually, I thought the point was talking about how they can't get it before 5th. That guy still had to wait on 5th and he's built specifically to show off getting as many feats as possible.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

5th level Warrior... Whatever race:

AC = 10 + 1 (Dex) + 10 (+1 full plate) + 3 (+1 Heavy Shield ) + 1 (Dodge) +1 (Shield Focus) +2 (Combat Expertise) = 28

3 Feats and I'm UNTOUCHABLE!

G!*%%#N WARRIORS AND THEIR BROKEN AC!!!

Can you imagine if he were a Fighter with Armor Training and had bought RoP and AoNA?

OMGWTFBBQ! NERF ARMOR NOW!


Shisumo wrote:
Human fighter 5. Crane Style, Crane Wing, Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (longsword), Weapon Specialization (longsword). Assuming Dex 14, +1 full plate and a ring of protection +1, has AC 28 when fighting defensively. So... yeah. Not a MoMS problem.

Fighting defensively means sacrificing most of their base attack bonus, and at that level it actually matters. Given the typical ACs at that level, they would be pretty much sacrificing their capacity to attack for an AC where they can still be attacked... and with the animals that have multiple attacks, they're guaranteed to take damage.

So they trade their ability to do damage for... what advantage? Because deflecting attacks isn't exactly going to help them much.

Edit: To show my math...

A fighter that starts out with 18 Strength should, at that level, have a +9 to attack. The typical enemy has around 19 AC. That means that, on an average roll, the fighter should be hitting and doing damage.

Fighting defensively reduces that first attack to +5... which means that, on an average roll, the fighter should be missing that 19 AC.

At that same level, the wizard is getting 3rd-level spells.

So, what should happen? Fighter fights defensively, probably misses on the first round, wizard kills or seriously wounds the creature with their spell. Any remaining party members finish it off. Total fighter contribution? Nothing.

Edit: Removed wording someone informed me comes across as overly hostile.


Regarding AC, I honestly think that some GMs I play with feel that buying the best magical armor you can (just straight plusses) is "overpowered". They also tend to go nuts about the AC of animal companions and eidolons. One I used to play with would arbitrarily adjust the attack bonus of the monsters so they hit the best AC in the party on a roll of 15 or above. It was not a solution I was very fond of. I can't even imagine what his reaction to Crane Wing might have been.

That said, a 5% chance of being hit represents infinitely more damage than a 0% chance of being hit. If you're forcing the GM to roll nat 20s he could still get lucky and get a couple over the course of a few rounds or even the dreaded double 20 for a x3 crit. I've been on the receiving end of those more than once. It is one of the reasons one of my PCs has an eidolon with In Harm's Way.

@Ninja in the Rye - Since this stuff is part of people's job at Paizo I’d think it has some effect on their lives. For all I know they might have to face a boss who says, “Guys, you went and made the users angry again! Why can’t you get buy in from the community?” More importantly, I’m sure that they want to sell more products, not alienate the customers who help pay the bills.

Not all of the customers want the same thing though. Balancing the PFS complaints Jason mentioned with the message board angst we’re seeing here might not be an easy task. Paizo doesn’t always make the rulings I’d like, but I kind of sympathize with them since it must be difficult to see all this controversy. Then again, they might secretly find it kind of hilarious too, possibly both at the same time.


Devilkiller wrote:


“Guys, you went and made the users angry again! Why can’t you get buy in from the community?” More importantly, I’m sure that they want to sell more products, not alienate the customers who help pay the bills.

That image made me laugh. Just imagining Devs downcast with someone berating them like that.


Stephen Ede wrote:
Coriat wrote:


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.

Very much so but you miss the other part.

The players themselves find the combats less satisfying when they feel they weren't threatened. If I set up an encounter I generally intend the Players to win (I'm not trying to kill them after all). If they "win" the encounter but take some damage, even though they were never is serious threat, they feel accomplished. If they win without taking any damage, even when the enemy rolled 20's to hit, they are unhappy. Sure they have this moment of "see how good my build worked" but then there is a clear, often spoken, unhappiness that it was a walkover and the enemy was no threat.

The football fans of the winning side generally enjoy games they win 45-14 over those they win 20-0 as much as the losing fans prefer the 45-14.

Encounter design does need to strike a tricky balance of letting the PCs feel powerful while making the enemies feel like a viable threat. Going too far in either direction causes problems—cakewalk encounters, or players feeling like their build decisions and tactics have no impact. However, dealing with that issue is just part of the job when you put on DM hat.


Stephen Ede wrote:
Coriat wrote:


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.

Very much so but you miss the other part.

The players themselves find the combats less satisfying when they feel they weren't threatened. If I set up an encounter I generally intend the Players to win (I'm not trying to kill them after all). If they "win" the encounter but take some damage, even though they were never is serious threat, they feel accomplished. If they win without taking any damage, even when the enemy rolled 20's to hit, they are unhappy. Sure they have this moment of "see how good my build worked" but then there is a clear, often spoken, unhappiness that it was a walkover and the enemy was no threat.

The football fans of the winning side generally enjoy games they win 45-14 over those they win 20-0 as much as the losing fans prefer the 45-14.

See, this is where I'm confused. In my experience, players are a lot like people... when something isn't fun, they stop doing it. I've seen several GMs intimate that their players are winning and unhappy about the way they win. OK, how do you know? Do they say "that wasn't fun"? At that point the GM could have a... what do you call it... a conversation? "Well, you know, that character you have is making it very hard for me to challenge you in melee. What do you want from this game? Should I make the fights harder? Should I vary the challenges (even though it might mean you won't melee as much)?"

Granted, I've met some GMs that think their campaigns are the RPG equivalents of Shakespearean plays, and they have no intention of asking the groundlings for any advice. But in a shared experience, like an RPG, having a common goal (which only happens through discussion) seems to be the MOST important factor.

I've stopped playing various characters because they weren't fun (I've got a zen archer I'll probably never touch again). My bet would be that players will stop playing characters that aren't fun to play, especially if they understand that it's the character that is creating their non-fun. But perhaps they are having fun? Maybe they enjoy roflstomping every encounter, and it's the GM that isn't enjoying his role? How dare the players not instinctively know that, and sublimate their fun to the GMs!

I have no (zero, nada, zilch) sympathy for a GM having issues that he won't talk to his players about. 99% of the time the players will work to solve the issue. I've never had an issue at my tables that hasn't been solved through GM and player communication (it's why I like the guys I game with so much, especially the GMs). If the players don't see the issue, maybe the issue isn't with them...

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
Human fighter 5. Crane Style, Crane Wing, Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (longsword), Weapon Specialization (longsword). Assuming Dex 14, +1 full plate and a ring of protection +1, has AC 28 when fighting defensively. So... yeah. Not a MoMS problem.

Yeah....it's mostly a MMoS problem (although kudos to your build ;-) ), the 2 level dip is really the issue. Make CW Monk Only and require MoMS 4 or Monk 6, walla. I don't consider 4 levels in a Class a dip, especially in PFS where the issue seems to have arisen from. Fighters get all those fancy exclusive feats, I see no reason why Monk's shouldn't get some love also. :-)

Also, and this is the most amusing part. People seem to think that being able to avoid one melee attack a round is like...OMG the most amazing and all-powerful thing ever. I've gotten by CW so many times, and been hit by stuff (while using it) on numerous occasions. You also have spells to contend with, ranged, flat-footed, invisible, stealth, the list goes on and on. I fail to see where the strong distaste for CW comes from, maybe people just hate Monk's? lol

This appears to be mostly a PFS issue and they should of addressed it themselves, having it trickle into Pathfinder was a mistake. What's done is done though, we can only hope that somehow it's re-balanced so as not to trash an entire feat chain. :-/ I've heard a lot of good options on here on how to fix it, pretty much anything is better than the way it is now.

Grand Lodge

Lemmy wrote:

5th level Warrior... Whatever race:

AC = 10 + 1 (Dex) + 10 (+1 full plate) + 3 (+1 Heavy Shield ) + 1 (Dodge) +1 (Shield Focus) +2 (Combat Expertise) = 28

3 Feats and I'm UNTOUCHABLE!

G@+$&!N WARRIORS AND THEIR BROKEN AC!!!

Can you imagine if he were a Fighter with Armor Training and had bought RoP and AoNA?

OMGWTFBBQ! NERF ARMOR NOW!

There's still a chance of melee getting through. A CR 5 Very Young Black Dragon has a +9 bite and +9 two claw. That's a 24.3% chance of one hit getting through.

Meanwhile, assume a 5th level monk with Crane Wing. The same dragon needs to hit twice in order for a single hit to actually get through. In order for the dragon to have a 23.9% of actually dealing damage to the monk, the monk needs an AC of 23. That's not difficult to reach, and the monk doesn't suffer armor penalties for movement.

Most importantly, though, can completely negate a critical hit. The fighter had a 13.5% chance of being hit by a critical, while the monk has a 0.7% chance. That's a pretty major difference.

And this is assuming a monster where all three attacks do not have status effects or combat maneuvers attached to them. A monster that relies heavily on grab, trip, swallow whole, etc. will have a much harder time getting any of those effects to hit the Craner.


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

There's still a chance of melee getting through. A CR 5 Very Young Black Dragon has a +9 bite and +9 two claw. That's a 24.3% chance of one hit getting through.

Meanwhile, assume a 5th level monk with Crane Wing. The same dragon needs to hit twice in order for a single hit to actually get through. In order for the dragon to have a 23.9% of actually dealing damage to the monk, the monk needs an AC of 23. That's not difficult to reach, and the monk doesn't suffer armor penalties for movement.

Most importantly, though, can completely negate a critical hit. The fighter had a 13.5% chance of being hit by a critical, while the monk has a 0.7% chance. That's a pretty major difference.

And this is assuming a monster where all three attacks do not have status effects or combat maneuvers attached to them. A monster that relies heavily on grab, trip, swallow whole, etc. will have a much harder time getting any of those effects to hit the Craner.

And how well is that Monk hitting back?

- If he's a vanilla Monk, he just spent 3~4 feats (depending on whether he wants Crane Riposte or not), one of which is pretty meh. And he's a Monk.
- If he's a MoMS, he's a Monk with no FoB, which means he has the accuracy of a Rogue and no SA to compensate.
- If the character just dipped 2 levels of MoMS, he lost 1 point of BAB and 2 caster levels. He also delayed his class features by 2 levels.
- If the character doesn't dip Monk or Unarmed Fighter, he has to spend five feats to get CW and Crane Riposte.

Oh, and no matter what route he takes, he can't use a shield, 2-handed weapons or TWF. And he's still taking a -1 penalty to attack rolls.

CW is balanced by the investment necessary to get it.

Grand Lodge

Isn't it just 2 feats (3 for Riposte)? IUS is given for free, and Dodge is taken from the Bonus Feats list, which is rather shallow, meaning the monk isn't giving up some amazing feat for Dodge.

And regardless, my main problem was with the ability to deflect a single attack of your choice, always and without fail, after seeing the results of the dice. I think that taking away both the "always and without fail" and "on any attack after the dice are rolled" has made Crane Wing underpowered, but it was overpowered with both aspects on it.


Samuel Stone wrote:
Isn't it just 2 feats (3 for Riposte)? IUS is given for free, and Dodge is taken from the Bonus Feats list, which is rather shallow, meaning the monk isn't giving up some amazing feat for Dodge.

There's a reason for that. If I remember correctly, the styles feats were intended for monks and that's the main reason they all have IUS as a prereq, even if they don't actually require unarmed strikes to function. If I remember correctly anyway...


Samuel Stone wrote:

Isn't it just 2 feats (3 for Riposte)? IUS is given for free, and Dodge is taken from the Bonus Feats list, which is rather shallow, meaning the monk isn't giving up some amazing feat for Dodge.

And regardless, my main problem was with the ability to deflect a single attack of your choice, always and without fail, after seeing the results of the dice. I think that taking away both the "always and without fail" and "on any attack after the dice are rolled" has made Crane Wing underpowered, but it was overpowered with both aspects on it.

How about if it was before you saw the result of the roll? That alone would make it possible for it to be misapplied, meaning it won't always work to negate an attack.


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

There's still a chance of melee getting through. A CR 5 Very Young Black Dragon has a +9 bite and +9 two claw. That's a 24.3% chance of one hit getting through.

Meanwhile, assume a 5th level monk with Crane Wing. The same dragon needs to hit twice in order for a single hit to actually get through. In order for the dragon to have a 23.9% of actually dealing damage to the monk, the monk needs an AC of 23. That's not difficult to reach, and the monk doesn't suffer armor penalties for movement.

Most importantly, though, can completely negate a critical hit. The fighter had a 13.5% chance of being hit by a critical, while the monk has a 0.7% chance. That's a pretty major difference.

And this is assuming a monster where all three attacks do not have status effects or combat maneuvers attached to them. A monster that relies heavily on grab, trip, swallow whole, etc. will have a much harder time getting any of those effects to hit the Craner.

I'm rather wondering why the dragon doesn't just fly around and breath weapon both characters to death. Do they not get one that young or something.


Samuel Stone wrote:
Isn't it just 2 feats (3 for Riposte)? IUS is given for free, and Dodge is taken from the Bonus Feats list, which is rather shallow, meaning the monk isn't giving up some amazing feat for Dodge.

He could still have taken Combat Reflexes and Improved Grapple. Both are decent feats. Besides, even if Dodge is the only good feat in the Monk's list of bonus feats, that means you're a Monk. Not exactly a powerhouse. Monks are well known for having good defense while lacking offensive tools. CW only exacerbates this situation.

Samuel Stone wrote:
And regardless, my main problem was with the ability to deflect a single attack of your choice, always and without fail, after seeing the results of the dice. I think that taking away both the "always and without fail" and "on any attack after the dice are rolled" has made Crane Wing underpowered, but it was overpowered with both aspects on it.

Having to guess when something would be useful is frustrating and annoying.


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

There's still a chance of melee getting through. A CR 5 Very Young Black Dragon has a +9 bite and +9 two claw. That's a 24.3% chance of one hit getting through.

A Very Young Black Dragon has a fly speed of 150ft and a range of 40ft with his DC15 4d6 line of acid.

It has INT10, same as your average humanoid. If your average humanoid could fly 150ft and shoot a projectile out to 40ft, would he want to swoop in to melee a crane wing specialist?


Eirikrautha wrote:


See, this is where I'm confused. In my experience, players are a lot like people... when something isn't fun, they stop doing it. I've seen several GMs intimate that their players are winning and unhappy about the way they win. OK, how do you know? Do they say "that wasn't fun"? At that point the GM could have a... what do you call it... a conversation? "Well, you know, that character you have is making it very hard for me to challenge you in melee. What do you want from this game?...

I have talked to the player. The response is basically he wants melee fights that he's challenged in and takes some damage, and he wants to use Crane Wing and high AC to avoid taking damage. You might say that his desires are contradictory. My response is that he's human so what do you expect. :-)

PS. This is Kingmaker so there is a lot to do beside fights that he can enjoy, and he enjoys been a Dragon, even if it was only a Wyrmling and is halfway to been Very Young.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:


Samuel Stone wrote:
And regardless, my main problem was with the ability to deflect a single attack of your choice, always and without fail, after seeing the results of the dice. I think that taking away both the "always and without fail" and "on any attack after the dice are rolled" has made Crane Wing underpowered, but it was overpowered with both aspects on it.
Having to guess when something would be useful is frustrating and annoying.

Honestly any time a feat tells me I have to guess before use or choose to use an ability before I see a roll I drop it down by at least one or two tiers of desirability.


OgreBattle wrote:
Samuel Stone wrote:

There's still a chance of melee getting through. A CR 5 Very Young Black Dragon has a +9 bite and +9 two claw. That's a 24.3% chance of one hit getting through.

A Very Young Black Dragon has a fly speed of 150ft and a range of 40ft with his DC15 4d6 line of acid.

It has INT10, same as your average humanoid. If your average humanoid could fly 150ft and shoot a projectile out to 40ft, would he want to swoop in to melee a crane wing specialist any party/character with heavy focus on melee combat?

Fixed that for you.

Grand Lodge

WWWW wrote:
I'm rather wondering why the dragon doesn't just fly around and breath weapon both characters to death. Do they not get one that young or something.

I selected the first CR 5 monster with multiple natural attacks that I It's clearly had some wisdom drain.

MagusJanus wrote:
Samuel Stone wrote:

Isn't it just 2 feats (3 for Riposte)? IUS is given for free, and Dodge is taken from the Bonus Feats list, which is rather shallow, meaning the monk isn't giving up some amazing feat for Dodge.

And regardless, my main problem was with the ability to deflect a single attack of your choice, always and without fail, after seeing the results of the dice. I think that taking away both the "always and without fail" and "on any attack after the dice are rolled" has made Crane Wing underpowered, but it was overpowered with both aspects on it.

How about if it was before you saw the result of the roll? That alone would make it possible for it to be misapplied, meaning it won't always work to negate an attack.

It would go a long way, I think, although it wouldn't necessarily address the problem with additional effects on hits, such as grab or poison. I'm not adept enough with my probabilities to remember how to calculate it out how selecting prior to the results of a roll would affect total hit chance, though.

I think the simple fact that the feat made criticals fail completely in addition to essentially giving the enemy one fewer successful hit made for an overpowered feat. Obviously some people disagree, but this is the one part of the feat that I find myself repeatedly finding to be a bit too strong, even for its investment.

EDIT: To put it another way, I feel like the current version of Crane Wing has the potential to be balanced if it allowed the +4 to be taken on any attack (not pre-decided), and allowed Riposte to trigger off the deflected attack, but I haven't done a number crunch or playtest of that option. It would allow critical hits through, and exceedingly high rolls to hit, but would still keep the same spirit of the current CW.


Stephen Ede wrote:
Tels wrote:

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.

Their are some mixed claims here that don't actually work together but are been put together to make Crane Wing appear far more expensive than it is.

I keep seeing the claim that a PC get's 10 feats to choose over their career (20 levels).

And I keep seeing the claim that Crane Wing uses 5 of these, or at least as this poster says, maybe as few as 3.

News Flash. If you are talking about the the feats you gain every odd level then you can get Crane Wing for Zero Feat Cost. 2 levels of Monk - MOMS and you have Crane Wing for the loss of flurry which is of little use to a Monk dip build and without spending a single one of those 10 feats.

Indeed lets be honest about it. The talk about characters having 10 feats to choose is BS. Characters have far more feats than that over...

My point was building off the posts of others in this thread.

With the exception of bonus feats, characters gain 10 feats in their career. Most classes that get bonus feats, don't gain Imp. Unarmed Strike or Dodge as a possible exception. Unarmed Fighter, Brawler Fighter, Monk, and Brawler class come to mind that grant Imp. Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. All of the above can also gain Dodge as a bonus feat.

Funnily enough, I firmly believe that Style feats were designed with Fighter and Monks in mind. Hence the heavy investment.

Take a look at the Barbarian. Suppose a Barbarian decides he wants Crane Wing (maybe to use along with Come and Get Me later on). He has to spend 4 feats to get Crane Wing, 5 if he wants Crane Riposte, and then can't select anything like Power Attack until 11th level, or unless he has a bonus feat (such as from playing a Human character).

When the Crane feats are taken at the level they are intended to be played with, they aren't, in my opinion, over powered. It's things like dipping MoMS, as you and many others have pointed out is possible (which I already knew), that is the problem.

If MoMS were restricted from ignoring BAB or level pre-requisites, I get the feeling Crane Wing wouldn't be as much of a problem.

There was a Bard/Paladin/Rogue build mentioned earlier. Honestly, it's a solid Swashbuckler/duelist/skirmisher style build in my opinion (and amongst my favorite character builds). It was doing 1d4+~14+1d6 acid +1d6 sonic damage with a +20/+15 attack bonus (+24/+19 smiting). Over-all solid damage. However, I (literally) just got done playing a session with a 9th level fighter and a 7th level Barbarian doing more damage. The Fighter was doing 2d4+29+2d6 points of damage after buffs (Bull's Strength [22 strength after buff], Inspire Courage, Prayer, Good Hope) with an attack bonus of +25/+20/+25 (Blessing of Fervor, Bull's Strength, Good Hope, Haste, Inspire Courage, Prayer) (happened to have a Fire Outside bane falchion against a Fire Outsider enemies). I don't remember the Barbarian's exact damage, but it was something like 2d8+24 after buffs of which Enlarge Person was one of them, along with a +22/+22/+17 attack bonus.

The Barbarian and Fighter are both hitting harder than the Crane Wing character, and equally as often, or more often than the Bard. Sure, the Bard isn't fully buffed, but the Bard is higher level with access to better gear. Neither the Fighter, nor the Barbarian have any ability boosters, and both have an 18 strength that neither boosted at 4th or 8th level (though the Barbarian hasn't reached 8th level yet). The could, easily, be sitting on a 24 Strength and the Barbarian could rage for 28 strength.

The Bard is a solid build, in my opinion, all around with great saves, good AC and respectable damage. But it's not going to be winning any fights with an equal level Martial. He makes an excellent back-up martial in my opinion, and is probably a damned good party face to boot.

The Bard sacrificed most of his feats and much of his offense for Crane Wing.

Out side of Monks and Fighters who have the bonus feats to spare to afford Crane Wing without sacrificing too much of their offense, Crane Wing, in some ways, nerfs the characters that take it. The exception is if they dip MoMS for free access to the feats.

Crane Wing is a powerful defensive option, I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. However, Crane Wing itself is not the problem, as long as Crane Wing is taken at the level intended. MoMS subverts the intention of the feat, and allows it to be broken at early levels. As levels increase, and the character faces more and more attacks each round, Crane Wing goes from 'way over powered' to just 'powerful'.


What's the average CMD of someone who's put in the investment to get Crane Wing onlineat level 2? At level 5?

What's the average Grapple/Trip bonus of a CR2 melee threat? CR5 melee threat?


Brawler Fighters don't get IUS as a Bonus Feat.


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.

Putting aside that there's probably a discussion in here about how an offensive "one trick pony" type of ability (Powerful Charger) is apparently to be nurtured and protected while a defensive one (Crane Wing) is to be nerfed...

This is still plainly false as an assertion, and thus unfair. I've posted before about the need for fair comparisons. Inaccurate absolute assertions (all powerful charges, no matter what you do) are uniquely unhelpful when discussing balance.

Making a Powerful Charge against a Crane monk can be as simple as winning initiative and charging while he is flat-footed.

Or when he is unaware of the attack.

I can think of a half dozen other ways to do it as well just in the couple minutes it takes to write this post. Some common, some rare, some relying on an encounter with foes cooperating with one another (unthinkable in a party combat game, I know), others not.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly this crane wing thing is really reminding me why I gave up on PF for a while. The system rewards specialization too much, to the point where, if you're going to be good at something, you're going to be really good at it usually. As a result, it gets very difficult to balance things, as with balance, equal specializations in, say, damage dealing and in defense should result in each being roughly equally capable, being very good in their specialization, and moderately capable in whatever their secondary attributes are (i.e. even a DPR fighter should have reasonably high AC). However some specializations are rewarded more than others, by the nature of the system. A high AC is worth less than a high attack bonus, because you a) don't get to choose how you are attacked, but you do get to choose who you attack, and b) the game has a natural advantage to the PCs, so survivability will do less for you than being able to remove enemies from the fight. As a result you'll have a game where either some specializations are clearly rewarded more than others, to the point that you have "must-take" options, like Power Attack, or else you have to up the power of less naturally-useful specialization, like with crane wing. The latter does have problems associated with it, but it at least promotes variation among the characters. With the former, you tend to have a lot less variety, but the potential for 'brokenness' is less.

Now, I was a former 4e player, for a few years. It fixed a lot of problems I had with 3.5, and it was easier to get people to play than my preferred systems of HERO and M&M among others, but I eventually stopped, once I realized that it got to be really hard to play outside the box. It was harder to build a character based on a concept, if that concept didn't play nice with the classes available to you. And while there were many mechanical innovations I liked very much, like their tanking mechanics, and encounter resources, and such, I got to the point where I had played all the characters I wanted to play in that system, and I had kind of burnt out.

Something that I'm beginning to see in PF is stuff along that vein. There's a distinction that parallels a distinction in battlefield control mechanics between hard and soft control. With hard control, if you're affected, you can't do something. So a wall of force that cuts off access to an area would be hard control. With soft control, if you're affected, it makes it so you don't want to do something. So a pool of acid, for example, that makes you take damage if you move through an area, would be an example of soft control. With 4e, there was a lot hard control in terms of what you could and could not play. For example, it was really hard to play a Pacifist Cleric, for example, or an archery Paladin, or stuff that didn't fit in with the classes available to you. With PF, there's a lot of soft control in terms of what you can and can't play. Sure you could play a defensive focused character, but most of the time, that's a trap option. Likewise, you could play a Fighter focused on locking down enemies, but most of the time dealing damage would get them out of the fight quicker and easier.

And this is an issue that, honestly, is making me reevaluate pathfinder as a system that I want to play in. It's not just Crane Wing, but Crane Wing is the big thing that brought this to my attention again. Crane Wing was one of those few things that made it so you could play an otherwise unoptimal choice, like a defense focused character, and have it not be simply suck on toast. Because, sometimes I don't want to play the DPR fighter, and sometimes I don't want to take the "must take" choices, but whenever I play something else, I'm just reminded how sub optimal the alternatives are. And I don't mind sub-optimal, usually, but the gulf is so wide that it's hard to ignore. And it's a shame, too, since I like Paizo as a company, and I think their products generally are pretty great, between their APs and the setting and even what they've done with 3.5. But it's getting to the point, where it's really hard to ignore the system-breaking problems I have with it. And while they don't break the system nearly as much as similar issues did with 4e, they still make me less than interested in playing it, above alternatives that exist out there.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
MagusJanus wrote:

Fighting defensively means sacrificing most of their base attack bonus, and at that level it actually matters. Given the typical ACs at that level, they would be pretty much sacrificing their capacity to attack for an AC where they can still be attacked... and with the animals that have multiple attacks, they're guaranteed to take damage.

So they trade their ability to do damage for... what advantage? Because deflecting attacks isn't exactly going to help them much.

Edit: To show my math...

A fighter that starts out with 18 Strength should, at that level, have a +9 to attack. The typical enemy has around 19 AC. That means that, on an average roll, the fighter should be hitting and doing damage.

Fighting defensively reduces that first attack to +5... which means that, on an average roll, the fighter should be missing that 19 AC.

+5 BAB, +4 Str bonus, +1 Weapon Focus, +1 enhancement bonus on the weapon, +1 weapon training = +12 total attack. Reduced by 2, not 4, because of Crane Style. That's a total of +10 attack for (in this instance) 1d8+10 damage (thanks to the sneaky two-handed trick noted before - you can switch between a one-handed and two-handed grip on your turn as a free action). Against AC 19, using Power Attack is a DPR boost, so he would, meaning the math actually works out to the fighter attacking at +8 for 1d8+16. That seems pretty decent to me.


Shisumo wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

Fighting defensively means sacrificing most of their base attack bonus, and at that level it actually matters. Given the typical ACs at that level, they would be pretty much sacrificing their capacity to attack for an AC where they can still be attacked... and with the animals that have multiple attacks, they're guaranteed to take damage.

So they trade their ability to do damage for... what advantage? Because deflecting attacks isn't exactly going to help them much.

Edit: To show my math...

A fighter that starts out with 18 Strength should, at that level, have a +9 to attack. The typical enemy has around 19 AC. That means that, on an average roll, the fighter should be hitting and doing damage.

Fighting defensively reduces that first attack to +5... which means that, on an average roll, the fighter should be missing that 19 AC.

+5 BAB, +4 Str bonus, +1 Weapon Focus, +1 enhancement bonus on the weapon, +1 weapon training = +12 total attack. Reduced by 2, not for, because of Crane Style. That's a total of +10 attack for (in this instance) 1d8+10 damage (thanks to the sneaky two-handed trick noted before - you can switch between a one-handed and two-handed grip on your turn as a free action). Against AC 19, using Power Attack is a DPR boost, so he would, meaning the math actually works out to the fighter attacking at +8 for 1d8+16. That seems pretty decent to me.

Are you including the -4 for fighting defensively?

Once you include that, it drops to a +4 to attack.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
OgreBattle wrote:
What's the average CMD of someone who's put in the investment to get Crane Wing onlineat level 2? At level 5?

Probably better than you think, because dodge bonuses - like the ones from fighting defensively and the Dodge feat - add to CMD.

OgreBattle wrote:

What's the average Grapple/Trip bonus of a CR2 melee threat? CR5 melee threat?

Almost certainly irrelevant, since CMB checks are melee attacks, and are therefore completely subject to pre-errata Crane Wing deflections.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
MagusJanus wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

Fighting defensively means sacrificing most of their base attack bonus, and at that level it actually matters. Given the typical ACs at that level, they would be pretty much sacrificing their capacity to attack for an AC where they can still be attacked... and with the animals that have multiple attacks, they're guaranteed to take damage.

So they trade their ability to do damage for... what advantage? Because deflecting attacks isn't exactly going to help them much.

Edit: To show my math...

A fighter that starts out with 18 Strength should, at that level, have a +9 to attack. The typical enemy has around 19 AC. That means that, on an average roll, the fighter should be hitting and doing damage.

Fighting defensively reduces that first attack to +5... which means that, on an average roll, the fighter should be missing that 19 AC.

+5 BAB, +4 Str bonus, +1 Weapon Focus, +1 enhancement bonus on the weapon, +1 weapon training = +12 total attack. Reduced by 2, not 4, because of Crane Style. That's a total of +10 attack for (in this instance) 1d8+10 damage (thanks to the sneaky two-handed trick noted before - you can switch between a one-handed and two-handed grip on your turn as a free action). Against AC 19, using Power Attack is a DPR boost, so he would, meaning the math actually works out to the fighter attacking at +8 for 1d8+16. That seems pretty decent to me.
Are you including the -4 for fighting defensively?

There was a typo, I admit, but you really ought to know the feats we're arguing about better than that.


MagusJanus wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

Fighting defensively means sacrificing most of their base attack bonus, and at that level it actually matters. Given the typical ACs at that level, they would be pretty much sacrificing their capacity to attack for an AC where they can still be attacked... and with the animals that have multiple attacks, they're guaranteed to take damage.

So they trade their ability to do damage for... what advantage? Because deflecting attacks isn't exactly going to help them much.

Edit: To show my math...

A fighter that starts out with 18 Strength should, at that level, have a +9 to attack. The typical enemy has around 19 AC. That means that, on an average roll, the fighter should be hitting and doing damage.

Fighting defensively reduces that first attack to +5... which means that, on an average roll, the fighter should be missing that 19 AC.

+5 BAB, +4 Str bonus, +1 Weapon Focus, +1 enhancement bonus on the weapon, +1 weapon training = +12 total attack. Reduced by 2, not for, because of Crane Style. That's a total of +10 attack for (in this instance) 1d8+10 damage (thanks to the sneaky two-handed trick noted before - you can switch between a one-handed and two-handed grip on your turn as a free action). Against AC 19, using Power Attack is a DPR boost, so he would, meaning the math actually works out to the fighter attacking at +8 for 1d8+16. That seems pretty decent to me.

Are you including the -4 for fighting defensively?

Once you include that, it drops to a +4 to attack.

Crane Style reduces the penalty for fighting defensively to -2, rather than -4...

1,251 to 1,300 of 2,304 << first < prev | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Crane Wing Errata in latest printing All Messageboards