There was a typo, I admit, but you really ought to know the feats we're arguing about better than that.Are you including the -4 for fighting defensively?+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.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.
Check the date of my first post. I actually shouldn't know the system as well as I do. I tend to learn game systems rather quickly.
But, I will admit you are right. I shouldn't discuss when I'm half asleep.
I will admit my math was false at the beginning... but that's because I was setting up to make a point.
The ultimate problem I'm noticing with a lot of this is the builds themselves are designed around either extreme specialization or around ridiculousness. That specialized build Shisumo posted? It would get slaughtered in a typical game I run, using standard monsters. Why? Because I actually make use of ranged and magic a lot in my games. Which, realistically, most people should; there is, after all, a reason why CR 1/2 enemies can have magical abilities. And why ranged options are included in the Beastiary. And that's my standard encounters; that's not the ones I've adapted to the party.
So, yeah, he would take out a single melee fighter in one round... and then get magicked into oblivion before he even had a chance to do anything the next by the mage he wasn't paying any attention to, but which now has a very good reason to target him instead of the mage or cleric it had been after.
That is part of the essential problem with the entire argument in favor of CW being nerfed... it's ridiculous, and all of the evidence in support of it is ridiculous and only getting more so over time. Building an actual, balanced encounter creates a scenario where the CW specialist becomes dead weight... and if he's lucky, the dead part isn't literal. And despite people like me constantly pointing out the evidence in favor of the nerf is mostly overspecialized nonsense that is easily countered by using basic tactics, people are only pulling out even more ridiculous and even more overspecialized builds in favor of it.
So, at this point, the entire argument is ridiculous. We're going over things that were dealt with pages ago and dealing with the crap that everyone already posted counters to being posted as evidence in support of the nerf.
Oh, and to note: Ranged touch is still ranged. And at level 5, an alchemist does 3d6 per attack with a bomb. You do the math on how long that fighter would last.
(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).
I will say that this is one thing that doesn't sit right with me. This seems blatantly against the RAI, but works RAW, and if they errata'd it so that you couldn't do this and benefit from crane wing I'd totally agree.
+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.
That is pretty decent for an defensively focused character no doubt. For comparison I present to you my MMA fighter (maneuver master 2/lore warden 3). This guy's job is to combat maneuver the crud out of you and put you in a world of hurt. If he got to full attack he'd hit you twice, trip you and then grappple/repostion you, and hit you again (all in one turn). Hit to hit was +12, grapple +16, and trip +16. He'd typically take 2 swings with his fists (1d6+8) then use a free trip (maneuver master), into ki throw, into grapple (binding throw), into another free hit from vicious stomp. Yeah he was complicated, but I'd take him over the defensive guy any day, and i wouldn't call him OP either. Now this guy was an attempt at an min/max maneuver specialist for sure, but he does what he does, quite well.
Or for a better comparison (straight build) lets compare to damage barabarian.
to hit- 5 bab+ 4 strength + 2 (rage strength) + 1 weapon focus + 1 weapon enchant= 13 (reckless abandon so no power attack penalty)
damage= 1d12(meh going with the classic)+ 9 strength +6 power attack + 1 weapon enchant= 1d12+16 (looks similar)
Of course the barbarian is doing this with less feat investment and therefore can be good at something else as well, in addition to hitting 75% of the time as opposed to your 50%.
All in all, I don't find the crane wing guy outmatched in these fights, but I don't see him ahead either. he's just different and that's supposed to be a good thing. Or so I thought.
(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).I will say that this is one thing that doesn't sit right with me. This seems blatantly against the RAI, but works RAW, and if they errata'd it so that you couldn't do this and benefit from crane wing I'd totally agree.
It just means that on your turn you deal 2-handed damage, and with AoOs you deal one-handed damage. It's great for characters with Bastard Swords or Dwarven War Axes (which tend not to get a lot of play anyway).
It's really not that big of a deal.
(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).I will say that this is one thing that doesn't sit right with me. This seems blatantly against the RAI, but works RAW, and if they errata'd it so that you couldn't do this and benefit from crane wing I'd totally agree.It just means that on your turn you deal 2-handed damage, and with AoOs you deal one-handed damage. It's great for characters with Bastard Swords or Dwarven War Axes (which tend not to get a lot of play anyway).
It's really not that big of a deal.
I'm not saying it's a huge deal, but it doesn't sit right with me. Most of the time it just feels like an exploit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
You're right about pounce, firearms, bombs, etc. Your message here (and a lot of people's) seems to be "but why are you changing this overpowered thing when you're leaving all this other overpowered stuff in place? That's unfair." And I get being bothered by the apparent hypocrisy/inconsistency. I'm frustrated by many of the same elements that concern you.
But shouldn't we be happy they're at least gimping something? Shouldn't our reaction be "good start!" rather than "how dare you??" Will the gunslinger crowd flip out like this if Paizo ever gets around to bringing down a well deserved errata hammer on some of the firearm stuff?
If we all get this upset whenever they change our overpowered thing, then they will hesitate to change any overpowered things. And that's a shame, because there are a whole lot of things in the system that could benefit from the kind of trouncing Crane Wing/Riposte just received.
P.S. And I say this despite the fact that, yes, I think they went too far with the nerf. Still, I'll support it as long as it maybe greases the wheels a little and makes them think hm, ok, now we'll take a hard look at archers and gunslingers and- dare I hope it?- maybe eventually even at spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nerfs are almost never taken well, but they're usually taken best when you buff the people who really need it when you do it.
Nerfs are almost never taken well, but they're usually taken best when you buff the people who really need it when you do it.
But you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. They can't do everything at once (without putting out a new edition).
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...
What level range do you typically play at?
Nerfs are almost never taken well, but they're usually taken best when you buff the people who really need it when you do it.But you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. They can't do everything at once (without putting out a new edition).
Because I said they should fix everything at once and I used the word 'perfect'?
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.
You're right about pounce, firearms, bombs, etc. Your message here (and a lot of people's) seems to be "but why are you changing this overpowered thing when you're leaving all this other overpowered stuff in place? That's unfair." And I get being bothered by the apparent hypocrisy/inconsistency. I'm frustrated by many of the same elements that concern you.
But shouldn't we be happy they're at least gimping something? Shouldn't our reaction be "good start!" rather than "how dare you??" Will the gunslinger crowd flip out like this if Paizo ever gets around to bringing down a well deserved errata hammer on some of the firearm stuff?
If we all get this upset whenever they change our overpowered thing, then they will hesitate to change any overpowered things. And that's a shame, because there are a whole lot of things in the system that could benefit from the kind of trouncing Crane Wing/Riposte just received.
P.S. And I say this despite the fact that, yes, I think they went too far with the nerf. Still, I'll support it as long as it maybe greases the wheels a little and makes them think hm, ok, now we'll take a hard look at archers and gunslingers and- dare I hope it?- maybe eventually even at spells.
It's because they started at the wrong end.
CW is a specialized feat. The best builds I've seen with it on this forum require overspecialization to be useful. To the point these builds have glaring weaknesses.
If, instead, they had started with one of the far more powerful options... the ones that are extremely general... then things would probably be different. They'd likely get a lot more support, and then later on when they went to nerf Crane Wing no one would complain.
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...What level range do you typically play at?
I don't anymore, but I generally played fairly low levels. Usually 1-8, occasionally going up to like 15 or so, but not often. I know that there are ways to swap powers from other classes and such, but the issue was more that there were a few, usually like 2-4ish options within the class, besides individual powers, but there were only a couple classes where I felt like the choices gave me very distinct options beyond the class. Like I remember the Warlord had options for archery, or front-lines fighting, or just the vanilla version, but for most classes, it was assumed, "you're using this armor, and you're using this type of weapon" and stuff like that, and it left very little open to concept.
In contrast, there are more options in pathfinder, in terms of playing melee or ranged, or in terms of a lot of 6-level (and even some 9-level casters, like the oracle), melee, ranged, or focus more heavily on offensive spells. However the issue pathfinder has is beyond that level of choice, it runs into some of the same problems as 4e. If you're melee, you'll probably be taking Power Attack, and other 'must takes'. If you're ranged, you'll be taking the ranged tree. If you're a TWF, there are these bunch of feats to take for you, and so on. But there's very little that actually changes the way your character plays. Unless you're going the vital-strike route, you'll be based on full attacking, and there's very little deviation from that, because a lot of options that seem cooler or more interesting aren't all that good. And the Crane Style chain was a way to focus on something other than pure DPR, and not be worthless. It still wasn't nearly as optimal, for most cases, as Picking up a greatsword and Power-attacking, but it worked for certain classes and certain concepts. Hell, I don't think I ever really used it, and I only ever saw it on a handful of characters, but it at least was a variation from the norm, that wasn't completely underpowered. But its effective nonexistance now really makes me think back to all the problems I had with 4e, and I'm unfortunately seeing a lot of them, to a lesser degree in Pathfinder. Which is a shame, because I want to like the system more than I do.
This is bunch of ..., please paizo delete this heresy
Now you can do real deflection only when using Total Defense.
With Crane Ripose you get attack of opportunity only when deflecting attack.
But using Total Defense does not allow you to get attacks of opportunity.
Crane Riposte is useless.
Dont understand people who think crane wing is overpowered when there is summoner and zen archer around.
Btw, Hydra came, it said it does not care about crane wing changes.
I don't anymore, but I generally played fairly low levels. Usually 1-8, occasionally going up to like 15 or so, but not often. I know that there are ways to swap powers from other classes and such, but the issue was more that there were a few, usually like 2-4ish options within the class, besides individual powers, but there were only a couple classes where I felt like the choices gave me very distinct options beyond the class. Like I remember the Warlord had options for archery, or front-lines fighting, or just the vanilla version, but for most classes, it was assumed, "you're using this armor, and you're using this type of weapon" and stuff like that, and it left very little open to concept.
In contrast, there are more options in pathfinder, in terms of playing melee or ranged, or in terms of a lot of 6-level (and even some 9-level casters, like the oracle), melee, ranged, or focus more heavily on offensive spells. However the issue pathfinder has is beyond that level of choice, it runs into some of the same problems as 4e. If you're melee, you'll probably be taking Power Attack, and other 'must takes'. If you're ranged, you'll be taking the ranged tree. If you're a TWF, there are these bunch of feats to take for you, and so on. But there's very little that actually changes the way your character plays. Unless you're going the vital-strike route, you'll be based on full attacking, and there's very little deviation from that, because a lot of options that seem cooler or more interesting aren't all that good. And the Crane Style chain was a way to focus on something other than pure DPR, and not...
THIS
When I sumpled upon this change by accident today, I lost my belief in what Paizo thinks of balance.
I will happily ignore this errata, but it will leave a sour taste whenever one of my player's chars, or one of mine use the feat chain.
Oh and my main PFS character died horribly just now.
Paizo, I am disappointed.
| 3 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.
This, so much.
And why was CW considered a problem? Because premade encounters are poorly designed and PFS GM's have ZERO leeway in how to run their games.So let's punish the players for the Writer's faults?
I don't buy it.
|
You're right about pounce, firearms, bombs, etc. Your message here (and a lot of people's) seems to be "but why are you changing this overpowered thing when you're leaving all this other overpowered stuff in place? That's unfair." And I get being bothered by the apparent hypocrisy/inconsistency. I'm frustrated by many of the same elements that concern you.
But shouldn't we be happy they're at least gimping something? Shouldn't our reaction be "good start!" rather than "how dare you??" Will the gunslinger crowd flip out like this if Paizo ever gets around to bringing down a well deserved errata hammer on some of the firearm stuff?
If we all get this upset whenever they change our overpowered thing, then they will hesitate to change any overpowered things. And that's a shame, because there are a whole lot of things in the system that could benefit from the kind of trouncing Crane Wing/Riposte just received.
P.S. And I say this despite the fact that, yes, I think they went too far with the nerf. Still, I'll support it as long as it maybe greases the wheels a little and makes them think hm, ok, now we'll take a hard look at archers and gunslingers and- dare I hope it?- maybe eventually even at spells.
It's not exactly accurate any longer to call it my thing. I have one PC with Crane Feats, who has been retired for about 8 months now. So I don't have a personal dog in this fight any longer.
That said, other than the low level in which you can access it (I think making it impossible to get before other characters have a BAB of 6 would have been a more balanced call), I personally believe the feat was perfectly acceptable, and thus want to see it flourish.
What personally frustrates me is that in this game, we have a plethora of amazing to grossly overpowered offense options. Yet when it comes to defense, those gems are few and far between. Crane Wing stood out as one of those precious gems, especially for monks, who need a lot more work on build and knowledge of system mastery to make a strong class compared to most of the other martials.
I personally just do not see the big deal about old Crane Wing. It was a great feat, and a very strong one - but it wasn't stronger, and was in fact considerably weaker, than a ton of offense options still at large. Crane Wing was not difficult to work around either. Feinting, invisibility, surprise from stealth, ranged attacks, spells, even just beating the Crane PC in initiative was enough to get around it. How often do we get around Clustered Shots? Power Attack? ect ect.
So no, though the view of seeing this as the beginning of good changes you suggest might be a reasonable approach, I cannot view it that way. At least not yet. Perhaps if they were to start with more pressing offense issues rather than further demoralizing defense, I might be able to appreciate your suggestion.
Nerfs are almost never taken well, but they're usually taken best when you buff the people who really need it when you do it.But you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. They can't do everything at once (without putting out a new edition).
Yes, but this does more harm than good. I want whatever nerfs are deemed necessary to be as surgical and slight as possible. Remember Heirloom Weapon ? It arguably needed a nerf, but it was overnerfed. And now Crane Wing that less arguably needs a nerf is nerfnuked. Two instances might not make a pattern, but ...
The minimum would have been preventing MoMS from getting it early and adding a line that nat 20s can't be deflected. Some people would still claim it overpowered, but you wouldn't have this hue and cry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But shouldn't we be happy they're at least gimping something?
Not at all.
Melee characters have very few truly good options. Things like Power Attack are very few and far between for those classes that can't cast spells.But there are a metric f-ton of bad options for those melee characters to pick.
I understand that, in general, it's easier and more balanced to "nerf now, then slowly buff later if necessary." However, for Melee classes in Pathfinder, their good options have already been taken so low that they're close to the breaking point (which is the real reason this nerf is hitting people so hard - not because of the mechanics, but because it's just one more thing in a LONG line of non-spellcaster nerfs).
So in this case, I would MUCH rather see the Devs throw out some errata to make the dozens and dozens of horrible feats into something actually fun and playable, rather than picking at the bones of what is left of combat classes' options.
If we all get this upset whenever they change our overpowered thing, then they will hesitate to change any overpowered things.
Crane Wing isn't my thing. My interaction with it has been my GM using it against me. So I'm pretty confident that my criticism is not motivated by favorite character ruined angst. If anything I should be posting about my happiness that my sword and board fighter will never have to deal with Crane as a meaningful defense again, right?
But it's still a bad change, even if it's not a bad change to my thing, so that would not be honest feedback. Even if there was a slight cough present, the cure is far worse than the disease right now.
That the cure is also so severe (and to such a high-visibility former example of how [combat] feats could finally operate on the same plane as other class abilities) that it's making a lot of people despair of the concept of medicine at all, is a related but different question.
Guys Erick hasn't been legit from the start. He prefaced that he believes casters are strong, better and more versatile and it's the martials duty to be the sub-par beat-stick.
He's far sweeping nerfs across the board of all martial play until they suck far more than they already do, yet he doesn't want to even touch casters.
He has this idea that sweeping nerfs are a good thing and if you make other options no longer fun, the rest will somehow become more fun.
tell me that you honestly believe there's plans for a review of all the underperforming melee combat feats. A plan to bring all the underwhelming martial defense options even close to par.
There obviously isn't right now. Other posters have already pointed at the derision heaped upon crossbows and spears and all. But that's what feedback is for. You don't (well, ideally, you don't) just write all these thousands of posts to vent your sound and fury into the uncaring void, you do it so that Paizo can notice and pay attention and adjust.
And even if all of them is too tall an order (it probably is), then at least Paizo (hopefully) starts thinking about ways to patch the system short of a total rewrite.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't (well, ideally, you don't) just write all these thousands of posts to vent your sound and fury into the uncaring void
I'm pretty sure we do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've already bought all the books I wanted/needed and paizo is not doing much to engender me for further purchases.
Jason's comment about trying to stick to the balance in the CRB was very disappointing. I have been arguing that PF never needs a second ed because paizo could just print Ultimate CRB with one new archetype for each class to fix issues. They could even start a Type II magic the gathering system for their PFS play.
But no. Jason doesn't feel like "trying to fix balance problems in the 10+ book of a system". The rational seems to be superstition and flash-backs to 3.5.
You don't (well, ideally, you don't) just write all these thousands of posts to vent your sound and fury into the uncaring voidI'm pretty sure we do.
You know, I didn't mean for that to be demotivating.
Umm...
They have reversed things in the past, like the Flurry of blow nerf.
Huge, huge difference between something they actually print, and two people in the company saying different things in a forum discussion.
That the nerf ever 'went live', so to speak, says far more than the later backpeddling.
One complaint about the game punishing defense - it doesn't punish defense. It discriminates against invulnerability.
Remember Mind Blank? Complete immunity to anything mind-affecting? Basically took out the whole enchantment school?
Now gives a +8 Res bonus, effectively +3 over what a character would normally have. Sure, you still can't scry them, but they aren't combat immune.
Crane Wing is a form of functional invulnerability that is player controlled. A smart player can simply work with the melee system and make himself almost immune to damage.
Others have already posted how this distorts the entire system. Suffice it to say that being unable to effectively use melee against a character changes the entire way the campaign has to work. It is completely better to change the option so it is still useful, but is not invulnerability.
=---------------------
Another poster brought up about a dungeon where you couldn't cast spells, and how useful would the casters feel?
If this were the real world, do you realize how common that would be?
Entire areas and zones would be covered in anti-magic just to prevent casters from doing their thing, particularly centers of government, and likely many fortifications.
Likewise, magical creatures would have defenses that rely on things like flight and teleportation. Can you imagine a stronghold of conjurors where to travel between major rooms and floors you had to blink through the walls, knowing where you were going? How viable would the martials seem when they can't even move between encounter areas?
Lastly, a skills-heavy campaign with little combat, major stealth requirements, NPC interaction, and the like, completely obviating archers, blasters, heavy melees, and the like.
The 'one-trick pony' is great in his area, and sucks outside of it. Having to cater to that overspecialization also means not punishing him for it. Rewarding versatility sometimes requires discriminating against overspecialization.
So, yes, a smart DM who can change encounters completely on the fly and simply revert to all ranged/spell combat against a Crane Winger can shut him down. He could, however, do the same thing against a pouncing barbarian, smiting paladin, or basically any other melee combatant. Melee is easy to shut down. This does not make Crane Wing any more balanced.
==Aelryinth
To the person who didn't want to let you 2h a one handed weapon on your turn:
Okay, then, if I draw and fight with TWO WEAPONS on my turn, and then throw the dagger in my off hand at the end of my turn, I still get the benefit of the +3 Defender bonus on the dagger AND my 2 Weapon Shield defense bonus, right? Because I was using it the 'whole round'.
Eesh.
And remember, you're 2h'ing a one handed weapon, not holding a 2h weapon in one hand. You want to be able to Riposte, after all.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've already bought all the books I wanted/needed and paizo is not doing much to engender me for further purchases.
Jason's comment about trying to stick to the balance in the CRB was very disappointing. I have been arguing that PF never needs a second ed because paizo could just print Ultimate CRB with one new archetype for each class to fix issues. They could even start a Type II magic the gathering system for their PFS play.
But no. Jason doesn't feel like "trying to fix balance problems in the 10+ book of a system". The rational seems to be superstition and flash-backs to 3.5.
Likewise, James' statement on that, combined with the fact that it doesn't seem like the designers are intent on increasing options to martial classes beyond "full attack all day, every day" is really making me consider not spending anything more on this.
I always liked Paizo, and Pathfinder and my FLGS enough to buy the books, even though for 90% of everything I need to look up, I just use the SRD. Now, I'm not so sure. I don't really see much reason anymore, when honestly, Homebrew content and 3rd party stuff (which is a feat, in and of itself, considering those were some of the things that made me hate 3.5 back in the day) has done more to balance the game than Paizo, and it looks like this won't change.
Moreover, I'm not even sure how much I want to keep going with PF as my system of choice. Mythic Adventures had basically been the thing that warmed me back up to the system when I had almost gotten worn out of it, but this has done completely the opposite. It's basically confirmed that I've wasted my time on hoping that they'd fix the things I had problems with.
The 3rd party support is nice. I just wish some of those companies had more serious sounding names.
Mythic Adventures is great. I plan to run a hyper mythic campaign soon (1 tier per 2 levels automatic ascension)
The 3rd party support is nice. I just wish some of those companies had more serious sounding names.
Mythic Adventures is great. I plan to run a hyper mythic campaign soon (1 tier per 2 levels automatic ascension)
The big problem I have with 3rd party stuff is the "90% of everything is crap" saying. I just don't have the time nor money to comb through everything for what's good and what's not; and it's not even something that's consistent, even in a single publisher, I might like half of the classes, and the rest, I can't stand, so it's not like I can even say "Publisher X is allowed"
It's entirely understandable that they'd nerf a feat for PFS/the perceptions of PFS players. People who want to play PFS are the ones who are required to actually buy rule books. Catering to PFS players over people who'll just use the SRD is sound business sense.
Ya know what I hate the most about this?
You're right. :( lol
It's entirely understandable that they'd nerf a feat for PFS/the perceptions of PFS players. People who want to play PFS are the ones who are required to actually buy rule books. Catering to PFS players over people who'll just use the SRD is sound business sense.Ya know what I hate the most about this?
You're right. :( lol
Except he is not right.
Most of Paizo's revenue does not come from PFS players.
It's entirely understandable that they'd nerf a feat for PFS/the perceptions of PFS players. People who want to play PFS are the ones who are required to actually buy rule books. Catering to PFS players over people who'll just use the SRD is sound business sense.
Only if they're resigned to only selling books to the PFS players.
And it's not like this is a screw-job that's universally loved in that group, either.
It's entirely understandable that they'd nerf a feat for PFS/the perceptions of PFS players. People who want to play PFS are the ones who are required to actually buy rule books. Catering to PFS players over people who'll just use the SRD is sound business sense.Only if they're resigned to only selling books to the PFS players.
And it's not like this is a screw-job that's universally loved in that group, either.
Yeah only PFS GMs (who don't have to buy books) are happy about this.
...being unable to effectively use melee against a character changes the entire way the campaign has to work.
I dispute this claim. You CAN effectively use melee against a Crane Winger. You just can't use the optimal "one big hitter" against it.
Damage reduction is good against something with a bunch of little attacks. Crane Wing is good against something with fewer bigger attacks. I grant you that the latter is more common than the former, but "unable to effectively use melee" is overstatement.
It's entirely understandable that they'd nerf a feat for PFS/the perceptions of PFS players. People who want to play PFS are the ones who are required to actually buy rule books. Catering to PFS players over people who'll just use the SRD is sound business sense.Ya know what I hate the most about this?
You're right. :( lolExcept he is not right.
Most of Paizo's revenue does not come from PFS players.
We have multiple copies of almost everything around the gaming table.
We don't have anyone who has ever played PFS. We are not a beautiful and unique snowflake; I'd venture that it's more likely that we're the norm.But the growing feeling around the table has been one of Pathfinder having jumped the shark. Won't be hard to encourage trying something else out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's entirely understandable that they'd nerf a feat for PFS/the perceptions of PFS players. People who want to play PFS are the ones who are required to actually buy rule books. Catering to PFS players over people who'll just use the SRD is sound business sense.Ya know what I hate the most about this?
You're right. :( lolExcept he is not right.
Most of Paizo's revenue does not come from PFS players.
Right, it comes from stuff like Adventure Paths. Which PFS people will be using. Compared to homegamers, which may or may not be buying Adventure Paths.
And if you're not buying Adventure Paths, and the SRD/PRD is a thing...
And that's where the logic leads. ;)
It's entirely understandable that they'd nerf a feat for PFS/the perceptions of PFS players. People who want to play PFS are the ones who are required to actually buy rule books. Catering to PFS players over people who'll just use the SRD is sound business sense.Ya know what I hate the most about this?
You're right. :( lolExcept he is not right.
Most of Paizo's revenue does not come from PFS players.
Right, it comes from stuff like Adventure Paths. Which PFS people will be using. Compared to homegamers, which may or may not be buying Adventure Paths.
And if you're not buying Adventure Paths, and the SRD/PRD is a thing...
;)
You get that there are a lot of people who don't play PFS but do believe in supporting a company making a thing you like so that they can keep making the thing you like, right?
Guys Erick hasn't been legit from the start. He prefaced that he believes casters are strong, better and more versatile and it's the martials duty to be the sub-par beat-stick.
He's far sweeping nerfs across the board of all martial play until they suck far more than they already do, yet he doesn't want to even touch casters.
He has this idea that sweeping nerfs are a good thing and if you make other options no longer fun, the rest will somehow become more fun.
to be fair, he also bans full casters from his games unless they're built purposefully subpar. I find that this is what has probably lead to his position, because his games are already very different from the norm.
Guys Erick hasn't been legit from the start. He prefaced that he believes casters are strong, better and more versatile and it's the martials duty to be the sub-par beat-stick.
He's far sweeping nerfs across the board of all martial play until they suck far more than they already do, yet he doesn't want to even touch casters.
He has this idea that sweeping nerfs are a good thing and if you make other options no longer fun, the rest will somehow become more fun.
to be fair, he also bans full casters from his games unless they're built purposefully subpar. I find that this is what has probably lead to his position, because his games are already very different from the norm.
So he is one of those, "nerf everything to the ground" types?
That doesn't make the game fun that just lets everyone suck equally.