Crane Wing Errata in latest printing


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1,351 to 1,400 of 2,304 << first < prev | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

@Eirikrautha - Way to focus on word choice and ignore the point. Throne was complaining about Paizo not listening to its customers or heeding their feedback. But it was outside-the-company feedback that prompted the change in the first place; that is, the fact that the errata happened at all disproves Throne's claims that Paizo doesn't listen/respond to community feedback.

What you've done is to avoid facing an inconvenient truth by drawing attention away from it, toward a word choice detail that's not even relevant to the context of the statement it was in.


Throne wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:
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.

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?

Yes, absolutely. It's why I own some core books.

But I also believe most people don't buy things they don't intend to use. Like any groups (mine, for example) that don't like playing premades.


Jiggy wrote:

@Eirikrautha - Way to focus on word choice and ignore the point. Throne was complaining about Paizo not listening to its customers or heeding their feedback. But it was outside-the-company feedback that prompted the change in the first place; that is, the fact that the errata happened at all disproves Throne's claims that Paizo doesn't listen/respond to community feedback.

What you've done is to avoid facing an inconvenient truth by drawing attention away from it, toward a word choice detail that's not even relevant to the context of the statement it was in.

It proves that they might occassionally nod in the direction of feedback from a small group of an already narrow segment of the customer base if it agrees with them, yes.

That's not at all similar to listening to or taking on board the feedback of other customers, especially the ones that happen not to agree with them.

When a customer tells me I've done great work, he's obviously a smart man and worth listening to.
When a customer tells me I've not done great work... well that other guy liked it, this guy obviously doesn't know anything.

Where'd all my customers go? :(

Liberty's Edge

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

There is a case to be made that customers who are quite literally threatening to quit over the errata to one feat in a non-core book aren't worth trying to keep.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Throne wrote:

When a customer tells me I've done great work, he's obviously a smart man and worth listening to.

When a customer tells me I've not done great work... well that other guy liked it, this guy obviously doesn't know anything.

Now you're contradicting yourself.

The situation you complained about was that when part of the customer base told Paizo they've not done great work (original Crane Wing), Paizo listened and changed it.

Now you're saying that when a customer tells them they've not done great work, they don't listen?

So you are literally complaining both about practice X and example of its opposite at the same time.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
There is a case to be made that customers who are quite literally threatening to quit over the errata to one feat in a non-core book aren't worth trying to keep.

I know a lot of those posts have been deleted so you can't go back and check what was actually said, but I think you were reading different posts than I saw. I saw people complaining about larger trends in the design of Pathfinder and how this erratum was another step in the same direction. I didn't see anyone saying that this erratum alone convinced them that they should stop spending money on Pathfinder.

Shadow Lodge

Shisumo wrote:
There is a case to be made that customers who are quite literally threatening to quit over the errata to one feat in a non-core book aren't worth trying to keep.

I don't think people are going to quit over one feat, although they may threaten it and be upset, I doubt they'll leave. But it won't sit well with them and they will remember, and I doubt Paizo wants that. Also I highly doubt they are upset because about the specific feat in question, it's the how and why it was done that is bothersome to them. Anyone who reads the copious amount of posts can see and feel that, even those who agree that CW needed a nerf have been honest enough to say that this was heavy-handed and went way way too far. As has been said many times, I guess martials can't have nice things. lol


Shisumo wrote:
There is a case to be made that customers who are quite literally threatening to quit over the errata to one feat in a non-core book aren't worth trying to keep.

I agree!

Fortunately, most of the posts I've seen (and my own) in that regard are because of a continuing trend and practice, rather than one nerf to one feat.

There is certainly a case to be made that customers who are quite literally threatening to quit because they don't agree with the current trends in the game's design and attitude towards its customers aren't worth trying to keep, too. I believe Wizards made it a few years back.

Quote:

Now you're contradicting yourself.

The situation you complained about was that when part of the customer base told Paizo they've not done great work (original Crane Wing), Paizo listened and changed it.

Now you're saying that when a customer tells them they've not done great work, they don't listen?

So you are literally complaining both about practice X and example of its opposite at the same time.

It may look that way, if you want to focus on word choice and ignore the point.

The point being, the change isn't because of customer feedback.
They were looking in that direction anyway, saw some feedback that agreed with them and decided 'we're geniuses!'. Jason has made more than one post about how the nerf isn't down to PFS feedback, just that the feedback confirmed an already held suspicion. You get what confirmation bias is, right?
Now they're getting feedback that disagrees with them and saying 'but those other guys thought it was a great idea' and refusing to budge, because what the hell do we know?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Throne wrote:

They were looking in that direction anyway, saw some feedback that agreed with them and decided 'we're geniuses!'. Jason has made more than one post about how the nerf isn't down to PFS feedback, just that the feedback confirmed an already held suspicion. You get what confirmation bias is, right?

Now they're getting feedback that disagrees with them and saying 'but those other guys thought it was a great idea' and refusing to budge, because what the hell do we know?

Are we reading the same posts? Because the posts I read from Jason said that changing Crane Wing wasn't even on their radar until they received feedback from the PFS folks, after which point they started looking at the issue and eventually made a decision.

On what do you base your claim that they already wanted to change it before they got any feedback? Can you link/quote a post to that effect? Because I must have missed it.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
There is a case to be made that customers who are quite literally threatening to quit over the errata to one feat in a non-core book aren't worth trying to keep.
I know a lot of those posts have been deleted so you can't go back and check what was actually said, but I think you were reading different posts than I saw. I saw people complaining about larger trends in the design of Pathfinder and how this erratum was another step in the same direction. I didn't see anyone saying that this erratum alone convinced them that they should stop spending money on Pathfinder.

Right, it's a 'straw that broke the camel's back' deal.

Felix Gaunt wrote:
I don't think people are going to quit over one feat, although they may threaten it and be upset, I doubt they'll leave. But it won't sit well with them and they will remember, and I doubt Paizo wants that. Also I highly doubt they are upset because about the specific feat in question, it's the how and why it was done that is bothersome to them. Anyone who reads the copious amount of posts can see and feel that, even those who agree that CW needed a nerf have been honest enough to say that this was heavy-handed and went way way too far. As has been said many times, I guess martials can't have nice things. lol

I don't intend to stop playing Pathfinder over this. I agree that it's doubtful anyone else will, either.

But I don't intend to support Pathfinder financially anymore, either.
And because I'm not a beautiful and unique snowflake, I'd bet against being the only person in that position, too.
And for me it's just a matter of principal, with no actual harm caused.

I think if I was the guy who posted before, about having been playing his PFS character for months working towards Crane Ripost without the usual MoMS dip and now this has come along and gutted the Crane style, making the whole build useless and the months wasted... yeah, I think I would be inclined to quit completely.


Whether someone spent months building up to a feat doesn't in any way reflect on whether a feat needs revision or not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

Whether someone spent months building up to a feat doesn't in any way reflect on whether a feat needs revision or not.

Cool. Did anyone make that claim?

Oh that's right. No one said that.


Completely nuking a character option from orbit is the safest way to balance it, if you feel that it's an unbalanced option. If you just try to edge it in a little and you don't go far enough, then you're stuck with another round of errata and then confusion sort of starts to pile up. It might be a dead feat now, but most feats are dead feats.


Jiggy wrote:
Because the posts I read from Jason said that changing Crane Wing wasn't even on their radar until they received feedback from the PFS folks, after which point they started looking at the issue and eventually made a decision.

That's correct as far as I can tell.

A) PFS feedback to draw attention to feat
B) Design team attention drawn
C) TERMINATE.

(:P)

I don't think there's any posts saying the nerf was already in the works before PFS stuff occurred. That said, it can be difficult to follow a thread with as many deleted posts as this - but I'm presuming Paizo wouldn't have deleted their own posts.


Joyd wrote:
Completely nuking a character option from orbit is the safest way to balance it, if you feel that it's an unbalanced option. If you just try to edge it in a little and you don't go far enough, then you're stuck with another round of errata and then confusion sort of starts to pile up. It might be a dead feat now, but most feats are dead feats.

Keep in mind, we as consumers using the product would likely want a lot of attractive options. Seeing one 'nuked from orbit' is pretty saddening. Nuking from orbit is the easy way to do things though.


Joyd wrote:
most feats are dead feats.

Which is a problem, since the more crap that is out there the farther new feats are pulled down.

Shadow Lodge

lol This thread is becoming a repeat of the same old stuff and moderately painful to read. Which I think is because it's soooo long that people aren't reading the whole thing and thus keep repeating what's already been said like a million times. :-/

It's pretty simple, Paizo listened to PFS and made a change that was in the end a bad call. PFS is <> Pathfinder, every day it moves further and further away. I play PFS and I play regular Pathfinder, comparing the two and making global Pathfinder decisions on mostly (if not all) PFS (probably PFS GM) feedback is a recipe for disaster. They've probably done it before and gotten away with it, this time though it was a perfect storm of issues resulting in 'cranegate'. PFS Scenarios are easy, always have been and probably always will be, that's intentional. They are also structured in such a way to make CW appear (and probably be) more powerful than it really is, that's not a Pathfinder issue, that's a PFS issue.

Finally all that being said yes CW was very good and probably needed a tweak, but did it need such a heavy-handed beat down? No, there are dozens of other solutions they could of come up with such as limiting to Monk's, preventing the MoMS dip by requiring a higher level, etc etc. As has been said dozens and dozens of times on here, pretty much everyone could see this response coming from a mile away. I'm actually quite surprised that Paizo didn't, which I suspect is because PFS had been so vocal that they didn't think to wonder how it would be received by the Pathfinder community as a whole. I really don't know what happened, I have a lot of respect for Paizo leadership but this decision really flummoxes me.

So yeah I'm going to stop reading this thread now, I've said all I can think of and I've read enough to expect some sort of response from Paizo on this. Hopefully they come up with a compromise, if not...well that's very unfortunate and I hope it doesn't come back to bite them in the *ss later. :-/


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
Joyd wrote:
Completely nuking a character option from orbit is the safest way to balance it, if you feel that it's an unbalanced option. If you just try to edge it in a little and you don't go far enough, then you're stuck with another round of errata and then confusion sort of starts to pile up. It might be a dead feat now, but most feats are dead feats.
Keep in mind, we as consumers using the product would likely want a lot of attractive options. Seeing one 'nuked from orbit' is pretty saddening. Nuking from orbit is the easy way to do things though.

The VERY easy way to do things. Some might even call it the lazy way. Dropkicking a game option into the ground is easy. So is buffing it to ludicrous heights.

It's actually balancing it that's the hard part, but as a game designer, it's your job to do so. Doesn't seem like there was much of an attempt to balance here (though there was obviously SOME, just not a whole lot), however, it was just a cheap and easy way to remove an option from play entirely without banning it.

Whether that's up to the fact that they're really busy or lazy right now is really up to your bias, though. None of us know facts, but the results are fairly clear I think.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:


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.

Functional invulnerability you say? I'm going to have to call bull on this one. If Crane wing made you invulnerable it's either because you are 100% in on maxing your defenses or the enemy was already trivial as an encounter. Aka the enemy needed a 16+ to even tag you because that's the only time when you could assert that crane wing comes close to invulnerability.

And again if the enemy needed a 20 to hit you and you haven't been throwing every nickel and dime at maxing your AC it's because then enemy was a joke before Crane Wing and in that case chances are good the Raging Barbarian just killed him already.


gnomersy wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:


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.

Functional invulnerability you say? I'm going to have to call bull on this one. If Crane wing made you invulnerable it's either because you are 100% in on maxing your defenses or the enemy was already trivial as an encounter. Aka the enemy needed a 16+ to even tag you because that's the only time when you could assert that crane wing comes close to invulnerability.

And again if the enemy needed a 20 to hit you and you haven't been throwing every nickel and dime at maxing your AC it's because then enemy was a joke before Crane Wing and in that case chances are good the Raging Barbarian just killed him already.

Lets not forget things like spells... or archers... or alchemist bombs...or AoEs....


Kryzbyn wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Whether someone spent months building up to a feat doesn't in any way reflect on whether a feat needs revision or not.

Cool. Did anyone make that claim?

Oh that's right. No one said that.

Throne hinted that it was reason enough to quit playing Pathfinder, which I guess is supposed to reflect poorly on the choice to revise said feat in the first place. Which, imo, is ridiculous.

Sorry, just tired of all of the hyperbolic wailing and gnashing of teeth in this thread.

Yes, I think having a character I'd put months and months of time into suddenly, unnecessarily and excessively nerfed to the point that time was wasted would put me off pathfinder for a good long time, and in that time I'd probably find something else to play and not come back.

This is mostly independent of whether the feat needed nerfing (it didn't) or whether the nerf was carefully and proportionately executed (it wasn't), though I think if I'd spent that time on a character exploiting a blatantly overpowered feat or combination and that got nerfed to still be decent, I'd shrug and think 'ah well'.

Anything more than that you want to read into what I'm saying and get upset about... I don't really care, you're not my customer (I hope).


Shisumo wrote:
Throne wrote:
You get what confirmation bias is, right?
Yes, I do. It's when you only listen to your own side of a debate and become convinced that "everyone" thinks the way you do, no matter how many people are actually disagreeing with you that you are simply ignoring.

Actually, it doesn't need to literally be everyone. It would be more accurate to say your ability to gather information is biased by your own beliefs, or what you want to belief. Similarly, its like how you see the polls. You say 50/50, but the people who don't need a nerf outrank both the people who say the nerf was needed and too much and the nerf was needed and just right combined everytime I've looked at it(and currently does). The people who say it was too much have been almost double the people who said it was just right everytime I've checked it too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You know, it doesn't require any special training to Feint someone. Just a few skill ranks, and bam, you can deal with a crane wing user. No AoO or anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darth Grall wrote:
You know, it doesn't require any special training to Feint someone. Just a few skill ranks, and bam, you can deal with a crane wing user. No AoO or anything.

But then we can't whinge about how OP those dirty filthy Monks are!


Shisumo wrote:
Throne wrote:
You get what confirmation bias is, right?

Yes, I do. It's when you only listen to your own side of a debate and become convinced that "everyone" thinks the way you do, no matter how many people are actually disagreeing with you that you are simply ignoring.

I'm not sure there's any way to invoke confirmation bias in a debate without making yourself a hypocrite.

For the record, there is a completely unscientific poll in one of the other threads about whether the change was needed. Pretty much from the moment it was posted, it's been split roughly 50-50 about whether some kind of change was needed. Given that such "surveys" tend to be substantially biased toward the people who are unhappy about the topic, at best Paizo is in a situation where leaving it alone and making a change were equally bad options from the perspective of satisfying the customer base. So can we please drop the sense of entitlement here? You're not doing yourself any favors.

I'm aware many people disagree with me.

I'm aware some of them might even be doing so for reasons I wouldn't dismiss out of hand.
I'm also aware of the poll you mentioned, and familiar enough with how people work not to discount the likelihood that a good chunk of the people saying 'ok, it needed a nerf, but not that big a nerf' have just hit the bargaining stage sooner than others, or the possibility that a good chunk of the people voting 'Good job Paizo, did the right thing!' are just defending Paizo out of instinct, or a dozen other reasons you shouldn't read anything into the 'results'.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SlimGauge wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
...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.

IF the player is intelligent, and uses Crane Wing the way it's meant to be used?

No, you really can't use melee against it. He'll smartly deny creatures their full attack actions. The rest of the party will help him do that. Unless you have all hydras that get full attacks on SA's, a good Crane Winger can simply make it almost impossible to melee successfully.

That's a type of invulnerability. It's boring and frustrating after you do it the 10th time for all involved, even if it's cool and stylish the first couple of times.

If you're playing mook creatures...Crane Wing already caters to high AC. The threat from lots of mooks is not a threat. It's just more dice rolling.

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
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.

Having to cater to that specialization also seems to mean ignoring significant portions of the Beastiary.

If they are overspecialized to the point they cannot handle a simple goblin with class levels, then it's time they considered the character is not actually effective. And that's the problem that the examples of CW specialization arguing it is overpowered tend to have.

Liberty's Edge

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

Having to cater to that specialization also seems to mean ignoring significant portions of the Beastiary.

If they are overspecialized to the point they cannot handle a simple goblin with class levels, then it's time they considered the character is not actually effective. And that's the problem that a CW specialization tends to have,

I'm curious as to what experiences with Crane Wing you've had that has lead you to this conclusion.


Shisumo wrote:
Quote:
Yes, I think having a character I'd put months and months of time into suddenly, unnecessarily and excessively nerfed to the point that time was wasted would put me off pathfinder for a good long time, and in that time I'd probably find something else to play and not come back.
...so I stand by what I said. If you're looking for a reason to feel like the injured party, you're going to, even if you're not really part of the overwhelming majority you think you are.

Except that a minority of the responses against the nerf have been that why. Which means what you are missing is actually the majority of what people have actually said.


Shisumo wrote:
Quote:
Yes, I think having a character I'd put months and months of time into suddenly, unnecessarily and excessively nerfed to the point that time was wasted would put me off pathfinder for a good long time, and in that time I'd probably find something else to play and not come back.
...so I stand by what I said. If you're looking for a reason to feel like the injured party, you're going to, even if you're not really part of the overwhelming majority you think you are.

I'm curious now, just want to get this straightened out, no snark intended...

You got that I clearly said I'm not going to stop playing Pathfinder, just stop buying it, right?
And the 'months and months of time on the character wasted' was someone else, not me, I just sympathised with the situation?

Personally, I've used Crane Wing like... never. I have a character with it that I've played a grand total of twice in a game that won't be using this errata (how I found out about it was my DM skyping me to tell me not to worry, he won't be breaking my character), and that's a slightly exploity MoMS dip on a duelist that I wouldn't cry about too hard (so long as I got to replace the monk levels, at least).

My personal injury on the issue is 0.
The principal and behaviour behind it has pissed me right off, however, as part of a longer term erosion of faith and trust in the Paizo team.


Throne wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Throne wrote:
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.

I fully expect Paizo to lose customers over this (their attitude and the principal behind the nerf more than people being just that in love with Crane Wing).

I guess you're right. But know what? The best part about PF is that you get all the relevant stuff for free. So those of us stopping to buy can very much keep on playing those parts we like.


Jiggy wrote:
Throne wrote:
Edit: and you can assume whatever you like, Jiggy. If I come across the post again, I'll link it, but I'm not hunting it down to try and 'win'.
Ah, okay, so you did just make things up to support your points. And now that you've been caught/called out on your dishonesty, you're trying to dodge by labeling any attention paid to said dishonesty as "trying to win" so that I'll look like the bad guy for noticing that you lied.

Whatever helps support your belief that I'm the villain of the piece, I'm happy to help out.

Quote:
Well, originally I was holding out hope that maybe you could be reasoned with and/or reassured that there will probably be an acceptable resolution to all this (I'm not a fan of The New Crane Wing, either), but I guess I shouldn't bother. I dunno, maybe it's time to just hide the thread.

I'd be quite happy to get an acceptable resolution.

Jason's already as good as said that won't be happening, though (I believe the quote was along the lines of 'no, this is how it is, and this is how it's staying. We might look at it again in the future.', and I've got no reason to believe in this mythical future time that the underperforming martial feats will get rebalanced, because we've still got underperforming martial feats from the core book that haven't been fixed. And no, I'm not digging up a link to that either).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
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.

Having to cater to that specialization also seems to mean ignoring significant portions of the Beastiary.

If they are overspecialized to the point they cannot handle a simple goblin with class levels, then it's time they considered the character is not actually effective. And that's the problem that a CW specialization tends to have,

I'm curious as to what experiences with Crane Wing you've had that has lead you to this conclusion.

Ran a test run using the build you posted. Your CW specialization, with three people in a group, vs. a group of goblins with class levels.

One of those goblins was an alchemist. Your CW build died on the second round. Meanwhile, a comparison test encounter utilizing a switch hitter fighter actually managed to end with the fighter still alive.

Similar test runs by a couple others had the CW fighter dying to wizards and the like. All goblins.

Took all of five minutes to update the standard test run scenario and I've been doing test runs since this morning. So far, the CW specialized fighter you posted ends up dying nine times out of ten against goblins using basic strategy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:


It's about 53% to 47%, which (largely irrelevantly) is about the same margin by which the last couple of presidential elections have been decided. Which is why I said "roughly 50-50," and also noted that there is going to be a negative bias built in, because people who are upset about something will always be more vocal about it than people who approve.

And unless I am missing something, the arguments aren't largely being put in terms of, "I fully admit it needed weakening, but I think it went too far." It's been more like...

Based on my count it's 53:47 in favor of it not needing any nerfs whatsoever and like 90:10 on this nerf being too much. If 90% of people are saying that this is an overnerf considering how much people hate Crane wing I think it's safe to say Paizo f%!&ed up somewhere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:
SlimGauge wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
...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.

IF the player is intelligent, and uses Crane Wing the way it's meant to be used?

No, you really can't use melee against it. He'll smartly deny creatures their full attack actions. The rest of the party will help him do that. Unless you have all hydras that get full attacks on SA's, a good Crane Winger can simply make it almost impossible to melee successfully.

That's a type of invulnerability. It's boring and frustrating after you do it the 10th time for all involved, even if it's cool and stylish the first couple of times.

If you're playing mook creatures...Crane Wing already caters to high AC. The threat from lots of mooks is not a threat. It's just more dice rolling.

==Aelryinth

If you're invoking a "rest of the party", then you've invoked the solution. Ignore the crane winger until the rest of the party is dead.

Liberty's Edge

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

Ran a test run using the build you posted. Your CW specialization, with three people in a group, vs. a group of goblins with class levels.

One of those goblins was an alchemist. Your CW build died on the second round.

...I see.

So you got through a touch AC of 19 and 47 hit points in less than two rounds. With an alchemist.

What level was the alchemist, exactly?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

IF the player is intelligent, and uses Crane Wing the way it's meant to be used?

No, you really can't use melee against it. He'll smartly deny creatures their full attack actions. The rest of the party will help him do that. Unless you have all hydras that get full attacks on SA's, a good Crane Winger can simply make it almost impossible to melee successfully.

That's a type of invulnerability. It's boring and frustrating after you do it the 10th time for all involved, even if it's cool and stylish the first couple of times.

If you're playing mook creatures...Crane Wing already caters to high AC. The threat from lots of mooks is not a threat. It's just more dice rolling.

==Aelryinth

FEINT. FEINT STOPS IT. If the monk isn't raising his Sense Motive, the DC will even be in their favor since Monks are not actually full BAB.

I feel like no one thinks this is a legitimate thing >.>


Shisumo wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

Ran a test run using the build you posted. Your CW specialization, with three people in a group, vs. a group of goblins with class levels.

One of those goblins was an alchemist. Your CW build died on the second round.

...I see.

So you got through a touch AC of 19 and 47 hit points in less than two rounds. With an alchemist.

What level was the alchemist, exactly?

With an alchemist and three other goblins. Keep in mind that goblins get a +4 to dexterity and do not have an intelligence penalty. Taking a standard Point Blank Shot feat for the level also helps.

Alchemist goblin had standard NPC heroic scores that, with racial adjustments, gave it an intelligence of 15 and a dexterity of 18. Add in it being level 4, simply because I wanted to give the party an advantage, and that Intelligence is bumped to 16 and it has a Base Attack bonus of +3. That's 3 base attack +4 dexterity bonus +1 for Throw Anything +1 for Point Blank Shot. Total level 4 attack bonus of +9. And this is an unoptimized alchemist. I'm pretty certain that putting in some effort could have had that attack bonus much higher. Add to that the goblin using explosive bombs, which gave it a +1d6 of fire damage to its 2d6 damage and had a tendency to set the fighter on fire.

On an average roll, hitting a touch AC of 19 was easy.

Edit: Yep. I could have. Taking Weapon Focus instead of Extra Bombs would have bumped that attack bonus one higher, and building it using 20 point buy would have just made it entirely unfair. And even without using 20 point buy, using mutagens would have made it worse. Combining in mutagens and Weapon Focus, I could easily have gotten a +12 to attack for that goblin.

Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Throne wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

@Eirikrautha - Way to focus on word choice and ignore the point. Throne was complaining about Paizo not listening to its customers or heeding their feedback. But it was outside-the-company feedback that prompted the change in the first place; that is, the fact that the errata happened at all disproves Throne's claims that Paizo doesn't listen/respond to community feedback.

What you've done is to avoid facing an inconvenient truth by drawing attention away from it, toward a word choice detail that's not even relevant to the context of the statement it was in.

It proves that they might occassionally nod in the direction of feedback from a small group of an already narrow segment of the customer base if it agrees with them, yes.

That's not at all similar to listening to or taking on board the feedback of other customers, especially the ones that happen not to agree with them.

When a customer tells me I've done great work, he's obviously a smart man and worth listening to.
When a customer tells me I've not done great work... well that other guy liked it, this guy obviously doesn't know anything.

Where'd all my customers go? :(

We listen to all customer feedback we get, no matter the source and no matter the tone. While I know you do not agree with the change, I would please just ask that you don't assume that we are not listening to all the feedback we get. Thank you.


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Throne wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

@Eirikrautha - Way to focus on word choice and ignore the point. Throne was complaining about Paizo not listening to its customers or heeding their feedback. But it was outside-the-company feedback that prompted the change in the first place; that is, the fact that the errata happened at all disproves Throne's claims that Paizo doesn't listen/respond to community feedback.

What you've done is to avoid facing an inconvenient truth by drawing attention away from it, toward a word choice detail that's not even relevant to the context of the statement it was in.

It proves that they might occassionally nod in the direction of feedback from a small group of an already narrow segment of the customer base if it agrees with them, yes.

That's not at all similar to listening to or taking on board the feedback of other customers, especially the ones that happen not to agree with them.

When a customer tells me I've done great work, he's obviously a smart man and worth listening to.
When a customer tells me I've not done great work... well that other guy liked it, this guy obviously doesn't know anything.

Where'd all my customers go? :(

We listen to all customer feedback we get, no matter the source and no matter the tone. While I know you do not agree with the change, I would please just ask that you don't assume that we are not listening to all the feedback we get. Thank you.

Speaking of sources and tone, with all the anger going on here have you guys gotten any bricks with "UN-NERF CRANE NOW" thrown through your windows yet?


chaoseffect wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
We listen to all customer feedback we get, no matter the source and no matter the tone. While I know you do not agree with the change, I would please just ask that you don't assume that we are not listening to all the feedback we get. Thank you.
Speaking of sources and tone, with all the anger going on here have you guys gotten any bricks with "UN-NERF CRANE NOW" thrown through your windows yet?

Maybe those chicken 'crane' wings someone sent them the other day were poisoned? People always forget that the Paizo Dev class has a good Fort save.


Natch wrote:
Maybe those chicken 'crane' wings someone sent them the other day were poisoned? People always forget that the Paizo Dev class has a good Fort save.

It's just too bad that the main draw of the class is all the bonus feats it gets. Feats just aren't good enough to carry the class, especially when the feats are getting nerfed :(

1,351 to 1,400 of 2,304 << first < prev | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Crane Wing Errata in latest printing All Messageboards