Crane Wing Errata in latest printing


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1,401 to 1,450 of 2,304 << first < prev | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | next > last >>

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

The devs are the penultimate geeks; they make games that geeks like us play.

They have immunity to poisons. It's how they survive living only on the typical geek diet.


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?

No, but they were sent a bunch of Crane Wings. =p

Paizo Employee Lead Designer

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

And here I thought this thread was finally on track...

Folks, please be civil to one another. Once again, I am seeing way too many posts that need moderation. Here is a couple of points..

1. Keep it on topic. There is way too much meandering in this thread talking about issues that have little to do with the topic at hand.

2. Once again... this time for clarity. PFS did not mandate this decision. They brought it to our attention, just as many other departments bring issues to our attention. We took a look at it from our stand point and decided to make a change. I fully understand that their play style does not match the play style of everyone else's game, just like I understand that your play style is unique as well. That does not make your input any less valuable. It does not make theirs any less valuable. We weigh them individually and try to look at these things from above the fray. Its obvious many do not agree, but you can leave PFS out of it.

3. Any suggestion that we do not respect and value you, or our customers as a whole, is entirely off base. We might get frustrated at times, but we do value you, even if we don't agree.

4. We almost have a fix for Crane Riposte. Expect to see it posted up later today.

That is all for now folks. Play nice.. please.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Natch wrote:
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.

No one has thrown bricks though our window. :)

And the tasty food sent to us by some folks who supported the change were not poisoned. They were delicious, as was the pizza and breadsticks that came with it. :)

That being said, while the food was appreciated, it was also not expected, nor does sending us food or bricks affect rules decisions.

I understand that this is a contentious issue. I have read every single post in this thread, listened to people about this issue, received a number of personal messages, and we have done a good deal of thinking on this issue and continue to do so.

The fact is that we spend a crazy amount of time thinking on this game and listening to our fans that spend a great deal of time playing and thinking about this game as well.

What I object to is the idea that somehow we don't care about the game or our customers. We are all passionate about Pathfinder, love our fans (even when they are yelling at us), and work every day to make the game the best it can be. I know some of you are upset, but leveling sinister or unfair motivations on us is...well...just plain untrue. I would humbly ask that you don't let your disagreement over this rules issue to somehow expand into something out of proportion.

Hey, I can ask, right?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

For an Antipaladin you have exceptional PR skills.

Almost suspiciously so.

I'm keeping my eye on you.


chaoseffect wrote:

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?

My throwing arm's not that good :(

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm. So, why exactly did the Crane Wing guy, with a higher Dex and Touch AC, die when the fighter did not?

If the alchemist can get through 47 hp at higher AC with bombs, it can get through the same HP at lower AC even better.

If you're saying the Crane Wing guy can't whip out a bow and shoot back at the alchemist, and with his higher Dex hit more then the fighter, something's wrong. Moreover, he can't take his own basic strategy and seek cover against the bombs?

What kind of dumb CW user are you playing, now?

And you do know that when he's using a bow, he's only holding it in one hand on the off turn, and gets full CW use, right? And can still riposte with UA?

Or were you using a finesse weapon for sucky damage, instead of 2h'ing a longsword on his turn and going 1H on off turns? Dumb tactics like that make a difference, too.

And then you used a race optimized for throwing fire bombs...racial bonus to damage, and +4 to Dex. Yar. Mmm.

Just saying that you've either got a dumb CW guy sitting there and taking it, or your examples are way off. The CW guy should be able to absolutely ignore the goons and go right for the alchemist, or is he too dumb to do that? Throwing bombs at point blank range provokes. The alchemist should have died quickly, regardless of which fighter we are talking about.

==Aelryinth


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

And here I thought this thread was finally on track...

Folks, please be civil to one another. Once again, I am seeing way too many posts that need moderation. Here is a couple of points..

1. Keep it on topic. There is way too much meandering in this thread talking about issues that have little to do with the topic at hand.

2. Once again... this time for clarity. PFS did not mandate this decision. They brought it to our attention, just as many other departments bring issues to our attention. We took a look at it from our stand point and decided to make a change. I fully understand that their play style does not match the play style of everyone else's game, just like I understand that your play style is unique as well. That does not make your input any less valuable. It does not make theirs any less valuable. We weigh them individually and try to look at these things from above the fray. Its obvious many do not agree, but you can leave PFS out of it.

3. Any suggestion that we do not respect and value you, or our customers as a whole, is entirely off base. We might get frustrated at times, but we do value you, even if we don't agree.

4. We almost have a fix for Crane Riposte. Expect to see it posted up later today.

That is all for now folks. Play nice.. please.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Re #4: So, would that be posted on the blog, or another errata download, or this thread, or what precisely?

EDIT: misread that, thought it was for Crane Wing rather than Crane Riposte. Am sad again. =(


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Natch wrote:
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.

No one has thrown bricks though our window. :)

And the tasty food sent to us by some folks who supported the change were not poisoned. They were delicious, as was the pizza and breadsticks that came with it. :)

Just want to clarify that I don't think everyone who helped send the food agreed with the change! It was more about showing appreciation and empathy for dealing with the community, even when portions of the community were pretty angry. It's not easy to deal with angry people, and you guys have done a pretty swell job of that.

Liberty's Edge

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
4. We almost have a fix for Crane Riposte. Expect to see it posted up later today.

Man, I hate how Paizo never listens to their customers and always rushes errata out the door without thinking about it at all.


IMO, Crane Wing was too powerful as it was previously written. It needed to receive a "rebalance in the negative direction" (nerf). I do believe that it was nerfed a bit more than necessary given how high the prerequisites are for the feats, however that belief is predicated upon Crane Riposte not being very useful. Jason has informed us that Crane Riposte will receive an errata - I will wait until I see that change to pass further judgement...

As for the "overwhelming opinion" in this thread that the nerf to Crane Wing was unnecessary, I would dispute how "overwhelming" it really is. I agree that it was necessary, and had, until Jason's post, resigned myself to only observing this thread. And I strongly suspect that I am not the only one who is happy with the change but checked out of this thread long ago due to it's overwhelmingly negative attitude...


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
1. Keep it on topic. There is way too much meandering in this thread talking about issues that have little to do with the topic at hand.

The wider issues that people are upset about and see this latest stunt as symptomatic of are on topic, however convenient it might be to try and isolate, segment, and divide the discussion to paint it as only a couple of people upset about a couple of unrelated things.


Shisumo wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
4. We almost have a fix for Crane Riposte. Expect to see it posted up later today.
Man, I hate how Paizo never listens to their customers and always rushes errata out the door without thinking about it at all.

It's a shame that Crane Riposte is now clearly inferior to Snake Sidewind.

Since now we know that taking those AoOs are a break from the norm of even total defense, it's better to total defense and run through all the enemies with Snake Fang.

And now I have even less hope since the fix is apparently for Crane Riposte and not Crane Wing.

Paizo Employee Lead Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Throne wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
1. Keep it on topic. There is way too much meandering in this thread talking about issues that have little to do with the topic at hand.
The wider issues that people are upset about and see this latest stunt as symptomatic of are on topic, however convenient it might be to try and isolate, segment, and divide the discussion to paint it as only a couple of people upset about a couple of unrelated things.

I am not sure I would qualify it as symptomatic, when it is one change in almost 100 points of errata and clarification in one book. If you are intent upon seeing some ulterior motive here, I am not sure what I can do to convince you. I am not trying to divide the crowd. I am trying to make sure that it does not devolve into an argument about semantics and sniping back in forth about perceived slights.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer


Shisumo wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
4. We almost have a fix for Crane Riposte. Expect to see it posted up later today.
Man, I hate how Paizo never listens to their customers and always rushes errata out the door without thinking about it at all.

Me too :(

Of course, if the errata had been thought through properly, Crane Riposte wouldn't need a fix.
It's really not hard to ask 'well, what impact will these changes have?'
I mean, Crane Riposte is right there. Same book. Same page, even. It's not exactly an obscure feat interaction.

As far as listening to their customers... I'm expecting the fix for Crane Riposte to be a simple clarification. 'This allows you to make an Attack of Opportunity while Totally Defensive' rather than anything to actually make the feat useful again. (A 'fix' in the sense my neighbour had her dog fixed...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Keep in mind, this entire thread has 39 people in it posting who aren't on the design team.

There are far more than 39 players of Pathfinder. Far, far more. These changes only bring out the people who strongly dislike the change. It's the classic case of MMO forums. The angry people are the ones who are posting. Not because everyone who plays the game is angry at whatever change.

But because the people who are enjoying the game and aren't angry are too busy playing the game to write angry posts on the forums.

Is it a couple of people angry? No. It's more than a couple. But it's not some community wide thing. Many are happy with the change. They just don't have any reason to post.

Lantern Lodge

Saying that Paizo doesn't hear our feedback is foolish. Even if we completely discount the fact that they play and enjoy the game themselves, any company has to moderate consumer info.

That said, hearing our feedback won't always equal agreement or change. I am firmly in the camp of believing Crane Wing, by itself, was finely balanced for mid level play and onward, and I hope they revise their errata to be more inline with the original function and a slightly higher level requirement.

The one thing I hope that is taken away from our feedback (if you can sift through the emotional explosions) is that defense is generally considered to be less useful pound for pound compared to offense, and a lot of people hope to see that gap bridged in some capacity. Crane Wing the previous did an excellent job of doing so.

In a related tragedy, the Crane Wing loss really hurts monks more than any other class, and I suspect that they were class most meant to benefit from it's use. The loss is keenly felt for most of them, while being less of a blow for the classes that splashed it in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:

Keep in mind, this entire thread has 39 people in it posting who aren't on the design team.

There are far more than 39 players of Pathfinder. Far, far more. These changes only bring out the people who strongly dislike the change. It's the classic case of MMO forums. The angry people are the ones who are posting. Not because everyone who plays the game is angry at whatever change.

But because the people who are enjoying the game and aren't angry are too busy playing the game to write angry posts on the forums.

Is it a couple of people angry? No. It's more than a couple. But it's not some community wide thing. Many are happy with the change. They just don't have any reason to post.

One could turn this post around to refer to the people who "brought it to their attention" to begin with, you know.


Rynjin wrote:
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?
No, but they were sent a bunch of Crane Wings. =p

Personally, I like to imagine that any bricks sent through a window have a note on the back saying "I owe you one window".

Cheapy wrote:

Keep in mind, this entire thread has 39 people in it posting who aren't on the design team.

There are far more than 39 players of Pathfinder. Far, far more. These changes only bring out the people who strongly dislike the change. It's the classic case of MMO forums. The angry people are the ones who are posting. Not because everyone who plays the game is angry at whatever change.

It brings out a lot of people. I'm not sure if its safe to say 'only' the people who dislike the change. That first guy who posted didn't seem to dislike it that much.


MrSin wrote:


It brings out a lot of people. I'm not sure if its safe to say 'only' the people who dislike the change. That first guy who posted didn't seem to dislike it that much.

Which he knows, since he IS the first guy who posted.


Rynjin wrote:
MrSin wrote:


It brings out a lot of people. I'm not sure if its safe to say 'only' the people who dislike the change. That first guy who posted didn't seem to dislike it that much.

Which he knows, since he IS the first guy who posted.

I believe he was alluding to that fact Rynjin.

Liberty's Edge

Rynjin wrote:
Cheapy wrote:

Keep in mind, this entire thread has 39 people in it posting who aren't on the design team.

There are far more than 39 players of Pathfinder. Far, far more. These changes only bring out the people who strongly dislike the change. It's the classic case of MMO forums. The angry people are the ones who are posting. Not because everyone who plays the game is angry at whatever change.

But because the people who are enjoying the game and aren't angry are too busy playing the game to write angry posts on the forums.

Is it a couple of people angry? No. It's more than a couple. But it's not some community wide thing. Many are happy with the change. They just don't have any reason to post.

One could turn this post around to refer to the people who "brought it to their attention" to begin with, you know.

Which in turn might suggest that the devs did exactly what they said they did, which was consider the matter on its own and decide that the feat needed changing.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Throne wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
1. Keep it on topic. There is way too much meandering in this thread talking about issues that have little to do with the topic at hand.
The wider issues that people are upset about and see this latest stunt as symptomatic of are on topic, however convenient it might be to try and isolate, segment, and divide the discussion to paint it as only a couple of people upset about a couple of unrelated things.

I am not sure I would qualify it as symptomatic, when it one change in almost 100 points of errata and clarification in one book. If you are intent upon seeing some ulterior motive here, I am not sure what I can do to convince you. I am not trying to divide the crowd. I am trying to make sure that it does not devolve into an argument about semantics and sniping back in forth about perceived slights.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

to be fair to the people you think are derailing the thread, this is not the first time that a possibly half-baked errata has caused a riot on the forums. While not symptomatic of anything intentional on your part it is an unfortunate coincidence that the last two times this happened it was about monks too.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:


I am not sure I would qualify it as symptomatic, when it one change in almost 100 points of errata and clarification in one book. If you are intent upon seeing some ulterior motive here, I am not sure what I can do to convince you. I am not trying to divide the crowd. I am trying to make sure that it does not devolve into an argument about semantics and sniping back in forth about perceived slights.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Except those of us concerned aren't thinking of one change this is one in a long line of changes which we find dubious. Off the top of my head the Brass Knuckles Errata and the Flurry of Blows changes which necessitated a roll back shine among others. We're just not discussing the other changes we don't agree with in order to stay on topic and because frankly at this point those are old news and you wouldn't change them either way.

That all being said I don't think it's any kind of sinister plan. You guys are doing your best to make the best game you can think of. I just think it's possible that you guys think the game would be better off without Monks, Rogues, or Fighters in it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

2. Once again... this time for clarity. PFS did not mandate this decision. They brought it to our attention, just as many other departments bring issues to our attention. We took a look at it from our stand point and decided to make a change. I fully understand that their play style does not match the play style of everyone else's game, just like I understand that your play style is unique as well. That does not make your input any less valuable. It does not make theirs any less valuable. We weigh them individually and try to look at these things from above the fray. Its obvious many do not agree, but you can leave PFS out of it.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Surely you understand that with a game as complex as Pathfinder that drawing observations from a system where the GM is literally unable to change encounters or modify tactics is inherently flawed.


Scavion wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
MrSin wrote:
It brings out a lot of people. I'm not sure if its safe to say 'only' the people who dislike the change. That first guy who posted didn't seem to dislike it that much.
Which he knows, since he IS the first guy who posted.
I believe he was alluding to that fact Rynjin.

I was, and I was considering a better way to note that. LOUD AUDIBLE WINK! just looked more obnoxious than a lamp shading should be though. Was meant to sound very cheery and friendly! Tone isn't translating through the internet though. I'm starting to wonder if people think I have a dark evil rumbling voice sometimes...


MrSin wrote:
I was, and I was considering a better way to note that. LOUD AUDIBLE WINK! just looked more obnoxious than a lamp shading should be though. Was meant to sound very cheery and friendly! Tone isn't translating through the internet though. I'm starting to wonder if people think I have a dark evil rumbling voice sometimes...

You literally have "Sin" in your username. I think you should understand if people attribute evil intent to you.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:


4. We almost have a fix for Crane Riposte. Expect to see it posted up later today.

Sounds as if crane wing remains "fixed".


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Throne wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
1. Keep it on topic. There is way too much meandering in this thread talking about issues that have little to do with the topic at hand.
The wider issues that people are upset about and see this latest stunt as symptomatic of are on topic, however convenient it might be to try and isolate, segment, and divide the discussion to paint it as only a couple of people upset about a couple of unrelated things.

I am not sure I would qualify it as symptomatic, when it one change in almost 100 points of errata and clarification in one book. If you are intent upon seeing some ulterior motive here, I am not sure what I can do to convince you. I am not trying to divide the crowd. I am trying to make sure that it does not devolve into an argument about semantics and sniping back in forth about perceived slights.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Why are you guys still reading this thread?

People who said "Paizo obviously only listens to PFS feedback" were merely fishing for more dev involvement in the thread.

Every important aspect of this topic has already been conveyed to you guys and you have responded.

I may disagree with your philosophy of keeping the game balanced to the CRB, for the sake of keeping to the balance set in the CRB, but that doesn't mean I don't understand the sentiment.

Of course it also means I'm not particularly inspired to buy more books.

Seriously though, go do real work that may actually loosen my wallet.

Sovereign Court

Umbranus wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:


4. We almost have a fix for Crane Riposte. Expect to see it posted up later today.
Sounds as if crane wing remains "fixed".

Hey, if the wording on Crane Riposte indicates that it triggers with the +4 dodge bonus when fighting defensively, I'll be pretty happy. If not, I'll just rebuild and be slightly sad. :(

Paizo Employee Lead Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Why are you guys still reading this thread?

Because it is just as important for us to listen to you when you are unhappy with our decisions as it is when you agree with us.

We honestly just want to make a fun game that everyone enjoys. Thats is, in some ways, an unattainable goal (we will never please everyone), but it is what we are trying to do.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Acedio wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:


4. We almost have a fix for Crane Riposte. Expect to see it posted up later today.
Sounds as if crane wing remains "fixed".
Hey, if the wording on Crane Riposte indicates that it triggers with the +4 dodge bonus when fighting defensively, I'll be pretty happy.

You may as well go Snake Style with Snake Fang then. That is far more effective for what is essentially the same.

Sovereign Court

Haha yeah, probably good advice :D


Jason Bulmahn wrote:


We honestly just want to make a fun game that everyone enjoys. Thats is, in some ways, an unattainable goal (we will never please everyone), but it is what we are trying to do.

I really understand and believe that. But somehow often your FAQ/errata, and not just this one, seem to contradict that.

As much as I like this game, you created, as much do I often sit here, puzzled, why you ruled as you did in some errata/FAQ.


Tholomyes wrote:

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.

This was a good post, and I hope it does not get lost amongst the blatant hyperbole, whether that from "my side" ("PFS was just an excuse for the devs to fulfill their sinister desires to nerf Crane Style!") or across the aisle ("Crane Wing made certain melee encounters totally impotent in every circumstance!")


Scavion wrote:
Acedio wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:


4. We almost have a fix for Crane Riposte. Expect to see it posted up later today.
Sounds as if crane wing remains "fixed".
Hey, if the wording on Crane Riposte indicates that it triggers with the +4 dodge bonus when fighting defensively, I'll be pretty happy.
You may as well go Snake Style with Snake Fang then. That is far more effective for what is essentially the same.

Shhh... Keep Quiet! We don't want another feat nerfed to extinction!

Lantern Lodge

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


Surely you understand that with a game as complex as Pathfinder that drawing observations from a system where the GM is literally unable to change encounters or modify tactics is inherently flawed.

I have to clarify a little bit here: GMs can change encounters and tactics if PC actions allow it. Now, by change encounters, I mean perhaps changing NPC locations if the PCs make a lot of noise or skip some encounters, not adding new monsters for the party. Same thing with tactics; the baseline tactics listed should be used as much as possible, but for particularly intelligent NPCs, it makes complete sense for things to change after the initial volley; Storming the Diamond Gate is an excellent scenario that offers a battle that will challenge PCs. Lastly, NPCs may be given subpar tactics as a balancing act (see First Steps pt1 for a battle that should be far more deadly, but isn't when the tactics are applied).

While the above may be unsatisfactory to you, I wanted to inform you that GMs are not completely locked in place. It may still be easy to trivialize encounters with the right builds, but considering that PFS is written not knowing exactly who's showing up to the table, it's overall far more successful at keeping things fun that not.

That said, Jason explained that PFS is a good source of baseline data to use for feedback, but is not the only source; a quick search on Paizo's General Discussion forums show a number of threads about Crane Wing which offer a variety of discussion about frustration with Crane Wing (as well as advice on how to stop it, many of which mirror posts in this thread).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

Hmm. So, why exactly did the Crane Wing guy, with a higher Dex and Touch AC, die when the fighter did not?

If the alchemist can get through 47 hp at higher AC with bombs, it can get through the same HP at lower AC even better.

If you're saying the Crane Wing guy can't whip out a bow and shoot back at the alchemist, and with his higher Dex hit more then the fighter, something's wrong. Moreover, he can't take his own basic strategy and seek cover against the bombs?

What kind of dumb CW user are you playing, now?

And you do know that when he's using a bow, he's only holding it in one hand on the off turn, and gets full CW use, right? And can still riposte with UA?

Or were you using a finesse weapon for sucky damage, instead of 2h'ing a longsword on his turn and going 1H on off turns? Dumb tactics like that make a difference, too.

And then you used a race optimized for throwing fire bombs...racial bonus to damage, and +4 to Dex. Yar. Mmm.

Just saying that you've either got a dumb CW guy sitting there and taking it, or your examples are way off. The CW guy should be able to absolutely ignore the goons and go right for the alchemist, or is he too dumb to do that? Throwing bombs at point blank range provokes. The alchemist should have died quickly, regardless of which fighter we are talking about.

==Aelryinth

Well, to start with, we're comparing two fighters. So to answer your question, the kind of dumb CW user being played is the kind dumb enough to be a CW user as a fighter without dipping into MoMS.

Plus, the CW fighter only has a Dex of 14. The switch hitter fighter used for comparison actually had a higher dex, along with feats that provided extra power to ranged combat.

Thirdly, Point Blank Range, as a feat, applies to 30 feet. The range of alchemist bombs is 20 feet. The alchemist was standing far enough away that their attacks did not provoke, and any attempt by the fighter to attack them would provoke an attack of opportunity against the fighter.

Finally, all of the CW guy's feats were related to melee, specifically in use of the longsword. At ranged, he's possibly quite screwed; he'll have to drop the defensive fighting to make full use of his attack bonus, which will only be +7 at ranged. That alchemist is, with a simple +1 chain shirt and a ring of protection +1, rocking an AC of 21. Higher, if he chooses to fight defensively. On an average roll, the CW fighter is not going to hit that at range.

Pretty much, if you want to see the build, go here. He pretty much put all of eggs into the basket of using a longsword.

Party with the fighter? Cleric, wizard, and ranger... pretty much, the fighter is the tank.

Now, did you happen to note the other three goblins? The other three are two fighters and a wizard. The fighters offer a front-line buffer, while the wizard and alchemist attack from range.

Pretty much, first round of actual combat after everyone has move into position (no damage done yet due to the PCs getting a GM-granted surprise round; I was actually trying to give them advantages), the CW fighter engages the fighters, laughs off their attacks, and then gets hit by an explosive alchemist bomb. That's 2d6 +1d6 fire damage, fails save and ends up on fire for 1d6 per round. Then eats an acid arrow for another 2d4 per round. The goblin fighters simply eat the splash damage and make their saves to avoid being on fire. Using a result of 4 per d6 and 2 per d4... he's already taken 16 points of damage. Party wizard magic missiles one of the goblins (failed his spellcraft check to allow him to counterspell the acid arrow), ranger fires a shot at the alchemist and misses, cleric summons a fire elemental to harass the goblin wizard.

31 hitpoints left.

Second round... drops the sword, grabs a bow (provoked attack of opportunity he uses Crane Wing to counter), stays up near the goblin fighters to utilize his high AC and ability to ignore an attack to keep them busy while he engages the alchemist and wizard at range. Rolls to attack, misses, takes another 8 points of damage. Gets hit by another alchemist bomb and magic missile this time... Total of another 16 points of damage. Note he's down to 7 hit points. Nasty time for one of the goblins to roll a crit... which naturally happens and he's down into the negatives.

Now, how did the switch hitter fight go?

Well, first, the switch hitter didn't move to engage the goblin fighters; instead, the cleric summoned a fire elemental to do that. While the fire elemental kept the goblin fighters busy, the wizard slammed the fighters with ranged spells and the ranger and fighter took out the wizard using their ranged attacks and ranged combat feats, all the while keeping themselves out of range of the alchemist's bombs. By being far enough away Point Blank Shot didn't come into play and having higher Dex scores, as well as the fighter using Medium armor instead of the heavy armor the CW fighter used, they were able to manage higher touch ACs that made it difficult for the alchemist to hit them beyond the first range increment. Once the wizard and fighters were dead... well, alchemists don't do so well in melee, and it had three party members and an elemental who dearly wanted to have an up close and personal conversation with it.

Now, note all of the above is basic strategy. We're currently doing a run where it goes much longer and the CW fighter is using more advanced tactics against those goblins, who are also using more advanced tactics. So far, the CW fighter isn't doing well, despite having backed off to use ranged... he's not taken much damage since the first round and managed to put the fire out, but he's also not done any damage and the alchemist and goblin wizard have already downed the party's wizard.

The group using more advanced tactics and the switch-hitter fighter are taking bets; they finished their combat an hour ago.

Edit: A note on why I used those damage values: I actually rolled max damage for both attacks on first round. That meant the fighter would have taken 26 points of damage in Round 1. Getting a high damage like that in Round 1 would also have invalidated the results. I also ignored the extra damage the alchemist gets from their intelligence bonus; that would have made it 28 points of damage in a single round and guaranteed death the next.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

4. We almost have a fix for Crane Riposte. Expect to see it posted up later today.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Im excited.

I know most people here are really upset about the change. I'm not a big fan of it either, but you have to admit as written it could be abused. I would agree with most that MoMS and Unarmed Fighter was a big problem. Instead of nerfing those two archtypes I am hoping for cleaner version of the Crane tree. I like the idea that a rogue or non-full BAB could make this two level dip for survival. Few things I hope for:

1-a scaling mechanic ,so that it would still be very useful at higher levels. Maybe a scaling dodge bonus depending on ranks of acrobatics.

2-with such a large feat investment, more utility out of the tree. Possible re-positions on crane wing. Other static bonus if you land your crane riposte.

Lets give the design team some credit, they have done a great job in the past. That is the reason we all play Pathfinder.


Slacker2010 wrote:
That is the reason we all play Pathfinder.

That's the reason you play pathfinder maybe. Opinions and reasons are going to vary. Probably best we don't all share.


Cheapy wrote:
Keep in mind, this entire thread has 39 people in it posting who aren't on the design team.

Did you actually count the number of posters? The forum poster count display is usually inaccurate.

Edit: I counted 40 unique posters (not employed by Paizo) in the first three pages. Granted, some people are reluctant to post in long threads but it seems odd that no other posters joined in the other 26 pages.


Kudaku wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
Keep in mind, this entire thread has 39 people in it posting who aren't on the design team.
Did you actually count the number of posters? The forum poster count display is usually inaccurate.

My forum counter has 45 posters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
Keep in mind, this entire thread has 39 people in it posting who aren't on the design team.
Did you actually count the number of posters? The forum poster count display is usually inaccurate.
My forum counter has 45 posters.

Yeah, mine's counting 42 at the moment. You really can't trust it.

Hm... So what are the odds that the revised Crane Riposte will be exactly like old Crane Wing? A man can hope...

Actually, isn't that kind of perfect? Leave Crane Wing the way it is now (useless) but when you pick up Crane Riposte it shifts the Deflect from "only when taking total defense" to "whenever fighting defensively".

It fixes the 2 level MoMS dip since you need all three style feats, it allows the old guard to keep their defensive feat, and with a note that natural 20 rolls cannot be deflected it would assuage everyone else.

At least it seems like a good compromise to me.


Slacker2010 wrote:
I would agree with most that MoMS and Unarmed Fighter was a big problem.

It wasn't even that big a problem dipping MoMS.

It's trivially easy to get around, and in no way requires rewriting entire encounters to account for, simply a tactical adjustment.
Sure, that's going to present problems when the tactics for a fight are written in advance with no knowledge of the party showing up and DMs who aren't allowed/are heavily discouraged from altering them.
But a defensive feat that makes you pretty tough when no tactical thought is applied against you, but is easily worked around otherwise... you know, to me, and I may be crazy here, but I think that's exactly what a good defensive feat should be. Especially when you look at the prereqs on Crane Wing (and assume that not everyone is going to work around those, even though that's not a terrible issue).
I think the outcry over it, and thus horribly handled and excessive nerf, is down to people being so used to melee getting absolutely terrible options that the moment they get one that's actually solid, someone's going to start crying.
But apparently that's off topic and we're not allowed to mention it.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

MagusJanus wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Hmm. So, why exactly did the Crane Wing guy, with a higher Dex and Touch AC, die when the fighter did not?

If the alchemist can get through 47 hp at higher AC with bombs, it can get through the same HP at lower AC even better.

If you're saying the Crane Wing guy can't whip out a bow and shoot back at the alchemist, and with his higher Dex hit more then the fighter, something's wrong. Moreover, he can't take his own basic strategy and seek cover against the bombs?

What kind of dumb CW user are you playing, now?

And you do know that when he's using a bow, he's only holding it in one hand on the off turn, and gets full CW use, right? And can still riposte with UA?

Or were you using a finesse weapon for sucky damage, instead of 2h'ing a longsword on his turn and going 1H on off turns? Dumb tactics like that make a difference, too.

And then you used a race optimized for throwing fire bombs...racial bonus to damage, and +4 to Dex. Yar. Mmm.

Just saying that you've either got a dumb CW guy sitting there and taking it, or your examples are way off. The CW guy should be able to absolutely ignore the goons and go right for the alchemist, or is he too dumb to do that? Throwing bombs at point blank range provokes. The alchemist should have died quickly, regardless of which fighter we are talking about.

==Aelryinth

Well, to start with, we're comparing two fighters. So to answer your question, the kind of dumb CW user being played is the kind dumb enough to be a CW user as a fighter without dipping into MoMS.

Plus, the CW fighter only has a Dex of 14. The switch hitter fighter used for comparison actually had a higher dex, along with feats that provided extra power to ranged combat.

Thirdly, Point Blank Range, as a feat, applies to 30 feet. The range of alchemist bombs is 20 feet. The alchemist was standing far enough away that their attacks did not provoke, and any attempt by the fighter to attack them would provoke an attack of opportunity against the fighter....

Wait, wait.

So, your CW fighter ran up, tanked a bunch of attacks, got hit by ranged attacks, and died.

Your other fighter played it smart, let the cleric summon up a fire elemental, sat back and plinked, and didn't take any damage to speak of.

Uh, what?

And the enemy casters and ranged combatants focused on the CW fighter, instead of the rest of the party, who amazingly didn't help the CW fighter at all in his fight.

Furthermore, the CW fighter didn't bother to ignore the melee combatants who could do no damage to him if he played smart, and go for the casters who could. The goblin meleers, on the other hand, somehow managed to get lucky and land multiple attacks on him at precisely the right time.

And hey, no summoned fire elementals to bail him out.

So, what I'm seeing here is officially the worst comparison test, ever.

Now, I want you to take that switch hitter and put him through the same exact tactics as the CW guy, with the same rolls and everything.

he's dead in one round because, by my count, he'll eat two attacks he can't crane wing, (dying on the AoO from suddenly getting his bow out in the middle of a fight),his AC is lower so he should be hit more (seriously, why does the Crane Wing have a low dex mod and heavy armor?), and his party will be standing around like lumps with their thumbs up their bum as the goblins concentrate all fire on the melee, instead of, you know, working with him, or being targeted by the enemy spellcasters like, you know, smart casters and ranged combatants do. Like they let the CW crash and burn.

Uh huh.

===Aelryinth


Kudaku wrote:

Actually, isn't that kind of perfect? Leave Crane Wing the way it is now (useless) but when you pick up Crane Riposte it shifts the Deflect from "only when taking total defense" to "whenever fighting defensively".

It fixes the 2 level MoMS dip since you need all three style feats, it allows the old guard to keep their defensive feat, and with a note that natural 20 rolls cannot be deflected it would assuage everyone else.

At least it seems like a good compromise to me.

I second this.

However I doubt they want to give PCs such as strong defensive option in the first place. It largely appears they don't want martial PCs to be able to deflect melee, without severe penalties anyways. You're best hope is they increase the penalties to attack while in Crane or something, then maybe they'd throw back in the old wing deflection

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kudaku wrote:
Tels wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
Keep in mind, this entire thread has 39 people in it posting who aren't on the design team.
Did you actually count the number of posters? The forum poster count display is usually inaccurate.
My forum counter has 45 posters.

Yeah, mine's counting 42 at the moment. You really can't trust it.

Hm... So what are the odds that the revised Crane Riposte will be exactly like old Crane Wing? A man can hope...

Actually, isn't that kind of perfect? Leave Crane Wing the way it is now (useless) but when you pick up Crane Riposte it shifts the Deflect from "only when taking total defense" to "whenever fighting defensively".

It fixes the 2 level MoMS dip since you need all three style feats, it allows the old guard to keep their defensive feat, and with a note that natural 20 rolls cannot be deflected it would assuage everyone else.

At least it seems like a good compromise to me.

I'd personally add an addendum that Vital strikes are only reduced to half damage, and SA damage isn't affected, but that's me.

Wing should be nerfed, but they went a little overboard on the Riposte. Feats that allows AoO's once a round after a missed attack already exist. I didn't see a problem with Riposte.

==Aelryinth


Darth Grall wrote:
Kudaku wrote:

Actually, isn't that kind of perfect? Leave Crane Wing the way it is now (useless) but when you pick up Crane Riposte it shifts the Deflect from "only when taking total defense" to "whenever fighting defensively".

It fixes the 2 level MoMS dip since you need all three style feats, it allows the old guard to keep their defensive feat, and with a note that natural 20 rolls cannot be deflected it would assuage everyone else.

At least it seems like a good compromise to me.

I second this.

However I doubt they want to give PCs such as strong defensive option in the first place. It largely appears they don't want martial PCs to be able to deflect melee, without severe penalties anyways. You're best hope is they increase the penalties to attack while in Crane or something, then maybe they'd throw back in the old wing deflection

I'm not sure how it fixes the 2 level MoMS dip, when you can get all 3 feats with a 2 level MoMS dip?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think you misunderstood my post, Aelryinth.

Basically you take the 1/round melee attack deflection from old crane wing and bake it into the new Crane Riposte. It would read something like this:

Crane Riposte (Combat) You have perfected your defensive form.
Prerequisites: Crane Style, Crane Wing, Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +8 or monk level 7th.
Benefit: You take only a –1 penalty on attack rolls for fighting defensively.

You can now use Crane Wing to deflect one attack that would normally hit you while using either the Fighting Defensively or the Total Defense action. An attack roll of 20 cannot be deflected.

Edited: Rephrased the wording so that it requires taking Crane Wing in order to gain access to the deflection option.


Aelryinth wrote:
I'd personally add an addendum that Vital strikes are only reduced to half damage, and SA damage isn't affected, but that's me.

See I'd want it to block Sneak Attacks since if you're flat-footed you can't deflect. Seems to me that they should have to Feint or something to get off those

If we're adding things it can't negate tho, it can't negate a crit from actually hitting. Just regular damage.

1,401 to 1,450 of 2,304 << first < prev | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Crane Wing Errata in latest printing All Messageboards