Tels, RE, thanks for posting that. Here's my thoughts, in no particular order:
1). Awesome choice of race/class/feat combination. I approve heartily from a min-maxing perspective.
2). That character is in no way a "standard" character. Playing a Lyrakien, for a build of this sort, is worth far more than 2 character levels due to all the abilities synergizing perfectly.
Now, that said, you built the character very well. If you replaced the race with a standard one and added two levels, you would no doubt still be extremely effective. But that said, I have read enough of your posts to know that your system mastery is strong, and because of that you know your numbers on that build are hyper inflated from that race alone. Examining only the pertinent combat stats, simply by choosing a standard race we'd be knocking off:
- 6 to 8 points of Dexterity
- 1 to 2 points of attack bonus from size
- 1 to 2 points of AC from size
- 4 to 6 points of Wisdom
- 8 to 10 points of Charisma
- 1 HD/levelSo let's take a hafling to compare, since that race would synergize well with your build. As a halfling, you would be down:
6 points of Dexterity, 6 points of Wisdom, 8 points of Charisma, and 1 size catagory. Including your use of Osyluth's guile, that is a net loss of:
- 11 points of AC
- 4 points to hit
- 3 points of Ref save
- 3 points of Will save
- at least 3 points of damage, possibly more? I am not sure how that McFarland feat works, nor I am intimately familiar with Swashbuckler for class feature knowledgeNow, I have no doubt you could design a CR 16 character that could kill a balor lord and/or treerazor. But that is not because Crane Wing is grossly OP - it is because you have a very good grasp of system mastery. Like myself, Crane Wing is a tool that helps with that goal, but we would still succeed at that task whether it was in our tool box or not.
Playing a very powerful, non-standard race will certainly change the dynamics of the game. Just some points to consider. Thanks for...
Since you aren't familiar with Swash, I'll point out then that the choice of Starknife was an extremely extremely bad weapon for the class. I just had a giggle one evening imagining a Lyrakien Swashbuckler, and the race and weapon choice were not intended as an optimization exercise but rather an RP one. Replace those missing lyrakien HD with paladin levels and the halfling you posted makes up nearly the entire defensive gap while jumping massively in offense from adding Cha to hit.
All the other Swashbuckler playtest characters I made are PFS legal races, but Tels linked that one because it was the highest level. For instance, I also have Grace, who solos a pit fiend here, Drew Parrymore who solos grendel and then 4 young grendel here, and Rhiana who takes on two dragons in something that happened in the Kingmaker homegame for non-swash Rhiana (who also won the encounter) here.
Now, I have no doubt you could design a CR 16 character that could kill a balor lord and/or treerazor. But that is not because Crane Wing is grossly OP - it is because you have a very good grasp of system mastery. Like myself, Crane Wing is a tool that helps with that goal, but we would still succeed at that task whether it was in our tool box or not.
This tool, however, is much much much more powerful than all other tools (except for Osyluth Guile, which is for the record also broken and particularly broken in combination with Crane making fighting defensively a -1; in general it's a bad idea to make a feat that adds an ability score to something like AC or a saving throw, but Osyluth Guile is in the companion line, and the designers are understandably more worried about balance in the hardcover core line).
The idea that "appeal to authority" is somehow a fallacy is an invention of the Internet.Would you like to know more?
Wikipedia is not a valid source.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wikipedia is not a valid source.The idea that "appeal to authority" is somehow a fallacy is an invention of the Internet.Would you like to know more?
Welcome to 2002 everyone.
If you do a little research on your own you'll find the same thing. You certainly will not find anything supporting your position that the internet created that particular fallacy.
The idea that "appeal to authority" is somehow a fallacy is an invention of the Internet.Would you like to know more?I think Thales was the first to bring up this logic flaw and he predated the quantification of logic.
So no, the internet did not invent the idea.
I should know better than to try to use hyperbole in a post like that, but I keep doing it anyway. Fair enough. Here's another way of putting it: It's a recent development (compared to ~300BC) with an unfortunate name, since "appeal to authority" is also the most common English translation of "ethos."
The trouble is that people these days read "appeal to authority is a fallacy," then link to the Wikipedia entry without having a full understanding of its meaning. An "appeal to authority" is not inherently fallacious--sometimes it's simply a matter of a source of information identifying itself (or being identified) as having credibility in the matter. As seemed to be the case in the post to which I was responding.
Thank for your thoughts, though. I was mainly curious to learn if you believed it to be unbalancing at high level play by itself.
The original non-Swashbuckler Rhiana has used it from campaign level 7-14 (she was level 5-12 due to being a cohort) to dizzying effect, and she is not really a combo build. The idea behind her character was just to be an Aldori Swordlord, so that's what she is. It quickly got to the point where the PC falchion fighter (admittedly played by a very cowardly player) started having his character hide and make ranged attacks and make the cohort be the one to engage things in melee. Eventually, the cohort said "If you're not going to be man enough to go into melee, I'm taking that awesome transformative weapon we found", to which the fighter said "Oh, that's an excellent point--you should definitely have it. I'll stay in the back." It was pretty funny, and extremely telling, since the falchion fighter is a heavily optimized two-hander.
It was funny because Rhiana came with an OOC battlecry from me of "Don't worry guys, according to the forums she has no offense because she uses Crane Style and Agile". This usually occurred when she was doing extremely high damage.
Wikipedia is not a valid source.The idea that "appeal to authority" is somehow a fallacy is an invention of the Internet.Would you like to know more?
Here's a valid source for you.
What then happened to make it a fallacy? There are two things to be taken into account. The first factor is that Locke, in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690) claimed to have invented the expression argumentum ad verecundiam, using the term to refer to a distinctive species of argumentation where one party in dispute tries to exploit the respect of the other party in order for an established authority to make him submit to the first party's argument (see section 7). There is no evidence that anyone prior to Locke used the expression argumentum ad verecundiam in this way, to refer to a distinctive type of argumentation of this kind, so we presume Locke did in fact invent this phrase (Hamblin, 1970, 161). Locke did not describe this type of argument as (inherently) fallacious, but textbooks did subsequently interpret his account this way. Here then is the origin of the ad verecundiam expression, and it is after Locke that it took on the tendency to be classified as a fallacy.
The second factor is the rise of empirical science in western Europe and the resulting conflict with the accepted use of appeal to authority as a conclusive type of argument almost beyond challenge - particularly the authority of Aristotle and the authority of the Church - that had been prevalent in the Middle Ages. [...etc. -Coriat]
Age of Enlightenment 1. Internet 0.
And now back to your regularly scheduled Crane Wing!
The trouble is that people these days read "appeal to authority is a fallacy," then link to the Wikipedia entry without having a full understanding of its meaning.
Gee, thanks for inferring I don't know what it means or anything. I think it might've been best just not to call it an invention of the internet and instead explain that some people misuse it. How you word things is important, dontcha' know. I just linked it so people got a better idea of what it was, referenced star troopers, and to note that it wasn't actually an invention of the internet.
Wikipedia is not a valid source.The idea that "appeal to authority" is somehow a fallacy is an invention of the Internet.Would you like to know more?Here's a valid source for you.
** spoiler omitted **
Age of Enlightenment 1. Internet 0.
And now back to your regularly scheduled Crane Wing!
(Serious points for source, though.)
Also, I shall continue to shout this from the rooftops, if you feint the monk you deny them their crane benefits in melee. In fact anything that denies dex does, all dodge/dex AC goes out the window. Why does everyone ignore this fact when talking about crane?...
Because it shoots down the claim that Crane is invincible and the 'need' for this BS errata.
Jason already explained it, though. Power Attack is as interesting and powerful as melee feats are allowed to be.
AKA.... martials aren't allowed nice things (not that power attack isn't useful, it's just so bloody boring, and such a necessity it should be a baked-in option for melee combat rather than a feat tax for not being a caster).
I am pleased with the change. Too often my cleric was immune to combat. Infinite AC isn't very much fun after a while.
Nor is it even remotely possible.
I am pleased with the change. Too often my cleric was immune to combat. Infinite AC isn't very much fun after a while.
It still gives an AC bonus. So if infinite AC was achieved by that cleric, they can still use it under the errata'd version.
I am pleased with the change. Too often my cleric was immune to combat. Infinite AC isn't very much fun after a while.
This is why we cannot have any real discussions...
|
However, I just want to say that aside from balance, ease of play is also a big concern to me, playing at high levels as I do where there is already more than enough to track. Before anyone says that it's easy to remember one more fiddly little conditional modifier that applies to some attacks but not others - it might be, but the more of these sorts of mechanics you have (especially for one character) the more of a burden it becomes to track each one.
Absolutely agreed there. It's actually one of the things that turned me off of the Brawler, what with its feat switching.
If the monk ever did get a rewrite, I really hope increasing ease-of-use(and ease-of-creation) would be among to primary goals.
A DVD is a story that is played the same way every time, no deviation. A PFS scenario is designed to give the same play experience for everybody world wide with no deviation.
A DVD player allows you to play DVDs and bear witness to the story contained on the DVD. A PFS GM runs the story contained within a PFS scenario so everyone can have the same experience.
Considering the PFS GM can't replace enemies, alter their feats, alter their skills, alter their classes, increase or decrease the enemies, change the spell selection etc. The comparison between a DVD player and a PFS GM is pretty apt in my book.
The variation of the stories in PFS are based upon the actions of the player and the dice being rolled, not the PFS GM.
Well, first of all, that's the wrong metaphor, because watching a DVD is a passive activity. If you wanted to get somewhere with this, you'd want to compare PFS GMs to video game consoles.
But you'd still be wrong. I do both. I can speak to this. Your assessment is not correct.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yay! You can now riposte any time they miss you, regardless of whether you are fighting defensively or taking the full defense action.
Now if they rule that you can decide to deflect AFTER the result of the attack roll is known, I may actually enforce it in my games.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Yay! You can now riposte any time they miss you, regardless of whether you are fighting defensively or taking the full defense action.
Now if they rule that you can decide to deflect AFTER the result of the attack roll is known, I may actually enforce it in my games.
Uhhh, what?
Whenever you are fighting defensively, and you use Crane Wing to add a dodge bonus against one attack, that attack provokes an attack of opportunity from you if it misses.So no, you still need to be fighting defensively.
With the added bonus that your feat investment can be completely negated by a first level spell now! :)
Deflecting an attack is a kind of attack immunity no different from in infinite AC. Under the old rule, if you had a high AC to begin with, even multiple attacks weren't dangerous because you so rarely got hit multiple times in a round. Too many CR appropriate encounters were shut down by this single feat. If the GM has to work around your build, is OP by definition.I am pleased with the change. Too often my cleric was immune to combat. Infinite AC isn't very much fun after a while.It still gives an AC bonus. So if infinite AC was achieved by that cleric, they can still use it under the errata'd version.
So, by your definition, a whip master fighter is OP too right? because the ability to trip-lock everything around you OP since the GM now has to work around your build and use all flyin things...
Deflecting an attack is a kind of attack immunity no different from in infinite AC.I am pleased with the change. Too often my cleric was immune to combat. Infinite AC isn't very much fun after a while.It still gives an AC bonus. So if infinite AC was achieved by that cleric, they can still use it under the errata'd version.
Vs a single melee attack a round, as long as you're fighting defensively, in your style stance, and not denied your dexterity bonus.
If that qualifies as anywhere close to 'infinite AC', you have Santa Clause for a DM.In which case.... neat.
Under the old rule, if you had a high AC to begin with, even multiple attacks weren't dangerous because you so rarely got hit multiple times in a round. Too many CR appropriate encounters were shut down by this single feat. If the GM has to work around your build, is OP by definition.
Actually a defensive feat which requires the badguys to adjust their tactics beyond 'Charge! Hulk Smash!' is just a good feat. I can understand why you don't recognise that; there aren't a lot of them around.
And contrary to the popular belief, 'good for melee' doesn't equate to OP. (Again, the confusion can be forgiven on the grounds of unfamiliarity).
So, by your definition, a whip master fighter is OP too right? because the ability to trip-lock everything around you OP since the GM now has to work around your build and use all flyin things...
Flying things are OP. They make my trip lock fighter look like a chump and I wasted all those feats on learning how to use the darn thing!
So, by your definition, a whip master fighter is OP too right? because the ability to trip-lock everything around you OP since the GM now has to work around your build and use all flyin things...
Flying things are OP. They make my trip lock fighter look like a chump and I wasted all those feats on learning how to use the darn thing!
They should nerf flying things! Things should only be bale to fly out of combat!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, by your definition, a whip master fighter is OP too right? because the ability to trip-lock everything around you OP since the GM now has to work around your build and use all flyin things...Flying things are OP. They make my trip lock fighter look like a chump and I wasted all those feats on learning how to use the darn thing!
*This was a problem in PFS, so whips now have a -10 penalty on CMB checks. This change wasn't made for PFS, it was done to fix a problem in the general game that was brought to our attention via PFS GMs*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*This was a problem in PFS, so whips now have a -10 penalty on CMB checks. This change wasn't made for PFS, it was done to fix a problem in the general game that was brought to our attention via PFS GMs*So, by your definition, a whip master fighter is OP too right? because the ability to trip-lock everything around you OP since the GM now has to work around your build and use all flyin things...Flying things are OP. They make my trip lock fighter look like a chump and I wasted all those feats on learning how to use the darn thing!
I know right! I was in this one game in this in which a Half Red Dragon/Advanced Drider whip master fighter at level 5 like... locked everything down and made it boring for the Lotus Monk and the Poisoner Rogue! They are so OP and this was a well deserved nerf.
You know we got a spell for that!
Deflecting an attack is a kind of attack immunity no different from in infinite AC. Under the old rule, if you had a high AC to begin with, even multiple attacks weren't dangerous because you so rarely got hit multiple times in a round. Too many CR appropriate encounters were shut down by this single feat. If the GM has to work around your build, is OP by definition.I am pleased with the change. Too often my cleric was immune to combat. Infinite AC isn't very much fun after a while.It still gives an AC bonus. So if infinite AC was achieved by that cleric, they can still use it under the errata'd version.
So Deflect Arrows is infinite AC?
Even under the current rules, if your AC is high enough, you won't get hit often.
And I am not seeing a case of CR-appropriate encounters getting shut down. I ran tests earlier in the thread with CR-appropriate encounters where the CW-user ended up dying despite me blatantly cheating in their favor and playing their enemies using bad tactics. Note it was using a badly-built fighter someone else came up with to prove that it was badly built, so the results are not surprising... but go to show that CW isn't necessarily as powerful when you go outside of the circumstances it applies to.
The thing to keep in mind is it only gave one deflection per round. That's it. So if the fighter dealt with multiple attacks that hit... all they did was reduce the damage they took. They didn't negate anything. And if the attacks go outside of being melee, that feat didn't help.
That is not to say it isn't good... but the results I'm seeing, with the balanced testing, don't suggest it is actually as good as people are saying it was. Still very good, though.
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.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
I would be SO thrilled if the Devs would comment on this point, because it's the crux of the problem and they've avoided it like the plague so far. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, first of all, that's the wrong metaphor, because watching a DVD is a passive activity. If you wanted to get somewhere with this, you'd want to compare PFS GMs to video game consoles.
Glad to see you read the entirety of the my original post.
Also, what makes a PFS GM have more authority than a non-PFS GM? When you stop and think about it, PFS operates under more house-rules than, I would say, the majority of tables. The GM of a PFS game is less 'Game Master' and more of living computer to play a video game.
The PFS GM can't manipulate the adventure on the fly. He can't change the encounters. He can't add more encounters or more HP or more AC to opponents. Hell, he can't even alter the tactics of an enemy if published.
The PFS GM is not a Game Master, he's a narrator, a living DVD player. Personally, if someone only GMs for PFS, his opinion is worth less than that of someone who GMs home games.
See, I already made the video game reference.
But you'd still be wrong. I do both. I can speak to this. Your assessment is not correct.
So what you're saying then, is you modify the PFS scenarios? Glad to see you aren't playing the scenarios correctly. My understanding is that PFS GMs are not supposed to change the encounters. They don't get to decide that, instead of a 10th level Bard, the BBEG is actually a 10th level Wizard.
The job of the PFS GM is to run the encounter, as written. You are the narrator of the story, not the author. If an encounter calls for 5 goblin warriors, then the encounter is 5 goblin warriors. You can't decide to change one of the warriors to an adept and another warrior to an alchemist. That is not within the power of the PFS GM.
It is, however, within the power of a non-PFS GM as those GMs can run whatever game they want. It is why, I think, non-PFS games should carry more weight when it comes to game balance, than a PFS game as the PFS game is Pathfinder on Novice difficulty.
Yay! You can now riposte any time they miss you, regardless of whether you are fighting defensively or taking the full defense action.
Now if they rule that you can decide to deflect AFTER the result of the attack roll is known, I may actually enforce it in my games.
Uhhh, what?
Whenever you are fighting defensively, and you use Crane Wing to add a dodge bonus against one attack, that attack provokes an attack of opportunity from you if it misses.So no, you still need to be fighting defensively.
With the added bonus that your feat investment can be completely negated by a first level spell now! :)
Huh? I'm confused. I specifically said you needed to fight defensively or take the full defense action to riposte.
Why would it provoke? Also, which first level spell are you referring to?
Okay, Crane Riposte is definitely worth it now.
Thanks Devs!
I wouldn't say definitely. I would say, if you can't wield a shield, or use a two-handed weapon, or otherwise need a hand free, then yeah, it's probably worth it. But a shield is still probably a better bang for your feat expenditure, if you want to go defensive. But for certain classes, yeah, it's probably better than nothing, if you don't have to spend 1/2-1/3 of your feats to get the chain. But that's a lot of ifs.
Yay! You can now riposte any time they miss you, regardless of whether you are fighting defensively or taking the full defense action.
Now if they rule that you can decide to deflect AFTER the result of the attack roll is known, I may actually enforce it in my games.
Uhhh, what?
Whenever you are fighting defensively, and you use Crane Wing to add a dodge bonus against one attack, that attack provokes an attack of opportunity from you if it misses.So no, you still need to be fighting defensively.
With the added bonus that your feat investment can be completely negated by a first level spell now! :)Huh? I'm confused. I specifically said you needed to fight defensively or take the full defense action to riposte.
Why would it provoke? Also, which first level spell are you referring to?
While the feat still reduced your penalty when fighting defensively, there is a change to the text the follows.
Update: Page 93, in the Crane Riposte feat, in the benefits paragraph, change the second sentence to read as follows: Whenever you are fighting defensively, and you use Crane Wing to add a dodge bonus against one attack, that attack provokes an attack of opportunity from you if it misses. In addition, when you deflect an attack using Crane Wing while taking the total defense action, you may make an attack of opportunity against that opponent (even though you could not normally do so while taking the total defense action).
—Pathfinder Design Team, today Back to Top
Basically, whenever you use Crane Wing to add a +4 dodge bonus to an attack, and that attack misses, it provoke an Attack of Opportunity via Crane Riposte.
Also, if you are using Total Defense and use Crane Wing to deflect an attack, that deflection provokes an Attack of Opportunity via Crane Riposte.
I wouldn't say definitely. I would say, if you can't wield a shield, or use a two-handed weapon, or otherwise need a hand free, then yeah, it's probably worth it. But a shield is still probably a better bang for your feat expenditure, if you want to go defensive. But for certain classes, yeah, it's probably better than nothing, if you don't have to spend 1/2-1/3 of your feats to get the chain. But that's a lot of ifs.Okay, Crane Riposte is definitely worth it now.
Thanks Devs!
Agree'd. If you dip MoMS to get the full chain so you can avoid sinking 4-5 of your feats for the full chain, it's better than nothing. I'd probably rather take Combat Expertise though.
Crane Style chain results in a +2 dodge bonus increase while fighting defensively, and a -3 reduction in the fighting defensively penalty. Combat Expertise eventually nets you a +6 bonus to AC and a -6 penalty.
Crane Style starts off stronger, but doesn't really scale into high levels. Combat Expertise starts off weak, but scales into high levels for more and more benefit.
Crane Wing removes the gradual erosion aspect of an entire play style away. Played tactically, it can be almost impossible to threaten the character in melee combat, all he has to do is keep the enemy to a standard action.
Unless you Feint, which cripples the Crane benefits.
But hey, don't let logic ruin your otherwise perfect argument, amirite? ;)
Yay! You can now riposte any time they miss you, regardless of whether you are fighting defensively or taking the full defense action.
Now if they rule that you can decide to deflect AFTER the result of the attack roll is known, I may actually enforce it in my games.
Uhhh, what?
Whenever you are fighting defensively, and you use Crane Wing to add a dodge bonus against one attack, that attack provokes an attack of opportunity from you if it misses.So no, you still need to be fighting defensively.
With the added bonus that your feat investment can be completely negated by a first level spell now! :)Huh? I'm confused. I specifically said you needed to fight defensively or take the full defense action to riposte.
Why would it provoke? Also, which first level spell are you referring to?
While the feat still reduced your penalty when fighting defensively, there is a change to the text the follows.
Update: Page 93, in the Crane Riposte feat, in the benefits paragraph, change the second sentence to read as follows: Whenever you are fighting defensively, and you use Crane Wing to add a dodge bonus against one attack, that attack provokes an attack of opportunity from you if it misses. In addition, when you deflect an attack using Crane Wing while taking the total defense action, you may make an attack of opportunity against that opponent (even though you could not normally do so while taking the total defense action).
—Pathfinder Design Team, today Back to Top
Basically, whenever you use Crane Wing to add a +4 dodge bonus to an attack, and that attack misses, it provoke an Attack of Opportunity via Crane Riposte.
Also, if you are using Total Defense and use Crane Wing to deflect an attack, that deflection provokes an Attack of Opportunity via Crane Riposte.
I know all that Tels. I basically said as much. I'm not confused about the new update, I'm just having difficulty making sense of Throne's response to my post.
Crane Wing removes the gradual erosion aspect of an entire play style away. Played tactically, it can be almost impossible to threaten the character in melee combat, all he has to do is keep the enemy to a standard action.Unless you Feint, which cripples the Crane benefits.
But hey, don't let logic ruin your otherwise perfect argument, amirite? ;)
I hate to be the guy that bursts this little "Feint > Crane Wing" movement, but Feint doesn't stop the original Crane Wing. The original Crane Wing states you can't be flat-footed, Feint just denies dexterity. While similar, the two are different.
Feint, however, does take away the dodge and dex bonus to AC, which can often open a hole in an otherwise solid defense. However, if you Feint someone as a move action (via Improved Feint) and then you attack, the Crane Style character could still use Crane Wing to deflect it.
With the errata, Feint completely negates the entire Crane Style feat chain unless they are using Total Defense.
Nerf Feint.
@Ravingdork, he's confused because you said the following:
Yay! You can now riposte any time they miss you, regardless of whether you are fighting defensively or taking the full defense action.
Now if they rule that you can decide to deflect AFTER the result of the attack roll is known, I may actually enforce it in my games.
The first line says you can Riposte any time they miss, fighting defensively or not. However, you only get the Riposte when you use Crane Wing, and you can only use Crane Wing when you fight defensively.
[Edit] Actually, in reading it again, you're not saying that. It's just a mis-reading. My bad.
What you're saying is you can get a Riposte if you fight defensively, or use Total Defense.
Crane Wing removes the gradual erosion aspect of an entire play style away. Played tactically, it can be almost impossible to threaten the character in melee combat, all he has to do is keep the enemy to a standard action.Unless you Feint, which cripples the Crane benefits.
But hey, don't let logic ruin your otherwise perfect argument, amirite? ;)
I hate to be the guy that bursts this little "Feint > Crane Wing" movement, but Feint doesn't stop the original Crane Wing. The original Crane Wing states you can't be flat-footed, Feint just denies dexterity. While similar, the two are different.
Feint, however, does take away the dodge and dex bonus to AC, which can often open a hole in an otherwise solid defense. However, if you Feint someone as a move action (via Improved Feint) and then you attack, the Crane Style character could still use Crane Wing to deflect it.
With the errata, Feint completely negates the entire Crane Style feat chain unless they are using Total Defense.
Nerf Feint.
This is the text of the original version of Crane Wing:
Benefit: Once per round, when fighting defensively or using total defense, you can deflect one melee attack that would otherwise hit you. Such an attack does no damage and has no other effect on you. You do not expend an action when using this feat, but you must have at least one hand free, be aware of the attack, and not flat-footed
This is the new text of Crane Wing:
Benefit: Once per round, when fighting defensively with at least one hand free, you can designate one melee attack being made against you before the roll is made. You receive a +4 dodge bonus to AC against that attack. If you using the total defense action instead, you can deflect one melee attack that would normally hit you. An attack so deflected deals no damage and has no other effect (instead treat it as a miss). You do not expend an action when using this feat, but you must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed.
Both require you not to be flat-footed. Feint affects both the same way.
Crane Wing removes the gradual erosion aspect of an entire play style away. Played tactically, it can be almost impossible to threaten the character in melee combat, all he has to do is keep the enemy to a standard action.Unless you Feint, which cripples the Crane benefits.
But hey, don't let logic ruin your otherwise perfect argument, amirite? ;)
I hate to be the guy that bursts this little "Feint > Crane Wing" movement, but Feint doesn't stop the original Crane Wing. The original Crane Wing states you can't be flat-footed, Feint just denies dexterity. While similar, the two are different.
Feint, however, does take away the dodge and dex bonus to AC, which can often open a hole in an otherwise solid defense. However, if you Feint someone as a move action (via Improved Feint) and then you attack, the Crane Style character could still use Crane Wing to deflect it.
With the errata, Feint completely negates the entire Crane Style feat chain unless they are using Total Defense.
Nerf Feint.
This is the text of the original version of Crane Wing:
Benefit: Once per round, when fighting defensively or using total defense, you can deflect one melee attack that would otherwise hit you. Such an attack does no damage and has no other effect on you. You do not expend an action when using this feat, but you must have at least one hand free, be aware of the attack, and not flat-footedThis is the new text of Crane Wing:
Benefit: Once per round, when fighting defensively with at least one hand free, you can designate one melee attack being made against you before the roll is made. You receive a +4 dodge bonus to AC against that attack. If you using the total defense action instead, you can deflect one melee attack that would normally hit you. An attack so deflected deals no damage and has no other effect (instead treat it as a miss). You do not expend an action when using this feat, but...
Feinting is a standard action. To feint, make a Bluff skill check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent's base attack bonus + your opponent's Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent's Sense Motive bonus, if higher. If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This attack must be made on or before your next turn.
When feinting against a non-humanoid you take a –4 penalty. Against a creature of animal Intelligence (1 or 2), you take a –8 penalty. Against a creature lacking an Intelligence score, it's impossible. Feinting in combat does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Notice Feint denies dexterity bonus, but does not make a person flat-footed.
In the case of the original Crane Wing, you must be aware, and not flat-footed, it doesn't say you can't be denied dexterity. Feinting doesn't make you 'unaware' or flat-footed, hence, Feint doesn't defeat the original Crane Wing.
In the new Crane Wing, it simply gives you a dodge bonus. Feint denies dexterity, and any time you are denied dexterity, you are denied your dodge bonus. Since fighting defensively gives a dodge bonus to AC, the entire Crane Style chains' defensive bonus is wiped out.
[Edit] So to further add and clarify...
Crane Style, Crane Wing, Crane Riposte.
Fighting defensively gives you a +3 dodge bonus (+4 if you have 3 ranks in acrobatics). Using Crane Wing (new version) gives you a further +4 dodge bonus against a single attack. With Crane Riposte, you only take a -1 penalty while fighting defensively. Net total on a single attack is a +8 dodge bonus to AC.
Feint removes all of the +8 dodge bonus.
Total Defense gives you +4 Ddoge bonus, Crane Style increases this to +5 and 3 ranks in acrobatics increases this to +7. Crane Wing allows you to auto deflect one attack per round that would normally hit you.
Feint removes the +7 dodge bonus, but doesn't stop the deflection.
Notice Feint denies dexterity bonus, but does not make a person flat-footed.
In the case of the original Crane Wing, you must be aware, and not flat-footed, it doesn't say you can't be denied dexterity. Feinting doesn't make you 'unaware' or flat-footed, hence, Feint doesn't defeat the original Crane Wing.
In the new Crane Wing, it simply gives you a dodge bonus. Feint denies dexterity, and any time you are denied dexterity, you are denied your dodge bonus. Since fighting defensively gives a dodge bonus to AC, the entire Crane Style chains' defensive bonus is wiped out.
So you are arguing that, under the new wording, when fighting defensively a person cannot deflect an attack while you can under the old one... despite the fact that the Feint maneuver does not, by your own admission, negate fighting defensively?
Keep in mind the deflection is part of the defensive bonus. All Feint does is both cases is lower the AC.
The actual tactical change is in when to apply the feat... which is outside the purview of Feint. In both cases, you're dealing with a lowered defense resulting from the Feint maneuver, making it more likely you have to use the deflection. So in actual tactical considerations, there is no significant difference on how you deal with the feat now in regards to lowered AC as compared to how you dealt with it before.
Notice Feint denies dexterity bonus, but does not make a person flat-footed.
In the case of the original Crane Wing, you must be aware, and not flat-footed, it doesn't say you can't be denied dexterity. Feinting doesn't make you 'unaware' or flat-footed, hence, Feint doesn't defeat the original Crane Wing.
In the new Crane Wing, it simply gives you a dodge bonus. Feint denies dexterity, and any time you are denied dexterity, you are denied your dodge bonus. Since fighting defensively gives a dodge bonus to AC, the entire Crane Style chains' defensive bonus is wiped out.
So you are arguing that, under the new wording, when fighting defensively a person cannot deflect an attack while you can under the old one... despite the fact that the Feint maneuver does not, by your own admission, negate fighting defensively?
Keep in mind the deflection is part of the defensive bonus. All Feint does is both cases is lower the AC.
See the Edit in my previous post for more info, but essentially, yes.
In the original wording, Crane Wing just stops one attack that would normally hit you as long as you are fighting defensively or using total defense. Whether the bonuses to AC from fighting defensively or using total defense are applicable or not, you can still deflect the attack as long as you are not unaware or flat-footed.
Feinting does not make an opponent unaware or flat-footed, though an attack by an invisible opponent, I believe, would qualify as being 'unaware'.
In the new wording, Crane Wing simply gives a dodge bonus. In the new wording, if one were to feint someone with Crane Wing while they were fighting defensively, Crane Wing would have no benefit, as Feint denies dodge bonuses.
Feint > New Crane style chain.
Old Crane Wing > Feint.
[Edit] I should add that a Seven-Branched Sword defeats Crane Wing.
Benefit: The shorter blades can be used to snag opponents’ clothing or armor, or can target weapons in order to disarm them. To snag armor or clothing, the attacker makes a trip attempt. If successful, the victim doesn’t fall prone, but instead is snagged and stumbles forward, leaving the victim flat-footed for the remainder of the round.
Notice Feint denies dexterity bonus, but does not make a person flat-footed.
In the case of the original Crane Wing, you must be aware, and not flat-footed, it doesn't say you can't be denied dexterity. Feinting doesn't make you 'unaware' or flat-footed, hence, Feint doesn't defeat the original Crane Wing.
In the new Crane Wing, it simply gives you a dodge bonus. Feint denies dexterity, and any time you are denied dexterity, you are denied your dodge bonus. Since fighting defensively gives a dodge bonus to AC, the entire Crane Style chains' defensive bonus is wiped out.
So you are arguing that, under the new wording, when fighting defensively a person cannot deflect an attack while you can under the old one... despite the fact that the Feint maneuver does not, by your own admission, negate fighting defensively?
Keep in mind the deflection is part of the defensive bonus. All Feint does is both cases is lower the AC.
See the Edit in my previous post for more info, but essentially, yes.
In the original wording, Crane Wing just stops one attack that would normally hit you as long as you are fighting defensively or using total defense. Whether the bonuses to AC from fighting defensively or using total defense are applicable or not, you can still deflect the attack as long as you are not unaware or flat-footed.
Feinting does not make an opponent unaware or flat-footed, though an attack by an invisible opponent, I believe, would qualify as being 'unaware'.
In the new wording, Crane Wing simply gives a dodge bonus. In the new wording, if one were to feint someone with Crane Wing while they were fighting defensively, Crane Wing would have no benefit, as Feint denies dodge bonuses.
Feint > New Crane style chain.
Old Crane Wing > Feint.
Here's what's said on fighting defensively:
Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.
Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for until the start your next turn.
Note the part I bolded. Fighting defensively and full defense both provide dodge bonuses... as does the new version of Crane Wing. And when you are flatfooted, you lose all dodge bonuses... meaning you can't fight defensively. Meaning that you can't use old CW when someone Feints. Why? Because it requires you to fight defensively or use full defense.
Notice Feint denies dexterity bonus, but does not make a person flat-footed.
In the case of the original Crane Wing, you must be aware, and not flat-footed, it doesn't say you can't be denied dexterity. Feinting doesn't make you 'unaware' or flat-footed, hence, Feint doesn't defeat the original Crane Wing.
In the new Crane Wing, it simply gives you a dodge bonus. Feint denies dexterity, and any time you are denied dexterity, you are denied your dodge bonus. Since fighting defensively gives a dodge bonus to AC, the entire Crane Style chains' defensive bonus is wiped out.
So you are arguing that, under the new wording, when fighting defensively a person cannot deflect an attack while you can under the old one... despite the fact that the Feint maneuver does not, by your own admission, negate fighting defensively?
Keep in mind the deflection is part of the defensive bonus. All Feint does is both cases is lower the AC.
See the Edit in my previous post for more info, but essentially, yes.
In the original wording, Crane Wing just stops one attack that would normally hit you as long as you are fighting defensively or using total defense. Whether the bonuses to AC from fighting defensively or using total defense are applicable or not, you can still deflect the attack as long as you are not unaware or flat-footed.
Feinting does not make an opponent unaware or flat-footed, though an attack by an invisible opponent, I believe, would qualify as being 'unaware'.
In the new wording, Crane Wing simply gives a dodge bonus. In the new wording, if one were to feint someone with Crane Wing while they were fighting defensively, Crane Wing would have no benefit, as Feint denies dodge bonuses.
Feint > New Crane style chain.
Old Crane Wing > Feint.Here's what's said on fighting defensively:
Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you...
I'm not sure why you're having a hard time understanding this.
Flat-footed and denied dexterity are two different, if very similar, conditions.
Like I said before in the edit to a previous post. Fighting Defensively grants a dodge bonus, which feint would deny. However, just because you are denied your dodge bonus, doesn't mean you aren't still fighting defensively.
Fighting Defensively also gives a penalty to attack rolls. So if you are denied your dodge bonus (through feinting, invisible or what have you), you still take the attack penalty because you are still fighting defensively.
So, the original Crane Wing would still deflect attacks, even if they were denied their dexterity, as long as they were aware of the attack.
The new Crane Wing, and by extension the whole Crane Style chain, is defeated by being denied their dexterity bonus to AC, unless they are using Total Defense. While using Total Defense, the Crane Style user doesn't get their Dexterity or Dodge bonus to AC, but they can still deflect one attack per round.
I brought this up at my gaming table I DM for, all 5 players disliked the change. There IS a MoMS 2 / Kensai 11 in the group, with AC's in the 40's sometimes, and YES I find it annoying to deal with sometimes, but I will continue to allow pre-nerf Crane Wing. I am running Reign of Winter, book 5, and have not encountered a fight where he severely imbalanced it yet. Honestly I have more trouble out of the witch in the party, and the Kensai player is a much more creative min-maxer.
To add further, you seem to think that if a person is somehow denied the bonus of an effect, they are no longer under the effect in question.
So I ask you, if my Magus were to cast Blur on myself, and the BBEG were to have True Seeing on, is the Magus still under the effects of the Blur spell even though he doesn't gain the benefits of Concealement against the BBEG?
The answer to the above question also answers the following question.
If my Magus were fighting defensively and the BBEG could deny the Magus his Dexterity, and by extension Dodge, bonus to AC, is he still under the effects of fighting defensively even if he doesn't gain the bonus?
[Edit] To add another question. If a Rogue is sneaking into a lair, and 1 of the guards beats his stealth check with his perception check, but the other 2 guards don't; is the Rogue still sneaking?
I'm not sure why you're having a hard time understanding this.
Flat-footed and denied dexterity are two different, if very similar, conditions.
Like I said before in the edit to a previous post. Fighting Defensively grants a dodge bonus, which feint would deny. However, just because you are denied your dodge bonus, doesn't mean you aren't still fighting defensively.
Fighting Defensively also gives a penalty to attack rolls. So if you are denied your dodge bonus (through feinting, invisible or what have you), you still take the attack penalty because you are still fighting defensively.
So, the original Crane Wing would still deflect attacks, even if they were denied their dexterity, as long as they were aware of the attack.
The new Crane Wing, and by extension the whole Crane Style chain, is defeated by being denied their dexterity bonus to AC, unless they are using Total Defense. While using Total Defense, the Crane Style user doesn't get their Dexterity or Dodge bonus to AC, but they can still deflect one attack per round.
Guess what else it doesn't mean... just because you have lost your dodge bonus doesn't mean you aren't still using full defense. And also doesn't mean that you don't get to use that deflection... after all, the deflection is tied to full defense, not to the dodge bonus, in the text. Which means that, even if someone is still the victim of Feint, they can still deflect an attack against them while using full defense.
So, ultimately, Feint doesn't counter the deflection now any better than it did under the old version. And you can't argue otherwise without either rewording the feat or disproving your own words.
Now, you have a problem... in order for Feint to remove the deflection now, it must remove total defense due to full defense using a dodge bonus. But that means it also removes fighting defensively... which means Feint works against old CW as well. Or, it can not remove fighting defensively, which means it also doesn't remove total defense... which means that Feint doesn't stop deflection under new CW.
Edit: Removing some text that could be read as being belligerent.
No offence but so far every post I have seen from MagusJanus has been very beligerent, argumentative, or just straight frustrating...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No offence but so far every post I have seen from MagusJanus has been very beligerent, argumentative, or just straight frustrating...
I suspected I was causing a problem.
Could you please PM me about this? I need to fix this problem right away.