Crane Wing Errata in latest printing


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1,601 to 1,650 of 2,304 << first < prev | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | next > last >>

MagusJanus wrote:
Tels wrote:

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'm not understanding how you don't realize I have just gotten you to disprove your own argument. Best part is, you bolded the part that disproves it. I didn't have to add any bolding.

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...

Oh. My. God. That was my whole point!

Other people were claiming that you could use Feint to defeat the original Crane Wing. I pointed out that even if you Feinted someone using the original Crane Wing, they can still deflect an attack.

See? Look:

Tels wrote:

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.

My first sentence states that Feint doesn't stop the original Crane Wing.

The next sentence states the conditions under which the original Crane Wing could be defeated, and then states Feint provide neither of those conditions.

The next paragraph outlines that Feint removes Dodge bonuses, but doesn't stop the original Crane Wing deflection.

My ending sentence states that Feint defeats the new Crane Wing unless using Total Defense.

Liberty's Edge

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

I'm not sure that's entirely true. I think you could still apply the +4 dodge bonus from Crane Wing to an attack, and although you wouldn't actually get any AC increase out of it, if it still managed to miss I think you'd still get the option of launching an AoO with Crane Riposte...


Shisumo wrote:
Tels wrote:
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.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. I think you could still apply the +4 dodge bonus from Crane Wing to an attack, and although you wouldn't actually get any AC increase out of it, if it still managed to miss I think you'd still get the option of launching an AoO with Crane Riposte...

You know, that is true. If an opponent Feints you, and you choose to use Crane Wing to apply a dodge bonus, and they still miss anyway (say by rolling a nat 1) you would get your Crane Riposte.

Still, that relies more on luck than anything else in my opinion.

Liberty's Edge

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

Yeah, it's pretty thin gruel. But I thought it was funny enough to point out anyway.


Tels, you have my apology. I misread.

Also, could you please PM me about any problems I am causing as well?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Denied Dex and flat footed are basically the same thing. Actually the rules make more sense if you treat them as the same thing than if you don't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Denied Dex and flat footed are basically the same thing. Actually the rules make more sense if you treat them as the same thing than if you don't.

No they don't. A character with Uncanny Dodge cannot be caught flat-footed. Rogues only get Sneak attack when flanking or when an opponent is denied dexterity.

If you swap things so denied dexterity means flat-footed, then characters with Uncanny Dodge can never be denied dexterity.

Attacks from an invisible PC denies the dexterity bonus to their opponent, but doesn't make them flat-footed.

Feint denies dexterity, but doesn't make them flat-footed.

Pinned condition denies dexterity, but doesn't make them flat-footed.

Flat-footed also has other things attached to it, for instance, you can't make Attacks of Opportunity when flat-footed unless you have Combat Reflexes. You can, however, make attacks of opportunity when denied dexterity.

While flat-footed denies your dexterity bonus to AC, this does not mean that being denied your dexterity bonus to AC makes you flat-footed.


Tels wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Denied Dex and flat footed are basically the same thing. Actually the rules make more sense if you treat them as the same thing than if you don't.

No they don't. A character with Uncanny Dodge cannot be caught flat-footed. Rogues only get Sneak attack when flanking or when an opponent is denied dexterity.

If you swap things so denied dexterity means flat-footed, then characters with Uncanny Dodge can never be denied dexterity.

Attacks from an invisible PC denies the dexterity bonus to their opponent, but doesn't make them flat-footed.

Feint denies dexterity, but doesn't make them flat-footed.

Pinned condition denies dexterity, but doesn't make them flat-footed.

Flat-footed also has other things attached to it, for instance, you can't make Attacks of Opportunity when flat-footed unless you have Combat Reflexes. You can, however, make attacks of opportunity when denied dexterity.

While flat-footed denies your dexterity bonus to AC, this does not mean that being denied your dexterity bonus to AC makes you flat-footed.

Uncanny dodge does allow you to keep your dex bonus to AC against invisible foes.

It is most certainly not an ability meant for only the surprise round of combat.

"Uncanny Dodge (Ex): Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized. A rogue with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to AC if an opponent successfully uses the feint action (see Combat) against her."

Pinned may work if it renders the person immobilized

Feint only works because the ability says it can.

Therefore RAI: flat-footed = dex denied.

EDIT: Also if you don't have dex or dodge bonus to AC does it make sense that you could perform an AOO?


Tels wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Denied Dex and flat footed are basically the same thing. Actually the rules make more sense if you treat them as the same thing than if you don't.
No they don't.

+1

The biggest difference is you can take immediate actions and as he said, AoOs.

Being flatfooted is horrible when you have immediate actions that otherwise could have saved you.


David_Bross wrote:
Tels wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Denied Dex and flat footed are basically the same thing. Actually the rules make more sense if you treat them as the same thing than if you don't.
No they don't.

+1

The biggest difference is you can take immediate actions and as he said, AoOs.

Being flatfooted is horrible when you have immediate actions that otherwise could have saved you.

Being flat-footed and being treated as flat footed are two different things.


Marthkus wrote:

Uncanny dodge does allow you to keep your dex bonus to AC against invisible foes.

It is most certainly not an ability meant for only the surprise round of combat.

"Uncanny Dodge (Ex): Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized. A rogue with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to AC if an opponent successfully uses the feint action (see Combat) against her."

Pinned may work if it renders the person immobilized

Feint only works because the ability says it can.

Therefore RAI: flat-footed = dex denied.

EDIT: Also if you don't have dex or dodge bonus to AC does it make sense that you could perform an AOO?

While it's true that Uncanny Dodge protects against invisible opponents, I was talking in general.

As for pinned...

Condition: Pinned wrote:
A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions. A pinned creature cannot move and is denied its Dexterity bonus. A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to his Armor Class. A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.

The point is, while Flat-Footed and being denied dexterity are very similar, they are not the same. Flat-footed causes you to be denied dexterity, but being denied dexterity does not cause you to be flat-footed.


Lormyr wrote:


What personally frustrates me is that in this game, we have a plethora of amazing to grossly overpowered offense options. Yet when it comes to defense, those gems are few and far between. Crane Wing stood out as one of those precious gems, especially for monks, who need a lot more...

I'm guessing that there are (at least) two reasons that the designers want to avoid defensive builds that are as strong defensively as the offensive builds are strong offensively.

1. Ultimately, it's more powerful. Let's say you can have one of two options: A- Character does infinite damage and has passable defenses, or B- Character is invulnerable and does passable damage. If you're smart you'll choose B every time. Yes, there will be times that A would have been better, but on the whole B is superior.

2. They are (with good reason, but perhaps overly) concerned about duration of play, especially during combat. A lot of their design decisions (particularly with regard to PFS) have to do with this concern. Now, if you're like me, this annoys you because it leads increasingly to the phenomenon of virtually every combat lasting two to four rounds, which I personally find highly unsatisfying. But there you have it. Strong defense drags combat out. Strong offense makes combat shorter.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the above reasoning, but I think that is what's on their minds, at least in part.


Erick Wilson wrote:
1. Ultimately, it's more powerful. Let's say you can have one of two options: A- Character does infinite damage and has passable defenses, or B- Character is invulnerable and does passable damage. If you're smart you'll choose B every time. Yes, there will be times that A would have been better, but on the whole B is superior.

Why's that?

A = B and B = A.

You get the same results, but A is much quicker.

And that is why you cannot beat One Punch Man.


Erick Wilson wrote:
1. Ultimately, it's more powerful. Let's say you can have one of two options: A- Character does infinite damage and has passable defenses, or B- Character is invulnerable and does passable damage. If you're smart you'll choose B every time. Yes, there will be times that A would have been better, but on the whole B is superior.

This is only true if the combat is, "A vs B." In that scenario, B wins every time.

It's is a fundamentally different situation if it is "A vs X" vs "B vs X." In this case, it doesn't matter which you pick, but A is always faster.


Neo2151 wrote:
Erick Wilson wrote:
1. Ultimately, it's more powerful. Let's say you can have one of two options: A- Character does infinite damage and has passable defenses, or B- Character is invulnerable and does passable damage. If you're smart you'll choose B every time. Yes, there will be times that A would have been better, but on the whole B is superior.

This is only true if the combat is, "A vs B." In that scenario, B wins every time.

It's is a fundamentally different situation if it is "A vs X" vs "B vs X." In this case, it doesn't matter which you pick, but A is always faster.

Except in this case A and B are both false statements. The defenses are not invulnerable, and the damage is not infinite.

So what we should be saying is very high offence w/ passable defense versus very high defense with passable offence in which case A=B the overall damage being dealt is the same as the person with high offence puts in fewer hits but at much higher damage and the high defense person does the converse.

In this case you'll see that the way the game manages limited resources still highly favors the offensive build too.

Edit: Just want to make sure you know I'm agreeing with you Neo because when I read this the general "you" I use made it seem kind of like I was pointing this at you when it's more a comment on Erick's scenario.


gnomersy wrote:
Edit: Just want to make sure you know I'm agreeing with you Neo because when I read this the general "you" I use made it seem kind of like I was pointing this at you when it's more a comment on Erick's scenario.

You just turned the theoretical into the realistic.

We're on the same page. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

To the person who didn't want to let you 2h a one handed weapon on your turn:

Okay, then, if I draw and fight with TWO WEAPONS on my turn, and then throw the dagger in my off hand at the end of my turn, I still get the benefit of the +3 Defender bonus on the dagger AND my 2 Weapon Shield defense bonus, right? Because I was using it the 'whole round'.

Eesh.

And remember, you're 2h'ing a one handed weapon, not holding a 2h weapon in one hand. You want to be able to Riposte, after all.

==Aelryinth

I do not allow it and won't. A round is 6 seconds of action no matter how many people are fighting. All these actions are happening simultaneously, but due to the method chosen for running the game they happen within punctuated periods we call rounds. Within that six second round, you're action is occurring back and forth with the other folks. Initiative is there for a matter of resolution than actual time spans.

If you do not maintain a free hand for the entire round, it is entirely with my purview, and not a house rule, to decide Crane Wing and Crane Style do not function for you for that round. You have failed to keep a hand free while fighting defensively. You used both hands for periods during the round falling our of Crane Style and caused your own feat to fail. Same as the Power Attack feat cannot be altered once you have engaged in it and it affects all attacks following the choice to use it.

I run Crane Style the same way. Once you have decided to activate Crane Style and fight defensively, you must maintain a free hand throughout the combat. Even drawing a potion and using it will cause you to fail. That hand must be free because you never know when the attack you're deflecting is coming at you.

That isn't a house rule. It is an interpretation. Mine differs from yours.

In my experience players that try to exploit the game in this fashion are the reason errata such as this end up in the game. The designers can't explain every little thing, but if they don't some player somewhere will push a DM to exploit a rule at some point. Makes it almost impossible to have oversight over the game.


Raith Shadar wrote:
That isn't a house rule. It is an interpretation. Mine differs from yours.

Except it is a houserule... You can limit free action if you want, but please don't insist that this isn't a houserule.


It is actually the RAW that the GM can limit free actions.

Quote:


Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.

And there you have it. Not actually a houserule.


RJGrady wrote:

It is actually the RAW that the GM can limit free actions.

Quote:
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
And there you have it. Not actually a houserule.

That's not all he's doing though...

Probably steering off topic if we walk down this road though.


Tholomyes wrote:


However the issue pathfinder has is beyond that level of choice, it runs into some of the same problems as 4e. If you're melee, you'll probably be taking Power Attack, and other 'must takes'. If you're ranged, you'll be taking the ranged tree. If you're a TWF, there are these bunch of feats to take for you, and so on. But there's very little that actually changes the way your character plays. Unless you're going the vital-strike route, you'll be based on full attacking, and there's very little deviation from that, because a lot of options that seem cooler or more interesting aren't all that good. And the Crane Style chain was a way to focus on something other than pure DPR, and not...

I agree with you that there are too many taxes and too many feats in the trees to get to what you want. However...

This is why I keep trying to bring the discussion back to CR. What makes the "must haves" must have? Why do you need them? Against what are you competing? Because I can only see the following possibilities...

1. The published material/The CR system as written
2. The other players
3. The GM
4. Yourself (or in other words against some abstract idea of having a character that is weaker than it could potentially be if you min-maxed it out the wazoo)

If you are competing against #2, #3 or #4, then you (and possibly your group) are creating your own problems. You've manufactured a never ending Red Queen arms race in which you feel compelled to endlessly compete.

Theoretically, aren't we supposed to be competing against #1? Because in that case the bar is, as many of us know, very low, which means that there are very few things that you "must have" in order to succeed. I am living proof of how this works. I've been having a blast lately in PFS, specifically because I now scrupulously avoid taking any of the "must haves," and instead try to play primarily with material that normally never sees the light of day. I play, for instance...

1. A ninja that doesn't have vanishing trick
2. An archer that doesn't have Rapid Shot, Manyshot or Clustered Shots
3. A character whose main weapon is the rope dart
4. A Monk with Kirin and Archon Styles, and another with Marid and Tiger
5. A Rogue/Druid with a celestial elasmosaurus companion
6. An evolutionist Summoner (an archetype which is particularly bad, though loads of fun, in PFS)

And so on. I do just fine, and I get to play all these strange, high-concept builds that are a ton of fun. It's very freeing when you relinquish the need to make every character as optimal as possible.

"Alice looked round her in great surprise. 'Why, I do believe we've been under this tree the whole time! Everything's just as it was!'
'Of course it is,' said the Queen, 'what would you have it?'
'Well, in our country,' said Alice, still panting a little, 'you'd generally get to somewhere else—if you ran very fast for a long time, as we've been doing.'
'A slow sort of country!' said the Queen, 'Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!'"

-Lewis Carol, Through the Looking Glass


Neo2151 wrote:
Erick Wilson wrote:
1. Ultimately, it's more powerful. Let's say you can have one of two options: A- Character does infinite damage and has passable defenses, or B- Character is invulnerable and does passable damage. If you're smart you'll choose B every time. Yes, there will be times that A would have been better, but on the whole B is superior.

This is only true if the combat is, "A vs B." In that scenario, B wins every time.

It's is a fundamentally different situation if it is "A vs X" vs "B vs X." In this case, it doesn't matter which you pick, but A is always faster.

Not necessarily. Guy A will defeat most challenges faster, it's true. But some can theoretically kill him. Guy B will defeat all challenges, eventually, and never be killed. It just takes him longer.


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

I'm fine with a company having this attitude. This is why Pathfinder rose because the company they were competing against had this attitude. I personally think a company has to wonder when long-term customers like myself who have spent a few thousand dollars on their game and were quite happy with the game up to this point are this frustrated with a change. Maybe that change wasn't very well thought out or implemented.

I for one don't mind a change to Crane Wing. This change went too far. This change ruined an entire chain of feats that was as well-designed a chain as they have in the game as far as working together seamlessly. Each feat stacked on the other and provided a real tangible and quality benefit. You can't say that about many chains at all. It felt like you were learning a martial art as well, growing in skill and ability, until you finally felt like a master of Crane Style. None of other styles felt this way. Dragon Style usually stopped at the first two feats. Snake Style you took all three feats, but only the first and last were truly useful. Crane Style was the only style that all three were worth taking.

That chain ruined to the point where only the first feat provides a reasonable return on investment. After that first feat the limitations on the other two do not make them worth spending feats on. You take a martial style from the best designed in the game to a single feat is all you should take.

I think the customers have a legitimate reason for their anger and frustration. I think there was a serious breach of trust between player customers and Paizo game designers. I hope they repair it.


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.

Good.


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

In their defense, it's not just "one feat in a non-core book." As this thread has shown, the errata to Crane Wing is emblematic of much deeper issues with the system in general, and the way the designers approach balance.

Also, dismissively calling Ultimate Combat a "non-core book" seems disingenuous. It's one of the largest, most utilized, most referenced books outside of the Core Rulebook and the Bestiary.


Ok, I am jumping in this late and I have not read through the entire thread, but at the risk of repeating something I just need to say:

First off, I understand the frustration. Crane Wing was/is awesome and the corner stone of a flowing monk I played once. I also understand that it is a super powerful feat and could understand nerfing it...

Honestly though, my printing of the book still contains the original ruling. Had I not read the errata, I would never know that it is supposed to be changed. I understand this effects PFS and I those who buy the new printing but in the end it will change nothing at my game table. My players and I will never be effected by this unless we so decide to implement it.

If you like the old ruling, then use the old ruling in your game. That is the beauty of games like this, you can change/use whatever rules you want.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DajellyMan wrote:

Ok, I am jumping in this late and I have not read through the entire thread, but at the risk of repeating something I just need to say:

First off, I understand the frustration. Crane Wing was/is awesome and the corner stone of a flowing monk I played once. I also understand that it is a super powerful feat and could understand nerfing it...

Honestly though, my printing of the book still contains the original ruling. Had I not read the errata, I would never know that it is supposed to be changed. I understand this effects PFS and I those who buy the new printing but in the end it will change nothing at my game table. My players and I will never be effected by this unless we so decide to implement it.

If you like the old ruling, then use the old ruling in your game. That is the beauty of games like this, you can change/use whatever rules you want.

Not necessarily true.

If you like the old ruling and you are the GM, or if you can convince the GM, you can use the old ruling.

Outside of Pathfinder Society of course. Well, unless you are me. If I run a PFS game with people using Crane Wing at my table, I will inform them to use the old Crane Wing. Take away my PFS number if you want, it isn't exactly hard to get a new one.


K177Y C47 wrote:
No offence but so far every post I have seen from MagusJanus has been very beligerent, argumentative, or just straight frustrating...

You should look up the word belligerent, mate. Also, it is human nature to argue. To make an assertion is all that's needed to argue. Personal frustration is, well, a personal problem.

So, what's the issue outside of being human?


Cheapy wrote:

One of the interesting fundamental truths of PF is that as you get to be a higher level, bonuses to defenses are intentionally outpaced by bonuses to hit. This is done, simply enough, so that characters, and enemies, hit more often and deplete more expensive resources. This, in turn, is so that the higher level play doesn't just become a slogfest, where everyone attacks, finally rolls well, and still misses. This generally slows down gameplay, and isn't particularly fun for those involved.

The old version of the feat kinda ... throws that whole philosophy out the door, and does it in an inexpensive way.

But I believe the feat should scale, or its a very heavy feat tax for a gain that will be obsolete soon. Im behind the changes for the most part, The feat was too strong, but in its current version its not strong enough for a 4 feat combo. they need to toss the style users a bone

Grand Lodge

Tholomyes wrote:
bsctgod wrote:

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.

For a high AC monk, that always fights defensively, Crane Riposte should yield significantly more AoOs than the old versions(Riposte and Wing). Anything that boosts the DPR for a class, often stated that lags behind the other martials, is worth it. Maybe not so much for the lower AC MoMS dippers who depended on that deflection in battle, but, well as has been pointed out, the fact the MoMS can get the chain so much quicker than everyone else was the problem to begin with.


bsctgod wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
bsctgod wrote:

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.
For a high AC monk, that always fights defensively, Crane Riposte should yield significantly more AoOs than the old versions(Riposte and Wing). Anything that boosts the DPR for a class, often stated that lags behind the other martials, is worth it. Maybe not so much for the lower AC MoMS dippers who depended on that deflection in battle, but, well as has been pointed out, the fact the MoMS can get the chain so much quicker than everyone else was the problem to begin with.

They'll get more, if only by virtue of the fact that they're getting attacked more often, but otherwise it's less, since they won't provoke if the attack actually hits. Besides, there are much better ways to get the opponent to provoke attacks of opportunity, and chances are, even with the AoO, they'll lag behind other martials in DPR, possibly even moreso, because, not only do you have the issue of Monks' low damage output, but you also have to consider that more of your limited resources are going to boosting your defense, rather than your offence, making you even weaker, damage wise, than a normal monk, who isn't regarded as king of DPR, shall we say.

Lantern Lodge

Rogue Eidolon wrote:

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.

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).

I can see how you would find the race/class/personality combo amusing, but it was still a very strong choice for the build. And sure, 2 levels of Paladin would recoup the majority of the lost AC, and add a few more points to hit on top of what you had - once per day when you smite. The saves would certainly benefit from a constant improvement though.

In truth though, the above list is pretty well besides the point. I took the morning to educate myself on the Swashbuckler class. Signature Deed with Opportune Parry is like Crane Wing + Crane Riposte the 1st on mythic. There is an opposed roll, sure, but it is essentially your Dex+1 uses a round with Combat Reflexes. I would conclude that when you stack both of those things on the same character, of course it's going to be nutty.

I am also not quite sure how we are meant to consider that combination working as intended when Crane Wing took the hit it did. That actually blows my mind a little bit.

I agree that for pure defense Crane Wing the 1st was among the strongest defensive powers. In my personal opinion, Paladin Cha to saves, Nature Oracle's Nature's Whispers, Osyluth Guile, Monk Wis to AC, Duelist/Kensai Int to AC, fighting defensively abuse with Aldori Sworlord/Duelist/Crane Style/Rod of Balance/Cautious Fighter were all also too close to call for a clear winner. Everyone has their own perspective of course, and I respect yours. I just have to disagree with you about thinking it was that much stronger than the above listed options.

That is not even taking into account comparing it against the offensive options for strength, which are typically generally stronger.

Lantern Lodge

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Lormyr wrote:
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.

While I can appreciate that you did not intend for her to become a combo build, Aldori Swordlord is one of the most abusive fighting defensive classes to combo with Crane Wing. All you needed was a splash of Duelist and you were off.

Heh, that is a funny tale though.

Out of curiosity, if my memory serves, the documented character you did the original test for PFS was in fact a straight classed monk, correct? If I am remembering that correctly, how did that play experience compare to your other ones?

One thing that always frustrated me about the style feats was them being able to be used while armored and armed. I loved playing my PFS monk, but every magus/mom and fighter (aldori)/aldori swordlord/duelist I made was just plain better with those feats than the monk in terms of offense and melee defense. Equal AC, and considerably better attack bonus and damage because of a combination of class feats, class features, less costly "weapon" item, and less attribute MAD.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Darth Grall wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

The reason why monsters hit is so that the game keeps moving. The reason why high level PC's have so many bloody hit points is so they can survive being hit.

Being 90% invulnerable and 10% squashed flat means after 10 fights you're squashed flat. It's the same thing which makes people hate save-or-die or save-or-suck spells. All or nothing is a lousy way to game.

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.

at least with the revision it doesn't work 100% of the time, or automatically when you want it to. It's a big shift in power. But if the BBEG is still coming with one attack, a +4 Dodge to AC is huge...but justifiable.

And if all you want is the riposte, just select an attack that's going to miss, and you get the riposte without effort.

Crane just became more tactical and balanced. I don't see a problem with it now, especially with riposte fixed.

==Aelryinth

See I still disagree, but I doubt I can convince you at this point when many others have not, but I will simply say the following.

You mention the tactical use of the feat, limiting an opponent to a Standard. Typically that involved a move action. Infering the Monk/Whatever has moved away from the BBEG. I don't see why the BBEG wouldn't just move away and switch to an alternative means of combat. Most APs I've played have BBEGs who can cast, and if they can't cast they can at least use a ranged weapon. They can take the opportunity to heal, focus on someone else, etc. I can't help but think that the impulse to Melee alone, even on Melee specialized builds is a mistep.

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 enemies don't DO this, and it's very easy for the PLAYER to nix this, through a combination of uncanny dodge, extremely high init (you're a dex build, right?) and/or Sense Motive ranks.

Seriously, how often do PC's get Feinted in combat? In PVP you might see it, but basically Feinting is used for a very substandard style for ONE HIT against a foe. Without improved Feint, you can just get out of range of the enemy who just Feinted you, or potentially even kill them before the follow up occurs.

In effect, a Feint is one of the attacks your Crane WIng neutralized, because the enemy is forced to use it to hit you AT ALL. That's not a way around it so much as a tactic for subprime fighting they are being forced to use to do anything to you at all.

And, as people pointed out, Feint makes the character easier to hit since it nerfs Dodge bonuses. But if the attacker still misses? Riposte can still go off.

===Aelryinth


6 people marked this as a favorite.

So, in short, Crane Wing was overpowered because of substandard enemies who don't use all the tools at their disposal?

Well, now the nerf makes perfect sense :-/


Aelryinth if your concern is that the old CW forced the GM to use "suboptimal" methods to attack the player do you think that abilities that grant monster immunity are equally unfair?

Should GM's not be allowed to use swarms against martials or elementals against casters that specialize in a specific element? (or golems against casters for that matter...)

In short, yes your observation is valid, but unless you believe that all limited immunities should be removed from the game it's not really an argument.

(Just for funzies someone should run a 3rd level CW fighter/MoMS against some commoners or goblins with slings and daggers spaced out about 20' apart. Any one want to take bets on how many it takes to take out the fighter?)


Petrus222 wrote:

Aelryinth if your concern is that the old CW forced the GM to use "suboptimal" methods to attack the player do you think that abilities that grant monster immunity are equally unfair?

Should GM's not be allowed to use swarms against martials or elementals against casters that specialize in a specific element? (or golems against casters for that matter...)

In short, yes your observation is valid, but unless you believe that all limited immunities should be removed from the game it's not really an argument.

(Just for funzies someone should run a 3rd level CW fighter/MoMS against some commoners or goblins with slings and daggers spaced out about 20' apart. Any one want to take bets on how many it takes to take out the fighter?)

Apparently that's unrealistic, because, like attacking the fighter more than once per round, or magic, ranged attacks aren't something that badguys do. The only fair test is one at a time, one melee attack per round.


Throne wrote:
Apparently that's unrealistic, because, like attacking the fighter more than once per round, or magic, ranged attacks aren't something that badguys do. The only fair test is one at a time, one melee attack per round.

Well, of course. It's called mook chivalry.


Ok skipped a few pages. like 8-9 or something.

Crane Ripsote has also now been altered. If the attack that Crane Wing was attached to misses, you can Riposte as well.

This makes the chain, decent. I think.

Crane Wing is not what it was anymore, and I doubt it will ever be so good again.

But now one at least Crane Riposte could go off without the really stupid Total Defense thing.

(My dark side wanted to play PFS in total defense 5 footing after the enemies and watching them die horribly as my monk just plays like his feat choices dictated... Luckily I placed my dark side back in its box)

I love Deflect Arrows, all my monks take it at lvl2's bonus feat (at the latest). So I loved the same mechanic getting applied again. Oh well.

Lastly I would like to apologize for my last post. It was full of whisky and disappointment that the defensive monk choice has been made useless.

Now I am content. Not truly happy, but content :P

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd be pretty cool with just getting to add the +4 dodge bonus after the GM tells me the attack total. That'd seem pretty solid-but-not-over-the-top to me.


Jiggy wrote:
I'd be pretty cool with just getting to add the +4 dodge bonus after the GM tells me the attack total. That'd seem pretty solid-but-not-over-the-top to me.

Sort of... I would like the opportunity to "Crane Wing" an attack I know hit.

But I don't want to hear the number the attack got to. That would break the flow of combat even more and Id like to attempt to deflect the blow, not knowing if it will still come through or not. I dont like metagaming :P

I was doing Wing Chun Kung Fu for a while, and what I loved about Crane Style was how it reminded me of that fighting style. Where combat deflect/counter attacks get programmed into you.

Damn, guess I need to find out who teaches that in my area now and see about rejoining.

:P

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah....fixing Crane Riposte is not a fix for Crane Wing, it just fixes what CW inadvertently broke with the errata. Yes Jiggy that would definitely help (+4 after the roll), although I think it'd be better if they just left it and made it Monk only (with a higher level requirement), and maybe let 20's hit. Possibly also add if they roll a 20 that you CAN use CW but it'll still hit, they just they won't be able to confirm the critical. The options are numerous on how to fix CW, it's just a matter of picking one. Given Jason's response I'm hopeful that they'll have a good solution by the end of the week. :-)

Grand Lodge

Tholomyes wrote:
They'll get more, if only by virtue of the fact that they're getting attacked more often, but otherwise it's less, since they won't provoke if the attack actually hits. Besides, there are much better ways to get the opponent to provoke attacks of opportunity, and chances are, even with the AoO, they'll lag behind other martials in DPR, possibly even moreso, because, not only do you have the issue of Monks' low damage output, but you also have to consider that more of your limited resources are going to boosting your defense, rather than your offence, making you even weaker, damage wise, than a normal monk, who isn't regarded as king of DPR, shall we say.

Even if they were attacked the same, they would still get many times more ripostes than before.

Crane Wing/Riposte example vs. 4-attack monster all 20's to hit

Chances for riposte with old version: 5%, 5%, 5%, 5% = 18.5% chance of getting the AoO

Chances for riposte with new version: 95%, 0%, 0%, 0% = 95% chance of getting the AoO


Lormyr wrote:
I agree that for pure defense Crane Wing the 1st was among the strongest defensive powers. In my personal opinion, Paladin Cha to saves, Nature Oracle's Nature's Whispers, Osyluth Guile, Monk Wis to AC, Duelist/Kensai Int to AC, fighting defensively abuse with Aldori Sworlord/Duelist/Crane Style/Rod of Balance/Cautious Fighter were all also too close to call for a clear winner. Everyone has their own perspective of course, and I respect yours. I just have to disagree with you about thinking it was that much stronger than the above listed options.

Every single one of those is a class ability except Osyluth Guile (which is also OP) and Cautious Fighter (which is extremely powerful but seems like a fair feat if there weren't so many other things to synergize with). Paladin's Cha to saves is extraordinarily good (and now Swash get that too a limited number of times per day, in a stacking way, making the multiclass even better...) and does something different than just more AC, but every single other thing you listed is just more AC. The thing is, once you get the enemies to need a 20 to hit you, none of those other options matter. But you still might not win. In several of my playtests where I was level 1 or 2 in a 4-5 scenario, I would have lost even if I had 100 AC and no Crane Wing, simply because of how many natural attacks there were. As you and I know all too well, despite the popular claim to the contrary, Crane Wing is nearly at its most powerful (obviously, yes, it's most powerful is against a solo who can only attack once) when you are fighting a swarm of guys who need a high roll to hit you. By most powerful, I mean it gives you the comparatively highest percentage of hit negation. Anyway, suffice to say, my hit points were so low that I would have died in a small number of hits, even if I dealt with things like poison and paralysis that were added effects on successful hits. Not just expected value--I counted enough deflections in one of my ghoul fights that I would have died from average hit point damage.

So the point is--when you have some absurd AC, normally picking any of the other abilities you mentioned doesn't help you. But Crane Wing still does. In fact it is at its most powerful (other than like the skeletal t-rex).


Lormyr wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Lormyr wrote:
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.

While I can appreciate that you did not intend for her to become a combo build, Aldori Swordlord is one of the most abusive fighting defensive classes to combo with Crane Wing. All you needed was a splash of Duelist and you were off.

No Duelist splash though.

Quote:

Heh, that is a funny tale though.

Out of curiosity, if my memory serves, the documented character you did the original test for PFS was in fact a straight classed monk, correct? If I am remembering that correctly, how did that play experience compare to your other ones?

One thing that always frustrated me about the style feats was them being able to be used while armored and armed. I loved playing my PFS monk, but every magus/mom and fighter (aldori)/aldori swordlord/duelist I made was just plain better with those feats...

Iakhovas is a MoMS/Fighter with Crane and Archon. He fights with a falcata, and he's used a few techniques like Human Favored Class Bonus to have an absurd CMD against the maneuvers that Crane couldn't deflect that mattered to him, like grapple (Seriously, even a Tetori is pretty unlikely to grapple him). He is a total Grand Lodge lackey from Geb (the Grand Lodge is protecting him from extradition, as he murdered his legal owner, a vampiress). Keep in mind I built his skeleton waiting in line for PFS at Gencon having just received my copy of Ultimate Combat, so it was just the first thing that came to mind. I don't have that Torag trait to never be flat-footed on the surprise round or like Urban Barbarian for Uncanny Dodge.

His on-turn damage is hardly worse than a pure falchion fighter, although his ripostes are a bit weaker with the whole one-handing thing.

Compared to the others, Iakhovas was more invincible and did more insane things. However, this was because he was playing up all the time, in as small of a group as possible and preferably when the whole group was playing up. This often led to the entire party being taken out while Iakhovas fought the encounters (though if it weren't for the rogue owning a +1 shortsword, his fight with the allip that one time would have lasted for all eternity).

Lantern Lodge

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Every single one of those is a class ability except Osyluth Guile (which is also OP) and Cautious Fighter (which is extremely powerful but seems like a fair feat if there weren't so many other things to synergize with). Paladin's Cha to saves is extraordinarily good (and now Swash get that too a limited number of times per day, in a stacking way, making the multiclass even better...) and does something different than just more AC, but every single other thing you listed is just more AC. The thing is, once you get the enemies to need a 20 to hit you, none of those other options matter.

A fair observation regarding class features vs. feats.

That aside, the feats in question are roughly on par with their offensive opponents I would say. Namely feats like Power Attack, Rapid Shot, Many Shot, Clustered Shots, ect.

Also a fair observation that none of those options matter once you get an enemy to needing a 20 to hit you. However, in order to pull that off the vast majority of the time, you need one or more of those options in the first place.

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
But you still might not win. In several of my playtests where I was level 1 or 2 in a 4-5 scenario, I would have lost even if I had 100 AC and no Crane Wing, simply because of how many natural attacks there were. As you and I know all too well, despite the popular claim to the contrary, Crane Wing is nearly at its most powerful (obviously, yes, it's most powerful is against a solo who can only attack once) when you are fighting a swarm of guys who need a high roll to hit you. By most powerful, I mean it gives you the comparatively highest percentage of hit negation.

Fully agree. It was too strong at low levels. I don't think it should have been able to come on line until 7th level personally. I personally do not attribute the same definition to most powerful as you, however. While I agree that you get the most uses out of it in the circumstance you outlined, I consider it a more powerful use against giant creatures with titanic CMB bonuses who might standard action grapple you or the like.

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
So the point is--when you have some absurd AC, normally picking any of the other abilities you mentioned doesn't help you. But Crane Wing still does. In fact it is at its most powerful (other than like the skeletal t-rex).

I agree. Where we diverge, however, is that being a problem. Point and case: My PFS monk ended at 19th level. With his Qinggong barkskin running, a shield spell in 8 minute intervals from his staff of lesser arcana, fighting defensively with Combat Expertise, and using Ki dodge, he had a 76 AC and Crane Wing. I could make a melee character in 10 minutes of that level that could hack through that with only medium difficulty.

While 76 is not as high as you can go (with the right build you could probably hit about 100), that still required about 2/3 to 3/4 of all my character resources to achieve on a full classed monk. Obtaining the offense to defeat it does not require the same level of resource commitment. If that point does not matter to some people, that is ok. It does matter to me though, and is the basis of my point. Offense has crazy options. Let defense have a few as well.

Lantern Lodge

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
No Duelist splash though.

Indeed. It's by no means necessary. Just inflates the desired numbers even further.

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
he's used a few techniques like Human Favored Class Bonus to have an absurd CMD against the maneuvers that Crane couldn't deflect that mattered to him, like grapple

I do not see why Crane Wing the 1st would not have worked in deflecting a grapple attempt. Grapple checks are attack rolls after all. Have I overlooked something?

Or perhaps you mean creatures with grab or such. Like being hit with both claws, Winging one, and then the grab attempt happening on the one that went unblocked?

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
His on-turn damage is hardly worse than a pure falchion fighter, although his ripostes are a bit weaker with the whole one-handing thing.

I think this fact is important when appraising the feat, and who takes it.

For pure monks, their damage dice is typically nice, but they suffer from having a difficult time landing hits and not having the highest bonus on the damage dice. In the hands of such a character, the feat was really nice, and quite fair in my opinion.

But when you splash in MoM or just organically buy the feats on another character that hits far more reliable and with a typically much better bonus on the damage dice, it can certainly make the feat look overbearing.

We both seem fairly cemented in our opinions, though. Though we may have to just agree to disagree, I appreciate the back and forth none the less.


Lormyr wrote:
Fully agree. It was too strong at low levels. I don't think it should have been able to come on line until 7th level personally. I personally do not attribute the same definition to most powerful as you, however. While I agree that you get the most uses out of it in the circumstance you outlined, I consider it a more powerful use against giant creatures with titanic CMB bonuses who might standard action grapple you or the like.

I don't mind if it makes you consider Crane to be even weaker, but it doesn't work. Grapple is not considered a "melee weapon attack" according to what I've read from the FAQs. You can always Wing Trip, Disarm, Sunder, and sometimes other things. This is also my response to your grapple question from the second post.

Lormyr wrote:

I agree. Where we diverge, however, is that being a problem. Point and case: My PFS monk ended at 19th level. With his Qinggong barkskin running, a shield spell in 8 minute intervals from his staff of lesser arcana, fighting defensively with Combat Expertise, and using Ki dodge, he had a 76 AC and Crane Wing. I could make a melee character in 10 minutes of that level that could hack through that with only medium difficulty.

While 76 is not as high as you can go (with the right build you could probably hit about 100), that still required about 2/3 to 3/4 of all my character resources to achieve on a full classed monk. Obtaining the offense to defeat it does not require the same level of resource commitment. If that point does not matter to some people, that is ok. It does matter to me though, and is the basis of my point. Offense has crazy options. Let defense have a few as well.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but even with maximum courageous cheese and a larger number of short-duration buffs than the monk is using, I'm hitting low 60s to hit with highest attack bonus unless you can somehow smite the monk (this is using either barbarian1/alchemist1/fighter17 with gloves of dueling or barbarian1/alchemist1/ranger17 with instant enemy, plus a +5 tome and buffs or items for morale, luck (with the cheese trait for more luck), and competence, as well as a +6 Str size bonus form of the giant active). I may have also failed to carry a 1 somewhere.

Lormyr wrote:

I think this fact is important when appraising the feat, and who takes it.

For pure monks, their damage dice is typically nice, but they suffer from having a difficult time landing hits and not having the highest bonus on the damage dice. In the hands of such a character, the feat was really nice, and quite fair in my opinion.

But when you splash in MoM or just organically buy the feats on another character that hits far more reliable and with a typically much better bonus on the damage dice, it can certainly make the feat look overbearing.

The best solution to that problem, in my mind, is to nerf the feats as they did (but let you declare the +4 AC after the attack roll) and then do something else about monks. Unfortunately, the fact that monks have trouble hitting is a huge confounding variable in the balance discussion that has no bearing on the power of Crane.

Old Crane will always be overpowered in the hands of any non-monk who has already picked a class that receives a buff for using a one-handed style (a buff that is clearly needed, since one-handed is normally weaker), essentially double (or triple if they are clever) dipping on the things the designers want to give them in exchange for one-handing, and it will also be overpowered on people with a falcata, since falcata is a one-handed weapon that is better two-handed than any two-handed weapon.

The fact that, independently, monk is weak offensively, is not particularly relevant to the discussion of Crane--it's a separate confounding issue.

Lormyr wrote:


We both seem fairly cemented in our opinions, though. Though we may have to just agree to disagree, I appreciate the back and forth none the less.

We both have a lot of playtest data in home games that contradict. I fully and completely respect the data you gathered in your own home game, and I can see you respect mine. As I said early on, differing factors in play style will lead to home game data being overruled by confounding factors (there's also the fact that you played a pure monk and I played those characters who took the feats naturally without monk levels or splashed MoMS, so that confounded us with monk issues).

My PFS data is a level baseline--I didn't use any weird tricks to get lots of stats to AC on him (indeed my fighter uses armor in lieu of the Wis to AC). It's all just the bog-standard equipment you would generate mindlessly for AC (plus Dueling Gloves). A lot of people here (not you or I, but others) are saying some not-nice things about PFS, but I really did wind up in a variety of scenarios with Iakhovas, with plenty of saves of all types, ranged attacks, swarms, melee, and more. The fact is that even with a good variety, in nearly any campaign, melee is the common denominator that comes up time and again. And it did for Iak. Sometimes, though, Iak's legendary invincibility depended also on, for instance, a successful Will save that was then followed by unfair Crane antics--it wasn't all melee all the time, and he could have failed if he rolled very low on the Will.

That all being said, each GM is the best one to know if Crane was problematic in their own game. I truly hope most GMs consider carefully and pick what's right for them (which in my experience will generally be something close to the current errata for most games), and I am greatly relieved that this is gone from PFS (next stop, the craziest gunslinger builds I hope).

Lantern Lodge

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
I don't mind if it makes you consider Crane to be even weaker, but it doesn't work. Grapple is not considered a "melee weapon attack" according to what I've read from the FAQs. You can always Wing Trip, Disarm, Sunder, and sometimes other things. This is also my response to your grapple question from the second post.

Ah, I see your meaning there, as well as how you arrived to that conclusion. There was in fact a big much ado about that topic some time ago. The term you are thinking of is manufactured weapon attack. There was a dev post on the topic some years ago I will see if I can dig up for you. In short, it explained that natural weapons and the like are considered "weapon attacks".

Think of all the implications if that was not the intent. After all, the magic fang spell gives one natural "weapon" an enhancement bonus. Even natural weapons still require melee and ranged distinction. Manticore tail spikes vs. rat bite for example.

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but even with maximum courageous cheese and a larger number of short-duration buffs than the monk is using, I'm hitting low 60s to hit with highest attack bonus unless you can somehow smite the monk (this is using either barbarian1/alchemist1/fighter17 with gloves of dueling or barbarian1/alchemist1/ranger17 with instant enemy, plus a +5 tome and buffs or items for morale, luck (with the cheese trait for more luck), and competence, as well as a +6 Str size bonus form of the giant active). I may have also failed to carry a 1 somewhere.

You don't even need to get into all that. A fairly routine (at least as far as you or I would be concerned) fighter/splash of rogue with the two-weapon fighting tree, improved two-weapon feint, and brilliant energy swords with a titanic bluff shreds that poor monk in a stand up fight. Chops the monk's AC down to about 30, give or take.

Alternatively, giant intimidate with shattered defenses.

Alternatively, hidden master ninja with a brilliant energy bow.

Alternatively, mind blank scroll + invisibility + bow.

The list goes on. Strong, absolutely. But nowhere near full proof. In fairness, half of those options are ranged, however. Just illustrating the point.

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
The fact that, independently, monk is weak offensively, is not particularly relevant to the discussion of Crane--it's a separate confounding issue.

This is true, and I apologize if you found this to be confounding the issue. Such does not help examine the feat for it's own merits/flaws stand alone. I do think looking at how it works with the class it was intended for vs. other classes is at least somewhat relevant, however.

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
We both have a lot of playtest data in home games that contradict. I fully and completely respect the data you gathered in your own home game, and I can see you respect mine.

Truer words were never spoken. I would imagine that both of our data is perfectly relevant. For comparison, our home games are almost 100% RAW, with simple bannings for options we don't want to use. We never play exotic races, and all the players have degrees in system mastery, so the PCs and enemies tend to be tough all around. In PFS games we play with our core group, we compensate for the PC min/maxing by the GM playing with the most ruthless tactics he can with his given material. We've had some surprising challenges from time to time due to simple party composition (the end fight of Doom comes to Dustpawn was super close and looked grim for a while due to our magic light group).

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
That all being said, each GM is the best one to know if Crane was problematic in their own game. I truly hope most GMs consider carefully and pick what's right for them (which in my experience will generally be something close to the current errata for most games), and I am greatly relieved that this is gone from PFS (next stop, the craziest gunslinger builds I hope).

I personally wouldn't mind Crane Wing working as is currently if it had a bonus feature for pure monks. Perhaps a scaling AC bonus for them, or a once per day Crane Wing the 1st effect. My primary beef with this errata is it's secondary consequence of further damaging monks, though I do maintain frustration at the offense / defense disparity.

Total Gunslinger derail:
I am not a fan of the touch attacks at all, but I can live with them if we just got rid double-barrel firearms, signature deed, and scaled down up close and deadly. Possibly also remove class features that remove the chance of missfires as well if we leave them aiming for touch.

I'd also like to see some of the magus arcane (like accurate strike) toned down, pounce taken away from barbarians, and mounted skirmisher removed. I realize most of that is a pipe dream, though.

1,601 to 1,650 of 2,304 << first < prev | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Crane Wing Errata in latest printing All Messageboards