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?)
Just for funzies, do that with any melee, and watch what happens.
If melee is not a part of your game, as in the examples being run further up, then CW is irrelevant. SPells and ranged rule the day.
If melee is a big part of your game, then CW will be a dominating force, especially if run by someone who knows how to use it, like Lormyr posted, where her lower level fighter cohort took less damage and so was better in melee then the 2h falchion guy.
==Aelryinth
Aelryinth I think you're missing my point. Pathfinder has a giant tool box of things that bypassed the old crane wing. As a GM it's pretty easy to deal with the "problems" the old CW caused. Not every encounter has to be or even should be purely melee (or purely ranged, or purely spells).
After all if monsters or creatures with semi-immunity to certain types of attacks exist why shouldn't the player's have their own version of it? No GM would argue that fireball's should be banned because water elmentals are vunerable to them and no one would argue that fire elemental should be banned because they ignore scorching rays... in short it was kind of a non-issue except for PFS where there's less flexibility (and even then I'm not 100% sure I understand why they didn't just ban the feat from PFS, or add a bunch of conditional modifiers to what sort of melee attacks could be deflected:
e.g. size restriction, no incorpeal attacks unless you have some sort of force armor, no deflecting energy damage from a melee attack etc.)
Paizo sells a bunch of APs and other modules which are predicated on people running stat-blocks as is.
There's no 'rule' forcing GMs to use fixed tactics like there is for PFS,
but not having to deal with building statblocks is a major selling point of most Paizo adventure products.
NPCs being so much more numerous can simply not be given a fraction of the attention by GMs that PCs can re: scouring sourcebooks for abilities.
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.
We are not in disagreement here. I've Wing-ed plenty of natural attacks. However, some combat maneuvers are not weapon attacks. You can tell if they are or not by asking yourself the following question--if the critter had an Amulet of Mighty Fists, would it get that bonus to the combat maneuver. If yes, then it is a weapon attack. If not, then it isn't a weapon attack.
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.
Hmm, I didn't know how much you would lose to brilliant energy (I figured probably 8), but I couldn't get a +5 furious courageous brilliant energy weapon, so I didn't try it. As for the rest, it seems like you could have splashed Uncanny Dodge and eliminated every one of those except Feint, and your Sense Motive is presumably high enough that Feint is hard (since you actually get boosts from Wisdom whereas the attacker is only getting Feint from Charisma).
But yeah, ranged is ridiculous in Pathfinder!
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.
That's true--in fact the fact that monk is clearly the primary intended class for this is what probably helped hide how absolutely insane the feats are for at least some time, as initially probably most people who used it were monks.
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).
We mostly do RAW, but due to wanting unconscious characters to die less often, we have a special rule that makes it harder for them to wake up mid-fight (intelligent enemies know this and don't strike fallen people because of it). We also do simple bannings of clearly broken stuff with occasional reworks if we feel a minor tweak is better and someone really wants to use it. In general, weird races only if the GM feels like it adds to the campaign (for instance, I didn't want people playing Eastern races in Jade Regent because it starts in Sandpoint and therefore makes no sense, but I did OK a sylph because I was able to tie her into part of the story that initially has the least tie-in to the PCs). Our players are pretty skilled at doing crazy things, but we've broken the very worst combos and we insist on characters whose builds make sense for RP and in Golarion, since we are also an extremely high RP group (take that Stormwind fallacists!) But let's just say that the tactics I used on the Rise of the Runelords BBEG are substantially improved over what they have in the book, so much so that I have no doubt it would have TPKed 75%+ of groups, but my guys managed to win barely through extreme luck.
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.
Those are exactly the same things I think NEED to be eliminated. I would actually reorder it to put the misfire elimination class feature of Pistolero and Musketmaster as the #2 problem after double-barrel. I suspect they will eventually errata double-barrel to just shoot 2 as a standard and not double all attacks in a full attack.
I realize I'm late to the discussion here, and have not read the full 34 pages, but honestly? I see no reason to take Crane Wing now. Its too situational with too great a chance to be a moot usage. On top of that, Crane Riposte then also becomes pointless. Crane Style I suppose has a bit of a benefit, but even then, not a whole lot in my opinion.
Regardless of whether or not CW itself was overpowered (I'm of the opinion that it was not) an errata that in turns renders the target of the errata AND two other feats pretty much useless is poor errata. There are so many other things they could have done to have fixed it better.
Aelryinth I think you're missing my point. Pathfinder has a giant tool box of things that bypassed the old crane wing. As a GM it's pretty easy to deal with the "problems" the old CW caused. Not every encounter has to be or even should be purely melee (or purely ranged, or purely spells).
After all if monsters or creatures with semi-immunity to certain types of attacks exist why shouldn't the player's have their own version of it? No GM would argue that fireball's should be banned because water elmentals are vunerable to them and no one would argue that fire elemental should be banned because they ignore scorching rays... in short it was kind of a non-issue except for PFS where there's less flexibility (and even then I'm not 100% sure I understand why they didn't just ban the feat from PFS, or add a bunch of conditional modifiers to what sort of melee attacks could be deflected:
e.g. size restriction, no incorpeal attacks unless you have some sort of force armor, no deflecting energy damage from a melee attack etc.)
Petrus, the reason is because you're referring to isolated events that rarely come up, and generally simply test the ingenuity of the players, or let them shine in other ways.
Melee combat against the players is, however, a recurring and frequent event. And the only solution to Crane Wing in melee is, of course, not to melee. This is a massive headache for the GM, as many encounters he's simply not going to have any recourse, and if he does NOT resort to melee, he's discriminating against the Crane Wing guy who will dominate in melee.
As for PFS, fixing it there versus forcing every DM to alter encounters and home rule the feat is essentially admitting the feat is broken as it is. Should it have had conditional modifiers ala Deflect Arrows? Sure. But the fact of the matter is, as characters advance, fighting bigger monsters becomes more and more common, and if you put a size limit on Crane Wing you effectively nerf it into uselessness at later levels, and against all kinds of iconic monsters. Indeed, growing in size would be a quick way to defeat it!
the biggest problem is probably the fact there is no easy counter to the feat. If Vital Strike was only reduced to half damage by Crane Wing, you have a counter. If you could Feint as a swift action to counter Crane Wing for an attack reactively, since CW is reactive, you'd have some equity. If it was an opposed roll, you have equity.
But you don't, and it doesn't exist. The 'solutions' to Crane Wing being proposed above are solutions to 'martials in melee', not to Crane Wing.
It's an absolute defense in melee, and such things are far more powerful for the PC's then against the PC's. there's always someone who can figure out a way past the immunities of enemies. Swarms you hit with AoE's or alchemical weapons, easy enough to do. But you don't run into swarms in every fight. If you did, nobody would play melees, because then melees would be useless, right? But every monster is going to run into your CW, every time, and melee will be next to useless. You see the difference the GM has to deal with?
Turn it around, and consider what if every melee combatant you ran into had Crane Wing. That's what the monsters have to deal with, remember. Too, they used it effectively, attempting to limit the PC's to standard attack actions by moving around.
Very soon, nobody would bother to melee, because melee would be useless, or so slow as to seem that way. It would be all spells and ranged combat...which is exactly what people are proposing the monsters do against the CW guys. It's a flat out admission you can't beat the power of CW in melee.
==Aelryinth
I realize I'm late to the discussion here, and have not read the full 34 pages, but honestly? I see no reason to take Crane Wing now. Its too situational with too great a chance to be a moot usage. On top of that, Crane Riposte then also becomes pointless. Crane Style I suppose has a bit of a benefit, but even then, not a whole lot in my opinion.
Regardless of whether or not CW itself was overpowered (I'm of the opinion that it was not) an errata that in turns renders the target of the errata AND two other feats pretty much useless is poor errata. There are so many other things they could have done to have fixed it better.
Actually there's an even newer errata for Riposte. It is now offensively more powerful than before against weak foes (since if the attack misses, even if it just misses your AC, you get a riposte, meaning you almost always get one).
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.
Those are exactly the same things I think NEED to be eliminated. I would actually reorder it to put the misfire elimination class feature of Pistolero and Musketmaster as the #2 problem after double-barrel. I suspect they will eventually errata double-barrel to just shoot 2 as a standard and not double all attacks in a full attack.
My God. I thought Gunslingers were OP before, I never caught that bit about double-barreled guns. I'm very glad I have a blanket ban on guns or gunslingers at my table, but that's more because I just don't want guns in my fantasy outside of special rewards. I treat them as even rarer than the "Very Rare" category.
Even though I am still not happy with the change (and I do appreciate the Crane Riposte FAQ), I'm fairly certain this is the best that Crane Wing will get for the foreseeable future.
I still firmly believe that Crane Wing was strictly an issue with PFS and the tied hands of the GMs there in. I acknowledge some people had issues with it in their games, but I think that is more to do with the unwillingness of the GM to adapt to the actions of their players.
Probably more to withdrew with GM's that didn't want to either ignore or rewrite 3/4 of the monsters in the Bestiary too, Tels.
==Aelryinth
Actually there's an even newer errata for Riposte. It is now offensively more powerful than before against weak foes (since if the attack misses, even if it just misses your AC, you get a riposte, meaning you almost always get one).
I believe that also applies for misses due to Miss Chance or Mirror Image...?
People have focused on a 'nerf' of the 2nd Tier Feat, but the entire chain's balance is the most important IMHO.The 2nd Tier Feat seemingly was deemed more valuable for your Feat than the 3rd Tier Feat was, originally.
That was just backwards game design.
I acknowledge some people had issues with it in their games, but I think that is more to do with the unwillingness of the GM to adapt to the actions of their players.
I dunno. To be fair, I was never the GM for the Crane characters, since I was the playtester but I know the GMs pretty well, and they were throwing all sorts of curveballs at us. Plenty of spells, special abilities, and ranged attacks. In those cases, it was a matter of party tactics that we could use the Crane character as a hugely powerful chess piece. Like the time we beat a shoggoth at level 11 (Rhiana was level 9) by giving her freedom of movement while my bard used countersong against its maddening cacophony. Rhiana was the lure for the shoggoth and then we focused it pretty hard. By the time its oozy maddened 5 Int realized it needed to Trample past her with its Trample ability, it was far too late.
Even though I am still not happy with the change (and I do appreciate the Crane Riposte FAQ), I'm fairly certain this is the best that Crane Wing will get for the foreseeable future.
Why do you believe that, when Jason specifically said that that they are working on possible further changes to Crane Wing? The updated Errata for Riposte is a different Feat, so is not the outcome of that...
IMHO, Monk of Many Styles needs Errata just as much (addressing dipping), that will allow for a fairer balancing of the Crane Wing Feat.
The riposte isn't as much of a problem, because it's a one handed weapon, and you're not using your free hand. At the most, it's just a second attack you might not normally get, and you only get one of them. Not too much different damage wise then using a 2h weapon.
The absolute reactive annulment of the Wing was definitely a problem, esp. combined with a decent AC.
==Aelryinth
Even with new crane wing, I think a MoMS with snake, panther, crane, and dragon styles could do a fair amount of damage.
The crane doesn't help that much, but you are probably doing a lot of attacks per round.
|
We are not in disagreement here. I've Wing-ed plenty of natural attacks. However, some combat maneuvers are not weapon attacks. You can tell if they are or not by asking yourself the following question--if the critter had an Amulet of Mighty Fists, would it get that bonus to the combat maneuver. If yes, then it is a weapon attack. If not, then it isn't a weapon attack.
A point well made. I will have to do a pinch of investigation into some thoughts before responding further.
Hmm, I didn't know how much you would lose to brilliant energy (I figured probably 8), but I couldn't get a +5 furious courageous brilliant energy weapon, so I didn't try it. As for the rest, it seems like you could have splashed Uncanny Dodge and eliminated every one of those except Feint, and your Sense Motive is presumably high enough that Feint is hard (since you actually get boosts from Wisdom whereas the attacker is only getting Feint from Charisma).
Part of the issue is, against a build with that much AC and general resistance, you pretty much have to specifically build a counter build. So that certainly makes the situation less common. I just wanted to demonstrate it is doable in a manner that is valid. I personally love the improved two-weapon feint feat. It's one of the few things that keep rogues viable vs. other melee martials.
The exact points vary by specifics, but you will generally be looking at a bluff in the area of +48 - +52, and an attack routine of +40/+40/+40/+35/+35/+30/+30/+25 (1d4+36ish/15-20 x2) vs. his flat-footed, non-armor, non-shield AC around 30ish. 19th level example.
My particular monk had a sense motive of +39, for a feint DC of 49. Skill Focus and Alertness could have boosted that to DC 55 or 59 respectively, but unlike the fighter with 20 some odd feats, I have no idea what I would have given up on the monk for one of those without hurting myself pretty noticeably.
That's true--in fact the fact that monk is clearly the primary intended class for this is what probably helped hide how absolutely insane the feats are for at least some time, as initially probably most people who used it were monks.
I agree. It's a shame how much better it combo'd with other martials in my opinion.
We mostly do RAW, ect.
That sounds about right for our group too. We all enjoy number crunching and building almost as much as actual play, but the game gets boring without RP too.
So, a pair of questions for you for curiosity sake. If the Swashbuckler parry gets printed as is in the test document presently, do you believe that will be reasonable considering Crane Wing's changes? Signature deed there is glorious insanity waiting to happen. Even without it, it's still amazing.
Second, if it does make it to live, do you believe a monk class feature (rather than feat) of similiar stature could be warranted? Something akin to the Crane Wing of yore.
Even though I am still not happy with the change (and I do appreciate the Crane Riposte FAQ), I'm fairly certain this is the best that Crane Wing will get for the foreseeable future.Why do you believe that, when Jason specifically said that that they are working on possible further changes to Crane Wing? The updated Errata for Riposte is a different Feat, so is not the outcome of that...
IMHO, Monk of Many Styles needs Errata just as much (addressing dipping), that will allow for a fairer balancing of the Crane Wing Feat.
Well, Paizo isn't exactly known for answering FAQs on a very timely manner or issuing Errata.
Take, for example, the Monk Flurry of Blows issue. 6 months after the initial ruling and the storm that resulted from it, they issued an errata to fix the change. I understand it was an issue to take under advisement, and they also had to prepare for cons and stuff, but I can't possibly believe it took them 6 months to sit down and talk about it. With the amount of uproar this caused on the forums and the problems it caused in PFS, this should have been something they should have focused on and dealt with a lot sooner.
The Charm Person thread I started last year took 2 months for a Blog Post to be issued (that never even answered the question of the thread) and 8 months before it was added to the FAQ list.
I also made a thread about the language conflict in Unarmed Strikes that was answered over a year after it came out.
The point is, any further changes that may come about due to Crane Wing, especially since the issue seems to be divided between Homegames and PFS games, is going to be a long time coming.
See, the Paizo team is not just in the middle of their normal work-day right now, they are also in the midst of RPG Super Star. After Super Star is done, it's Con Season. Con Season won't end until roughly November (to allow for catch up from Con Season) and then they will start with FAQs and errata again.
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.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.
Grapple is not a Natural Weapon or Unarmed Strike and is thus not benefitted by Magic Fang/Amulets of Mighty Fist. The only thing suggesting Grapple is a weapon (AFAIK) is Weapon Focus, but the wording there actually suggest that it isn't REALLy but is only treated as such for that Feat. Bullrush/Over-Run likewise are not weapons.
'Melee attack' is by far the more common term, and applies to all melee attacks, manufactured weapons, natural weapons, or non-weapon melee attacks (your point addressing it as an adjective applicable to manuf. weapon attacks, natural weapon attacs, and indeed non-weapon attacks, is spot on). Riposte in fact uses this term, NOT 'melee weapon attack'.
'Melee weapon attack' is a different term from 'melee attack', and excludes non-weapons that may still count as the latter term.
Examples I found searching the PRD for 'melee weapon attack' (very few compared to 'melee attack'):
Accurate Strike (Ex): The magus can expend 2 points from his arcane pool as a swift action to resolve all of his melee weapon attacks until the end of his turn as melee touch attacks. The magus must be at least 9th level before selecting this arcana.
Applying to melee weapon attacks specifically means that this doesn't work for Grapple, Bullrush, Over-Run.
Great Hatred (Combat)
Prerequisites: Gnome, hatred racial trait.
Benefit: You gain an additional +1 bonus on melee and thrown weapon attacks against targets of your hatred racial trait.
That should only work with weapons (manufactured or natural), not normal Grapple/Bullrush/Over-Run/etc.
Bloody Assault (Combat)
Benefit: You can choose to take a –5 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to inflict 1d4 points of bleed damage with your weapon melee attacks, in addition to the normal damage dealt by the weapon.
Note that this applies a penalty to ALL melee attack rolls (it also distinctly mentions CMB checks, but that is superfluous, even for non-weapon CMBs like Grapple), but the benefit applies only to "weapon melee attacks". It seems to have switched around the word order, but the concept seems the same as "melee weapon attacks". Thus the benefit doesn't apply to non-weapon Grapple, Bullrush, etc. Normally damage BONUSES would not be triggered by attacks that don't deal damage (like Grapple, but the same is true of weapons that don't deal damage for some reason), but this is an independent effect: a bleed effect, not even akin to +1d6 flaming/sneak attack/etc, so if it were NOT for the restriction to "weapon melee attacks", the bleed WOULD be triggered by normal Grapple, Bullrush, etc. In fact, we need to consider attacks made by 'weapons' that happen not to deal any damage for some reason (special ability doing something else, etc), would Bleed be triggered by them?
I think that last bit gets further into the definition of 'weapon attack'. Broadly, you could say it just needs to use a weapon, which excludes normal Grapple, but includes damage-less weapons and weapon delivered Trip, etc. IMHO, 'weapon attack' must not only use a 'weapon', but actually deal 'weapon damage', i.e. some dice amount (or minimum 1 point) plus relative bonuses. If we go with that, then Grapple could potentially count as a 'weapon attack' WHEN USING THE "Damage" option of Maintain. (Constrict triggering on a normal Grapple initiation would not be enough to change the Grapple into a weapon attack though).
|
I think the problem with a reactive wing, is the builds that get the AC so high, that only a natural 20 can hit, even for APL +5 opponents.
Don't scoff, that's a very real situation. And yes, GM's are completely capable of designing encounters to combat this.
But what happens is, that it starts to break credibility when every APL +2 monster suddenly has the ability to counteract that AC by either all now hitting touch AC (which for most of these wing builds will be similar) or all with ridiculous bonuses to hit, or all being some form of spellcaster where hitting doesn't matter, etc.
So the off chance that I do roll a nat 20 against you (or low and behold, actually confirm a critical) you get to negate that hit.
The reactiveness of wing of the past, essentially made it nigh impossible to challenge that character with a standard melee on melee combat.
And that isn't game balance.
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
If a melee-only monster needed a 20 to hit it's pretty hard for anything to be overpowered. You were going to win - decisively - with or without ripostes. It's not the type of crucible encounter in which balance is actually tested.
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.
Uncanny Dodge? I'd call anything that has to dip MoMS & Rogue/Whatever for Uncanny Dodge some heck of a dip.
As for Sense Motive, I'll give you that Sense Motive ranks can somewhat counter this weakness, but isn't that yet another tax on the player? Even if you don't perceive it as such, it would at least add a layer of variability to the new feat since I see a LOT of NPCs with Bluff that could compete with a Monk's Sense Motive DC. Especially in APs. Also, if they're the high dex & ac types, it has other clear benefits.
Yes though, my PCs don't feint often. But they do it way more often than they Full Defense >.> Also, I thought the problem was that GMs couldn't get past Crane Style and "challenge" them, not players dealing with Crane on NPCs. The amount that PCs actually Feint shouldn't be relevant to the discussion.
Also I built a Mythic Druid with the whole crane line recently, it was mediocre at best. I'll post the results later.
|
If a melee-only monster needed a 20 to hit it's pretty hard for anything to be overpowered. You were going to win - decisively - with or without ripostes. It's not the type of crucible encounter in which balance is actually tested.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
I was just trying to say that the probability of getting a riposte has significantly increased for the high AC characters, like monks. Winning or losing the encounter doesn't matter.
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.
No. It isn't. You don't get a free hand with a two-handed weapon. Just because you can take a hand for a moment doesn't mean you get it for the entire round.
Show me where Crane Wing says you can at any time not have a free hand? Show me where it is a house rule that I can say if you use your other hand for any activity during your round that you do not have a free hand for purposes of Crane Style?
It is an interpretation. Your attempt to require such exacting language in the game to know how something works does not mean someone is using a house rule. It is as reasonable an interpretation as any. I can deny you from using free actions on other turns.
I understand the martial art principle this style is using. It's the same block and attack scenario practiced by arts like Wing Chun and Aikido. Redirect and attack. I know in general you cannot practice this with a two-handed weapon.
If you feel like allowing someone to used a greatsword with Crane Style while using that same Greatsword to make the AoO in their turn, have at it. That's your game and your interpretation of the rule. I don't allow it. I see nothing in the language of the rules to indicate my choice is a different interpretation of what a free hand means.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the adjusted Crane Riposte. That is a reasonable change.
I think I will make Crane Wing scaling. A +4 Dodge bonus is fairly worthless at high levels. I think I will make the Crane Wing deflection bonus equal to half the character level. I like scaling feats that take into account the increased ability of opponents at higher level. That should be a sufficient change to counter things like Arcane Accuracy or Judgments by Inquisitors while using Crane Wing in a defensive manner putting it more on par with other powerful offensive abilities.
Thanks for making a change to keep Crane Style amongst the best of the martial styles. I don't love the change as I still believe Crane Wing's main problem was at lower levels. I do understand removing options that have a 100% success rate with no real drawbacks. Crane Wing was definitely in that category.
It's too bad you have some people trying to play goofy using two-handed weapons with Crane Style. I understand what the Crane Style feat was trying to capture from martial arts and it wasn't using a greatsword along with it. I feel sorry for DMs that have to deal with players requiring everything be spelled out for them in triplicate. Glad my players are more reasonable.
If you feel like allowing someone to used a greatsword with Crane Style while using that same Greatsword to make the AoO in their turn, have at it. That's your game and your interpretation of the rule. I don't allow it. I see nothing in the language of the rules to indicate my choice is a different interpretation of what a free hand means.
Personally, I agree with you. However, the people using 2-handed weapons with Crane Wing aren't using Greatswords. Basically, they are using a Bastard Sword (with Exotic Proficiency) or they are 2-handing a Longsword. Just examples of what they are doing (could be using a Scimitar as well).
So they 2-hand a Longsword for their actual combat, then release their hand as a free action at the end of their turn for Crane Wing.
I do agree with you that they did not have their hands free for the round, so should not benefit from Crane Wing. It is purely a cheese maneuver and only even remotely functions because the player is trying to abuse the round/turn mechanic.
I must be missing something, because I'm scratching my over all the rage.
While I agree the "declare before roll" should be globally errata'd out, this is still a pretty solid feat for the proper builds. This is a "no action" action, which still leaves your swift action available.
Now, I also agree spells in general need a solid nerfbatting almost universally, but 3.5/PF is designed to make magic > mundane. It is just how the world works, unfortunately. Do I wish it was different? Sure, but it isn't. That is why I have to play other systems occasionally, where magic and mundane are far more in balance. You won't ever find this in D&D.
The Crane Riposte FAQ seems helpful. Crane Riposte used to seem like kind of a waste for PCs with high ACs. Now that you can attack foes who miss, something you’re hoping most of your foes would do anyhow. This makes the Crane line of feats useful against a wider variety of foes and allows you to use offense as a defense and help get rid of foes faster. I like the changes overall though I’d still prefer to be able to use Crane Wing on demand as I get hit, kind of like Mounted Combat, rather than on demand as I’m attacked.
@Aelryinth - I’m running a couple of high AC PCs at the moment and agree that the pre-errata Crane Wing would make them much tougher for the GM to injure, probably to the point of GM frustration. Heck, I’ve seen GMs get pretty frustrated just by high AC alone.
@Quandary - I agree that being able to run an AP or module with as little tinkering as possible can be a major selling point for those products. Some people ask us to throw the CR system out the window, but I think that’s a mistake. The system will never be perfect, but making it work better makes the whole game work better IMO.
@Terquem - I don't see why Crane Wing couldn't be used against an AoO.
Regarding Gunslingers, it is easy to just ban the class, but I like maritime adventures quite a lot, and pirates and pistols kind of go together. I implemented the rule about requiring a standard action to fire both barrels of the double-barreled pistol in my games, and I think it allows the weapon to offer an interesting option kind of like the old 3.5 Many Shot without making it overpowered. The penalty to attacks for firing both barrels did not seem like an effective control on a full BAB character’s attack bonus when targeting touch AC.
Slowing down reloading might help, perhaps with limits on Alchemical Cartridges. I’ve also toyed around with the idea of a general fix for touch attacks. It would seem like Paizo would never consider reaching down into such a long established part of Core, but touch attacks are being used in a lot of new and problematic ways now, and a Core change might clean up a lot of stuff in later books without any errata there. I’ll probably start a thread on it, but I guess I should get back on topic in this one.
If things are too far out of whack with the CR system they can “force” the GM to increase the difficulty. I’m not exactly sure why GMs feel that they need to do this, but I’ve seen and heard about it many times. In the suddenly more difficult game a lot of otherwise fun and effective enough options get cut off. The GM begins to lose a lot of options in encounter design as well as the ability to run published material “as is”. The players begin to lose a number of potential classes and builds.
That can come in a direct form, such as when one of my current GMs banned Ultimate Combat from all his future games due to TWF Pistoleros and the mere threat of the pre-errata Crane Wing. It can also come in an indirect form when people tell a player that a Fighter, Monk, or Rogue isn’t worth playing and will only drag the party down. If the player responds by making an Alchemist or Summoner the GM might simply turn the difficulty crank again and squeeze even more options out of the game.
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.
Uncanny Dodge? I'd call anything that has to dip MoMS & Rogue/Whatever for Uncanny Dodge some heck of a dip.
As for Sense Motive, I'll give you that Sense Motive ranks can somewhat counter this weakness, but isn't that yet another tax on the player? Even if you don't perceive it as such, it would at least add a layer of variability to the new feat since I see a LOT of NPCs with Bluff that could compete with a Monk's Sense Motive DC. Especially in APs. Also, if they're the high dex & ac types, it has other clear benefits.
Yes though, my PCs don't feint often. But they do it way more often than they Full Defense >.> Also, I thought the problem was that GMs couldn't get past Crane Style and "challenge" them, not players dealing with Crane on NPCs. The amount that PCs actually Feint shouldn't be relevant to the discussion.
Also I built a Mythic Druid with the whole crane line recently, it was mediocre at best. I'll post the results later.
Challenge 'with melee'. You know, like 75%+ of the monsters in the beastiary.
If the game is moving to pure ranged and spells just so the Crane Wing guy gets challenged, because he'll utterly dominate in melee...that's telling you something right there. And that's exactly what's being recommended. "He's got Crane Wing? Don't melee him...fight him with anything but! There's nothing wrong with that feat!"
It's really kind of funny.
==Aelryinth
I still don't see how ignoring 1 attack per turn allows anyone to "utterly dominate melee". Most monsters have multiple melee attacks, and simply using multiple monsters bypasses CW.
Challenge 'with melee'. You know, like 75%+ of the monsters in the beastiary.
What fraction of monsters in the bestiary have access to ranged attacks, maneuvers, spells, the ability to feint or multiple attacks?
"He's got Crane Wing? Don't melee him...fight him with anything but! There's nothing wrong with that feat!"
Do you think they should ban golems because they're tough on casters?
I still don't see how ignoring 1 attack per turn allows anyone to "utterly dominate melee". Most monsters have multiple melee attacks, and simply using multiple monsters bypasses CW.
I think what happened was that people with WAY too much gear in PFS could pump their AC to such a point that they could barely be hit at all, then with deflect arrows and crane wing it would become nearly impossible to do any sort of physical damage to them.
I think what happened was that people with WAY too much gear in PFS could pump their AC to such a point that they could barely be hit at all, then with deflect arrows and crane wing it would become nearly impossible to do any sort of physical damage to them.I still don't see how ignoring 1 attack per turn allows anyone to "utterly dominate melee". Most monsters have multiple melee attacks, and simply using multiple monsters bypasses CW.
That and PFS is really, really easy... It's not difficult to make a character who is far above the power levels expected by PFS.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **...
I wouldn't mind if there was a general BAB-related ruling which allowed a character to make one additional attack with their move action based upon some sort of scale. Maybe 1 at +0, 2 at +7, 3 at +14 or some such.
|
|
I think what happened was that people with WAY too much gear in PFS could pump their AC to such a point that they could barely be hit at all, then with deflect arrows and crane wing it would become nearly impossible to do any sort of physical damage to them.
This is hardly a PFS issue. The expected WBL printed in the CRB is entirely too high to begin with. Min/maxing classes, feats, and archetypes is all well and good, but magic item support is huge toward really capitalizing on those things.
That and PFS is really, really easy... It's not difficult to make a character who is far above the power levels expected by PFS.
That statement is a relative one. I think the base difficulty is fine for the average, casual gamer. It is certainly true that most of the scenarios cannot stand up to a table of players with strong system mastery, though. Or in the case of some scenarios, even a single player with strong system mastery.
Regarding the overall issue, I openly state that Crane Wing the 1st was a strong feat. That said however, I will never be convinced that when we examine the game as a whole, and compare it to the overall other elements of the game and other feats out there, that it was so strong it required a rewrite. If some other feats were to be changed, and some core game mechanics altered as well, then it is entirely likely that Crane Wing would have needed a change as well.
Current state of the game, however? Unnecessary alteration in my opinion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
“Personal Experience with Errata” time!
I play in PFS, as well as a home game using PF rules. Last weekend, I showed up to a game with a Champion of Irori who had just hit 7th level – and guess what my 7th level feat was...
The DM asked if I wanted to pick a different feat than Crane Wing. I said no (1. Because it was too last-minute to go through the changes, and 2. Because the character had been designed around the build, so I would need to change too many other things to make it a viable option [I was already too vested in the build]). I told the DM we should just play as is, and I would use the feat with the errata, and see how it went.
I played the adventure, and I found the feat as listed to be cumbersome and frustrating. When I got full-attacked, I would invariably pick the one attack that didn’t matter if I ‘deflected’ (for +4 AC) – either the attack was way too high or too low. There were other attacks that could have been deflected. Why hadn’t I applied the deflect bump to any of THOSE attacks?
Also, part way through the game, I just started telling the DM I would apply the AC bonus to the first attack against me. It took too much time to ask what the various attacks were, what it appeared they did, and trying to prioritize which would be the ‘worst one to hit me’. Things went a bit more smoothly after that, but again, the frustration continued (wishing I had applied the AC bump to different attacks).
“Personal Thoughts” time!
I think Crane Wing was probably a bit too powerful previously. I don’t mind the change to lower the power level. However, I think the changes went too far, and I felt like this fancy new feat didn’t really do me any good – really, it just got me frustrated. It might go differently with additional plays – but then again, I’m just basing this feedback on the one-time play session.
My suggestion on changes to Crane Wing – apply the AC bonus after the attack roll. While you’ll still have to pick which attack you deflect, it would be easier to ‘select’ (just pick the first one that the bump would help). Also, you’d feel a little bit better about picking up the feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't see how ignoring 1 attack per turn allows anyone to "utterly dominate melee". Most monsters have multiple melee attacks, and simply using multiple monsters bypasses CW.
Because, Lemmy, you have to understand. When we are talking about Crane Wing, we are talking about a character that is a Ftr/Mnk/Rog with high initiative, Uncanny Dodge, maxed Sense Motive, all Crane feats, Spring Attack, and a high AC, two-handing a weapon on their turn while maintaining a free hand for the round. Then you have to choose either all Melee combatants or ranged attacks and spells. You cannot vary the encounters allowing the character to shine in some and be challenged in others. I really don't see how you fail to understand at this point.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since we have once again proven that martials can't have nice things, should we compile the massive list of spells that are far more broken than the crane tree ever was?*none*
Spells are suppose to cool.
Ah yes, the age old problem.
1: "Castivious will create a new dimension where BBEG's powers won't function as strongly, than a simple planar jump and we might just be able to defeat him."
2: "Good plan, I'll have Avalon jump over the castle wall to act as a distraction while you cast your spell."
3: "What, can't do that!"
1: "Yeah come on Bob, that doesn't make any sense. That castle wall is like 30 ft tall, be realistic here."
3: "If we wanted Weeboo crap like that we'd just watch Naruto."
2: "Alright fine, fine he just stands guard or something then."
3: "You are right though, we will need a distraction. I'll summon a celestial horde of angels, that should keep the enemy busy."
2: "Yeah that's cool...I'll swing my sword if something comes close."
Phhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Well, at least the FAQ on Crane Riposte makes it useful in theory, but I still don't think its worth the feat investment. Crane Wing is just about as close to useless as you can get now. As evilaustin indicates, most players will end up simply applying it to the first attack of the round provided that their GMs don't start trying to get cheeky with them. Sure, some encounters the player will save it for the attack from the really big bad rather than the minion, but the problem is that it still requires you to declare before.
I also think that the CW nerf makes Crane Style far less attractive except maybe for as MoMS character who wants to combine it with Snake. The whole point of fighting defensively was to get the deflections/attacks from Wing/Riposte after all. So is Riposte really powerful enough to justify taking the other two in the line? Not imho. (Though again MoMS creates an exception since you can bypass the nearly useless Wing).
Ironically, what I think we really see is that Wing, in and of itself, was never the problem. The problem was everything else that boosted AC (including Crane Style) AND the MoMS which enabled characters to get the chain far faster than the feat descriptions called for.
From a personal standpoint, I suppose its not a huge deal for me simply because I preferred to play the builds that didn't use Crane anyway. As a monk, I much prefer to Flurry (not because its so effective, but it just feels thematic) and as for other classes, the best use of Crane was as a 2 level dip into MoMS and I hate dipping (again, just a personal opinion). As a GM, I never had too much of a problem with it either as I found plenty of ways of counteracting it, though I'll confess I do not play PFS. From what I have heard of PFS though, most of the adventures seem to be set up such that most characters that are built with a decent degree of system mastery will have little trouble with the scenarios (though as I stated, I don't play PFS so my "knowledge" comes purely from what others have told me).
All in all though, it seems like a needlessly harsh change to me. There are far more things that are much more powerful in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't see how ignoring 1 attack per turn allows anyone to "utterly dominate melee". Most monsters have multiple melee attacks, and simply using multiple monsters bypasses CW.Because, Lemmy, you have to understand. When we are talking about Crane Wing, we are talking about a character that is a Ftr/Mnk/Rog with high initiative, Uncanny Dodge, maxed Sense Motive, all Crane feats, Spring Attack, and a high AC, two-handing a weapon on their turn while maintaining a free hand for the round. Then you have to choose either all Melee combatants or ranged attacks and spells. You cannot vary the encounters allowing the character to shine in some and be challenged in others. I really don't see how you fail to understand at this point.
Heh... Thanks for enlightening me.
I feel it's time to coin the term... "Schrodinger Wing".
After Schrodinger Wizards, Schrodinger Fighter Build and Schrodinger hands, it's just fair that the newest controversy get its own Schrodingerization.
Hmm... Do you think we could create a Schrodinger Alignment thread? That's bound to be fun.
I was just trying to say that the probability of getting a riposte has significantly increased for the high AC characters, like monks. Winning or losing the encounter doesn't matter.If a melee-only monster needed a 20 to hit it's pretty hard for anything to be overpowered. You were going to win - decisively - with or without ripostes. It's not the type of crucible encounter in which balance is actually tested.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
Hmm... so when do they equal out (the chances to get a riposte)?
Old: 1 - 0.75^4 = 68.3% [chance not all 4 miss]
New: 95% (due to +4) = 95% [chance first one misses]
Monster needs 14 to hit:
Old: 1 - 0.65^4 = 82.1% [chance not all 4 miss]
New: 85% (due to +4) = 85% [chance first one misses]
Monster needs 13 to hit:
Old: 1 - 0.60^4 = 87.0% [chance not all 4 miss]
New: 80% = 80% [chance first one misses]
Interesting - so about the same effect in the mid-range of good defense characters (13-14 needed to hit), and actually scales down better (only 5% change per to-hit).
Running a few more numbers, if you never encountered creatures that required a 20 to hit you, or only missed on a 1, and you were attacked by each possible attack bonus in that range equally, then Old has an average of 82% chance of generating a Riposte, New a 65%. 92% to 68% in the "6-15 required to hit" range. 61% to 93% in the "14-19" range though.
Because, Lemmy, you have to understand. When we are talking about Crane Wing, we are talking about a character that is a Ftr/Mnk/Rog with high initiative, Uncanny Dodge, maxed Sense Motive, all Crane feats, Spring Attack, and a high AC, two-handing a weapon on their turn while maintaining a free hand for the round. Then you have to choose either all Melee combatants or ranged attacks and spells. You cannot vary the encounters allowing the character to shine in some and be challenged in others. I really don't see how you fail to understand at this point.I still don't see how ignoring 1 attack per turn allows anyone to "utterly dominate melee". Most monsters have multiple melee attacks, and simply using multiple monsters bypasses CW.
And this is more of a broken, campaign ruining tactic than any halfway decent Tier 1 build how?
Has anyone clarified yet whether the new crane riposte fighting defensively AoO stacks with the AoO's granted by Snake fang? Seems like they might, but that doesn't seem likely to have been the intention.