| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
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.
I haven't seen a clarification, but you don't get two AoO's for the same event. Unless I'm mistaken, you get the AoO for each because of a missed attack.
However, unless I'm mistaken, there's no reason you couldn't apply them to different misses. You'd need to declare which first if you were going to use your immediate action *extra* attack.
|
Speaking for myself only, the clarification to Crane Riposte is appreciated and balanced in my opinion, but Crane Wing itself is still terrible as is. I am not really a fan of "add this bonus once a round to one roll" mechanics. A bit dull though it may be, I'd rather just have a flat bonus. As is, Dodge > current Crane Wing for me personally.
Making the whole chain a scaling fighting defensively effect could be cool and fair as well. A very quick example:
Crane Style: Reduce penalty to hit by -1, and increase AC bonus by +1. Crane Style does not stack with other class features that enhance fighting defensively or total defense.
Crane Wing: Reduce penalty to hit by -1, and increase AC bonus by an additional +1 for every 6 BAB. Can use Monk levels in place of BAB.
Crane Riposte: Reduce penalty to hit by -1, and once a round when a melee attack misses you while fighting defensively, you can take your riposte attack.
Crane Wing: Reduce penalty to hit by -1, and increase AC bonus by an additional +1 for every 6 BAB. Can use Monk levels in place of BAB.
Ugh, Monks would have to have that little addendum about using their level. You know how much of a headache it would be otherwise? When they don't flurry they have +x to AC, but when they do flurry, they get +y to AC, similar to how you have a different penalty/bonus when using Power Attack based on if you're flurrying or not.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Eh? Monks don't have a different Power Attack bonus based on whether they're Flurrying or not.
Their BaB only equals Monk level for the purpose of the attacks, not any Feats or other effects. They never actually HAVE full BaB.
Eh? Monks don't have a different Power Attack bonus based on whether they're Flurrying or not.
Their BaB only equals Monk level for the purpose of the attacks, not any Feats or other effects. They never actually HAVE full BaB.
Monk: How does a monk's improved BAB when flurrying interact with feats like Power Attack and Combat Expertise, which have different effects depending on your BAB?
The monk uses his improved flurrying BAB to determine the effect of those feats.—Sean K Reynolds, 07/08/11 Back to Top
Kind of already is a little bit of a headache as you have to remember to keep track of two separate bonuses, one for flurry, one for non-flurry. Any feat that scales off BAB probably falls under the same ruling as this FAQ.
Huh. I have never seen that FAQ.
That is very very weird, since Flurry otherwise counts as his BaB for nothing else.
Huh. I have never seen that FAQ.
That is very very weird, since Flurry otherwise counts as his BaB for nothing else.
The thing is, BAB only really has a few interactions with things, primarily attack bonus and feat qualification.
When it comes to feats, in order to meet the qualification for a feat, the pre-requisite must be a constant (i.e. uninterrupted) bonus, such as from a Belt of Incredible Dexterity to qualify for Greater TWF.
A temporary bonus, such as from the temporary BAB increase while flurrying, doesn't qualify.
The thing is, Power Attack simply states when you reach BAB X, then Y effect occurs. At level 3, your BAB is +2, but when you flurry, your BAB increases to +4 which would then trigger the increase in penalty and damage of Power Attack. Not that a monk should ever be taking Power Attack...
Side issue, but then at 1700 posts...
For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.
The higher BAB applies to those attacks, not just the bonus to hit for those attacks.
Not that a monk should ever be taking Power Attack...
Too late! :)
Side issue, but then at 1700 posts...
For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.The higher BAB applies to those attacks, not just the bonus to hit for those attacks.
Hey! Don't hate the side issues! I'm shooting for 2,000 posts before the Devs lock this thread.
[Edit] There comes a point in every argument where you end up re-stating the same things over and over again in and endless circle and you just keep the argument going, not to prove a point, but because you wonder, "How long can this last?"
The problem with comparing CW to golems is very simple...wizards have things called spells to deal with golems. Oh nooz! Golem! I will Create Pit/Summon Monster/Conjure Snowball/Wall of Force/Wall of Stone!
In other words, wizards can snark into their beards about the 'magic-immune' creature and go on playing without any problem whatsoever. Their spells deal with the problem without breaking stride.
Crane Wing has no counter. You can either try to overwhelm it with multiple attacks, which has a rapidly decreasing chance of success, or you can choose to use non-melee tactics, such as ranged attacks or spells.
I agree that it's unfair that the wizard does not have this problem. But that doesn't mean the feat wasn't unbalanced. Remember back in the old days when mages really COULD NOT fight golems? When grease didn't work against them? WHen you couldn't conjure acid orbs, or drop them in a pit? Or summon swarms of lantern archons to plink them to death?
Mages were useless, felt useless, stuck there with nothing to do. So what happened! New spells, useful in many situations, and eSpecially against GOLEMS! Woot, reflex save condition spells, gotta love it.
That's the situation the GM is in with a high AC Crane Wing user. he's got creatures there he just can't use because they are useless.
==Aelryinth
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.
Ah, the snark factor.
as opposed to the wizard with low init, poor dex, lousy wisdom, horrible BAB, two handing a dagger with finesse style with all the Crane Feats while wearing no armor and casting no spells to supplement things, choosing to melee. Why? Because the GM makes all monsters immune to spells so that melee can shine, so melee is obviously the best way.
Snark works both ways.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
==Aelryinth
Anyone else get pissed at non-devs who sign their names on every dam post. Like WE CAN'T SEE YOUR NAME!
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 don't think that I ever mentioned Ranged Attacks nor Spells(In this instance, the thread has gone on long enough that I'm sure I've mentioned them at some point). I instead suggest that a particular subsystem works at countering something, allowing for Melee opportunities, yet you disagree and change the subject. Not much else to discuss then.
However I would also like to say that I for one haven't enjoyed your tone in this thread. You've come off as generally condescending several times, perhaps in reaction to the vitriol of others. I do hope that wasn't your intent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Crane Wing has no counter. You can either try to overwhelm it with multiple attacks, which has a rapidly decreasing chance of success, or you can choose to use non-melee tactics, such as ranged attacks or spells.
So ... Crane Wing has no counter, except for the very basic tactics of attacking it more than once or using ranged attacks? Also combat maneuvers. And spells and similar abilities.
But other than that, absolutely no counter available.
==AelryinthAnyone else get pissed at non-devs who sign their names on every dam post. Like WE CAN'T SEE YOUR NAME!
HEY! Nothing wrong with that. :)
Master Arminas
==AelryinthAnyone else get pissed at non-devs who sign their names on every dam post. Like WE CAN'T SEE YOUR NAME!
Aelryinth keeps it classy.
==AelryinthAnyone else get pissed at non-devs who sign their names on every dam post. Like WE CAN'T SEE YOUR NAME!
While I agree, it's a bit off topic. Besides, there's more than enough to refute in his arguments, without having to resort to critiquing his formatting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I've been signing my name like that on the boards for over ten years, I'm not going to stop. I sign my name like that on emails, too. It makes it easier to remember whose saying something when the person's name is at the end of what they are reading.
Crane Wing does not have a counter. This attack comes in, it gets reduced to 0. There is no feat that says 'your attacks cannot be deflected or parried.'
You can ATTEMPT to make the person lose their dex against an attack, and he can't Crane Wing that one attack. Unless you're a specialist in Feinting, the BAB+Sense Motive mechanic means it is unlikely to work. Any other attack that round that gets through? WIng it. Someone ELSE attacking? Wing it.
Remember, the problem is not on the player's side. That seems to be the core of the defense. "I have no problem overcoming a Crane WIng when it's used against the party, it's balanced!"
That's not the issue. The issue is that the "GM" has no melee recourse to deal with Crane Wing.
He can spell you. He can shoot you. MAAAAAAAYBE he can Feint you (very few monsters can do this) and waste an action doing so, which is as good as wasting an attack.
YOur PC, on the other hand, is no more or less vulnerable to being spelled or shot then any other PC. Those aren't CRane Wing defenses, they are just defenses. The 2h Fighter and sword and board guy are equally vulnerable to being shot and spelled, they can't defend against them any better, either.
Your PC can also invest in Sense Motive and make himself unFeintable. His choice. And likely a wise choice, since it eliminates a weakness. Or he can buy a +2 Int headband with Sense Motive and pay to eliminate the weakness.
And now every single monster the GM plays has to deal with your PC. Who has the high AC, minimizes melee hits, and then turns those few melee hits to 0, while threatening if they case and popping out ripostes. Who can use wise tactics and other feats to limit the monsters to fewer attacks, and the party could back up to further increase AC or further lower the to hit of the monsters, while FORCING the creature into melee where it can't do anything.
And the GM has to deal with this. For every single fight.
His solution will be to not melee or to just watch the PC's waltz through encounter after encounter. Crane WIng has now changed the game, because someone halfway competent used it the way it was supposed to be used.
ANd that's why GM's complain, and that's why it had to be changed.
To feel that level of frustration, give all the fighting monsters in a scenario Crane Wing and watch what happens. Have them move around so fighters only get single attacks. Watch what happens again and again and again, as the party realizes they CANNOT MELEE. They have no CHOICE but to use spells and ranged attacks, and when those run out, they have no melee guys to fall back on. Keep doing this for 3-5 levels. Have the monsters force them into melee, and the PC's again and again sucketh. Make sure to give the monsters Sense Motive against Feint, too, you know.
Watch them give up on being melee guys and turn to archery or magic. Because being a melee, already the overall worst of the fighting styles, is now next to useless.
And the GM has to deal with that for the PC's character every single fight. I feel for the GM's. It must make them want to tear out their hair.
Ugh.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the correct counter for crane wing was the nerf bat, not just using range attacks or more than one attack per round or feint or spells?
Heaven forbid monsters have to adjust their tactics based off what the PCs do.
|
|
You can ATTEMPT to make the person lose their dex against an attack, and he can't Crane Wing that one attack. Unless you're a specialist in Feinting, the BAB+Sense Motive mechanic means it is unlikely to work. Any other attack that round that gets through? WIng it. Someone ELSE attacking? Wing it.
The DC to feint is now either:
1). 10 + BAB + Wis mod (pen).
or
2). 10 + Sense Motive skill.
So it is much easier to land a feint now. That said, feint by itself does not prevent Crane Wing, as it makes you lose your Dex to AC, but does not make you flat-footed. There is however class + feat combinations that will render an opponent flat-footed with feint combos. Feint alone is still a valid tactic if you have built yourself to do it with a full attack, however, as it will chop down the AC on most characters who use it dramatically. Then you'll Crane Wing one swing, and take a few others to the face.
monsters without missile attacks. Monsters without spells. Monsters who can't Feint.
Yeah, adjust their tactics. That'll work.
Why don't you just say 'monsters won't melee' and go with that? Then we'll trot out the 'immune to ranged' characters and 'immune to spells' characters...oh, wait, golems used to be that, and casters whined, and now they aren't.
And they still won't give PC's spell resistance. Huh. ANd Arrow Deflection is way, way waaaaay less effective then Crane Wing. But you know, all the pure archers get so pissed when the wind walls and fickle winds go up, but at least they can resort...to melee, because monsters don't get Crane Wing.
==Aelryinth
His solution will be to gang up on that PC with two or more monsters, or one monster with a lot of natural attacks, or have archers and alchemists and spellcasters and pouncing and or Come and Get Me barbarians, or use effects and terrain that make mobility difficult, or something that the spring-attacking Crane Winger has trouble tagging much damage onto with their single one-handed attack a round, so it can focus on the greater damage output of the Barbarian and Paladin, or the insta-win potential of the Wizard or Oracle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As if a CW has to be low damage.
But, you know, at least he can HIT the barb and paladin, do some damage, make the party spend resources. Which is the whole idea.
When you can't do any damage at all...that sucks. Why even fight?
==Aelryinth
You can ATTEMPT to make the person lose their dex against an attack, and he can't Crane Wing that one attack. Unless you're a specialist in Feinting, the BAB+Sense Motive mechanic means it is unlikely to work. Any other attack that round that gets through? WIng it. Someone ELSE attacking? Wing it.The DC to feint is now either:
1). 10 + BAB + Wis mod (pen).
or
2). 10 + Sense Motive skill.
So it is much easier to land a feint now. That said, feint by itself does not prevent Crane Wing, as it makes you lose your Dex to AC, but does not make you flat-footed. There is however class + feat combinations that will render an opponent flat-footed with feint combos. Feint alone is still a valid tactic if you have built yourself to do it with a full attack, however, as it will chop down the AC on most characters who use it dramatically. Then you'll Crane Wing one swing, and take a few others to the face.
Yeah, but those are extremely specialized PC builds.
The GM doesn't have to put up with Feint Builds. He has to put up with Crane Wing. Wee bit of difference here.
If you had to put up with every monster having crane wing, like every monster has to put up with your PC having it, you might see things a little differently.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many melee monsters are incapable of grappling or overrunning an enemy, and always fight solo?
Also, you have the option to simply attack someone else in the party.
You can ATTEMPT to make the person lose their dex against an attack, and he can't Crane Wing that one attack. Unless you're a specialist in Feinting, the BAB+Sense Motive mechanic means it is unlikely to work. Any other attack that round that gets through? WIng it. Someone ELSE attacking? Wing it.The DC to feint is now either:
1). 10 + BAB + Wis mod (pen).
or
2). 10 + Sense Motive skill.
So it is much easier to land a feint now. That said, feint by itself does not prevent Crane Wing, as it makes you lose your Dex to AC, but does not make you flat-footed. There is however class + feat combinations that will render an opponent flat-footed with feint combos. Feint alone is still a valid tactic if you have built yourself to do it with a full attack, however, as it will chop down the AC on most characters who use it dramatically. Then you'll Crane Wing one swing, and take a few others to the face.
Yeah, but those are extremely specialized PC builds.
The GM doesn't have to put up with Feint Builds. He has to put up with Crane Wing. Wee bit of difference here.
If you had to put up with every monster having crane wing, like every monster has to put up with your PC having it, you might see things a little differently.
==Aelryinth
I would say in general, that I think people have made a good argument for crane wing deserving some sort of small nerf. the problem as I see it, is that they overreached with how far they went about the nerf.
There were multiple, and much better ways to go about making crane wing effective, without curb stomping it. (crane riposte is slightly better though, which is nice at least).
As if a CW has to be low damage.
But, you know, at least he can HIT the barb and paladin, do some damage, make the party spend resources. Which is the whole idea.
When you can't do any damage at all...that sucks. Why even fight?
==Aelryinth
Why aren't you doing any damage at all again?
Unless, again, you are picking monsters who only have one attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many melee monsters are incapable of grappling or overrunning an enemy, and always fight solo?
Also, you have the option to simply attack someone else in the party.
How many monsters have improved grab and improved overrun? Because the AoO can neutralize the tactic. ANd overrun lets the PC get out of the way.
And yep, go attack someone else, since the PC is invulnerable, while the PC kicks out full damage. And now the Melee's entire job of taking the enemy's attention and something to focus on went out the door.
Wonderful, Crane Wing distorting the 'turtle' advantage even more.
==Aelryinth
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Complaining that melee attacks can't bypass CW is like complaining fire damage can't bypass Fire Resistance.
Of course it can't! That's the whole point. The defense is specifically tailored to be functional against that type of attack!
But just like you can use more fire to deal damage to a creature with fire resistance, you also use more melee attacks to deal damage to a guy with CW.
It's one freaking attack per turn. It's not completely nullifying every melee attack ever. It's one attack. One.
I have to admit, I'm a bit confused Aelryinth. You talk about "make the monsters move around so the fighters only get single attacks" as if this is something that would absolutely shock the players were this to happen. What? The enemy realizes that standing still and taking Full Attacks from all the melee guys every round is a bad idea! This is unheard of! In pretty much every Pathfinder/D&D game I've been in (regardless of which side of the screen I'm on) this has been the case. My monk in my Pathfinder game often finds himself unable to flurry because the darn critter used tactics and decided not to just stand still and get smacked. Enemies are not merely punching bags. When we've had encounters where the enemy didn't try to use tactics, they were inevitably boring encounters. Granted, there are a lot of times when the party works together to make it more difficult/impossible for the enemy to move around, but again that's an issue of fighting tactics with tactics.
I'm also confused as to why GMs feel the need to attack the monk every round. There are not many effects that I can think of that would force an enemy to attack a particular PC each round. Granted, the party can use tactics to make it seem like the monk is the better option, but if the enemy is intelligent, he/she should quickly realize attacking the Crane Winger is like attacking an adamantine wall. If the enemies start focusing on the rest of the party often enough, and start dropping enough party members, odds are the Crane Winger will eventually get tired of always seeing his comrades die because he's spending too much time fighting defensively.
If the issue with Crane Wing was that even with a full attack a monster could only ever hope to hit once per round anyway, and now Wing makes it never, then the problem is the PC's AC, to which Crane Wing did not contribute before.
You keep saying that there is no counter to Crane Wing, but that's simply not true. Rather, what's true is that there is no counter to Crane Wing that features a single melee attack. The two are not equal. As you point out, its like saying a wizard has no counter to a golem.
As a GM I have dealt with players with extremely high defenses many times. Sure, trying to simply pound them over the head when you need a 20 in order to hit can be frustrating. However, there's lots of ways to counter that -- and they have been explained ad nauseum here.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there are not player's and/or builds out there that can create extremely powerful characters. I understand that it can be frustrating -- I've even been there myself. Thing is though, in my experience these are usually cases where lots of things have worked together to create the problem, or where a player has taken dips in several classes/PrC's to cherry pick abilities, etc. In other words, they tend to be corner cases, and even then, there's usually counters still available.
I've gone up against a PC as a GM who almost never missed because he boosted Str, took Weapon Focus, etc. Should we ban Weapon Focus? What about Str boosting items? I mean, there's no counter to "Hammer to the dome!" short of placing incredibly powerful monsters that nobody can hit, or having monsters attack from range, or having monsters cast spells on the PC to slow him down, etc.
Again, my position is that Crane Wing wasn't the problem. The problem was the incredibly high AC that characters could get. Added on to this was the problem of the 2-level MoMS dip that allowed characters to get the chain much quicker than the feats as written contemplate. Neither of these were a Wing issue though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As if a CW has to be low damage.
But, you know, at least he can HIT the barb and paladin, do some damage, make the party spend resources. Which is the whole idea.
When you can't do any damage at all...that sucks. Why even fight?
==Aelryinth
Why aren't you doing any damage at all again?
unless, again, you are picking monsters who only have one attack.
if you have a monster with one attack, it's hosed. Even if that attack is a Vital Strike.
You're playing a high AC character. Generally, monsters are only going to hit such on a 14+ or better.
That means secondary attacks are 16+ or 19+ to hit. And you take no damage, or so little it doesn't mean anything.
Functional invulnerability is what you have. trying to hit something with 28 AC with your +12/+7 to hit monster is an exercise in frustration. When you do hit, and the WIng takes it out, that's worse.
The problem doesn't get that much better with scaling, if you take care to keep AC high...tertiary attacks are meaningless, and the PC's have more tools for keeping monsters to fewer attacks.
From the GM's standpoint, it's incredibly frustrating to not be able to use melee tools. You'd get the same frustration from a character immune to spells - 'Oh, I'll just melee them' doesn't erase the sense of uselessness, especially if the character then takes steps with the rest of the party to defend against other tactics.
It's still an Ugh moment.
==Aelryinth
And I just outlined several ways to hit and deal damage to Crane Wingers. Anything that can hit them twice, anything that catches them flat-footed, plus the many, many non-melee options in the game.
Definitionally, if you're Spring Attacking with Crane Wing, you're not two-handing, full-attacking, or even Vital Striking, which means you're doing considerably less damage than the Rapid Shot/Many Shot Archer, the Pouncing Barbarian, or basically anybody making a full-attack. Not to mention that the class who can get that combo online fastest is notorious for having trouble hitting in the first place, even when it's using the attack booster it can't use with the combo.
There's a pretty huge difference between the party having to deal with something every encounter, when they're more or less locked into their chosen suite of abilities; and the GM having to deal with it every encounter, when he can completely change the abilities and tactics of his 'side' every encounter. If a party encountered nothing but swarms, they're in trouble if they all rely on targeted damage. If a PC can throw swarms at encounters, not everything he fights will lack area effects.
How many melee monsters are incapable of grappling or overrunning an enemy, and always fight solo?
Also, you have the option to simply attack someone else in the party.
How many monsters have improved grab and improved overrun? Because the AoO can neutralize the tactic. ANd overrun lets the PC get out of the way.
And yep, go attack someone else, since the PC is invulnerable, while the PC kicks out full damage. And now the Melee's entire job of taking the enemy's attention and something to focus on went out the door.
Wonderful, Crane Wing distorting the 'turtle' advantage even more.
==Aelryinth
So the Crane Wing user has the chance to negate a grapple with an AoO assuming that they hit (while taking a -2 to attack rolls) and assuming they do enough damage, and the enemy doesn't roll a nat 20?
A PC having a chance to avoid getting killed, the horror!
IME enemies at higher levels use ballf&!+tons of primary natural attacks, not manufactured weapons for the most part.
Like your average dragon at level 11 or so, with what, 7 attacks, all at +30 or summat?
Or they use spells and only resort to weapons at a last resort, or have inflated attack bonuses to make up for the iterative penalties, and so on.
At low levels (1-5, maybe) it might be a smidge frustrating, but I don't begrudge PCs that limited window of power. It'll all come crumbling down after that, for most "unbeatable" builds (like the Goblin Alchemist in my S&S game, and his ludicrous stealth. Granted, this one's partly my fault, I told him he could have the Blend extract because I wanted to see if the race restriction made a difference).
As if a CW has to be low damage.
But, you know, at least he can HIT the barb and paladin, do some damage, make the party spend resources. Which is the whole idea.
When you can't do any damage at all...that sucks. Why even fight?
==Aelryinth
Why aren't you doing any damage at all again?
unless, again, you are picking monsters who only have one attack.
if you have a monster with one attack, it's hosed. Even if that attack is a Vital Strike.
You're playing a high AC character. Generally, monsters are only going to hit such on a 14+ or better.
That means secondary attacks are 16+ or 19+ to hit. And you take no damage, or so little it doesn't mean anything.
Functional invulnerability is what you have. trying to hit something with 28 AC with your +12/+7 to hit monster is an exercise in frustration. When you do hit, and the WIng takes it out, that's worse.
The problem doesn't get that much better with scaling, if you take care to keep AC high...tertiary attacks are meaningless, and the PC's have more tools for keeping monsters to fewer attacks.
From the GM's standpoint, it's incredibly frustrating to not be able to use melee tools. You'd get the same frustration from a character immune to spells - 'Oh, I'll just melee them' doesn't erase the sense of uselessness, especially if the character then takes steps with the rest of the party to defend against other tactics.
It's still an Ugh moment.
==Aelryinth
Out of the Bestiary, secondary attacks are, as often as not, more primary natural attacks which will be at the same bonus. Or maybe it has Haste or Two-/Multi-Weapon Fighting, or both, and can make several iteratives at the same bonus.
If a party member has 28 AC, and major enemies +12/+7 to hit, then the problem seems to be on enemy selection. I make liberal use of the Advanced template and adding class levels when I'm running APs. If an enemy can't hit the PCs, it's probably the wrong enemy. On the other hand, if it's a cannon fodder enemy, and has a more reasonable chance to hit other party members--sometimes it's all right for the players to kick ass and feel awesome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little late to the party, and I've generally only skimmed, but...
Was this decision based off PFS or the published adventure paths? If so, why not just ban the thing, or put an addendum to the PFS rules that the MoMS can't pick it up or something?
Basic question is... Why smash a feat into the ground like this and punish those of us who don't use the AP or play PFS, based off a 'standardized' set of rules that bastardizes what's in the rule books anyway?
True, MoMS getting it at level 1 or 2 is OP... Which only lasted until the lower mid levels, balanced out around mid, and shouldn't be a problem at like, level 9+.
Or maybe I'm just a cruel GM who actually makes things challenging for my players. 'Oh noez, there's more than one monster attacking me with more than one attack! GMCHEAT!'.... Seriously, if Crane was such a problem, just throw more mooks at the guy! Problem freaking solved!
Can Crane Wing be used to block an AOO?
Yes provided it is a melee attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the GM's standpoint, it's incredibly frustrating to not be able to use melee tools. You'd get the same frustration from a character immune to spells - 'Oh, I'll just melee them' doesn't erase the sense of uselessness, especially if the character then takes steps with the rest of the party to defend against other tactics.
So a spell casting monster using a back-up option is OK, but heaven forbid a melee monster have to do that.
K
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the GM's standpoint, it's incredibly frustrating to not be able to use melee tools. You'd get the same frustration from a character immune to spells - 'Oh, I'll just melee them' doesn't erase the sense of uselessness, especially if the character then takes steps with the rest of the party to defend against other tactics.
I take it you don't use swarms against your PC's for similar reasons then?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about letting the character with a defensive build be good at defense? Is that really so terrible to GMs?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about letting the character with a defensive build be good at defense? Is that really so terrible to GMs?
What???!! And force the GM to make more than 1 attack per round? BLASPHEMY! Don't you know GMs are automatically entitled to damage the PCs?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about letting the character with a defensive build be good at defense? Is that really so terrible to GMs?
You'd be shocked how many people I've met think that it really is.
Or not.