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?
Um, what?
No, I don't let PC's be swarms for similar reasons.
yeah, and all those giants with magic, and trolls with longbows...
There's a difference between being defensive and nigh invulnerable.
As for dragons, well, 1) the dragon can't vital strike you, which is far and away its best option and 2) the dragon doesn't want to eat a full attack from a melee any more then the melee wants to eat a full attack from it.
And why can't a spring attacker use his weapon 2handed? Nothing in there requiring a one handed weapon...which he also has, by the way.
As for adding templates, you're now catering to it: I can't deal with Crane Wing, let me change EVERYTHING. If you have to change your entire game just to adjust for the one feat, it's too strong.
Or, in other words, if you took out Crane WIng, would you have to do all that stuff just to have effective melee beasties?
And I've never claimed they are the equal offensively of an archer (nothing is) or a pouncer (nothing melee is). But defensively? The GM is usually less caring about the defenses of stuff on his side then his ability to take it to the players.
As for letting them be defensive: why not instead wave the whole combat, just say you kill the thing while taking one lucky hit, and just not play it? You'd accomplish more faster for about the same result.
==Aelryinth
No, I don't let PC's be swarms for similar reasons.
You misunderstood. Let me rephrase your argument:
"From the PC's standpoint, it's incredibly frustrating to not be able to use melee tools. You'd get the same frustration from a monster immune to spells - 'Oh, I'll just melee them' doesn't erase the sense of uselessness,"
If you hate feeling useless as a GM do you specifically tailor your encounters for your PC's to avoid having them feel useless (e.g. not using swarms against melee.)
Anyways what exactly happened in your game that made you have such a hate on for the old CW? I just don't understand your vehemence.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not the issue. The issue is that the "GM" has no melee recourse to deal with Crane Wing.
I must admit that while you have brought up a few solid points over the course of this thread, the constant repetition of this particular piece of hyperbole in every other post is getting very old.
I'm going to provide a half dozen recourses, not one of them obscure or corner case mechanics
Winning initiative
Successful stealth check
Combat maneuver
Multiple attack foe
Move and ready action (hit before they can can start fighting defensively)*
Obscuring vision/environment (e.g. fog/smoke/whatever)
There are more commonly available recourses open even to fully melee monsters.
That's not even getting into the multitude of melee enhancing spell options (such as Invisibility, Deeper Darkness, Hold Person) many available through a simple potion, others through an ability, a more significant item, or a friendly caster.
And it's assuming you don't have things like reach, which many monsters do.
*check me on this one, though? It would appear that fighting defensively starts when you take a full/standard attack action, and ends at the beginning of your next turn, meaning that during your turn until you take a standard/full attack action it is not active - but I've rarely had to get into the fine details of the rules as regards its timing. It does seem to me though that if taking advantage of the structure of round times for double vs. single handed weapon use is on the table in your own analysis, you should expect to be facing similar use of round timing structure across the way - if I am correct here.
| 3 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 LETTING THE PLAYERS DO THINGS!!!! NOT ON MY WATCH "AM GM SMASH PLAYER CHARACTERS!"
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since this thread is now 1700+ posts in, I'd just like to remind devs that most people who are satisfied with the errata probably won't be looking at the thread and arguing it anymore, and the thank-you for nerfing Crane Wing still applies from us, even if you aren't hearing as much of it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Respectfully, Aelryinth, I disagree.
Pathfinder is, primarily, based around the idea of a 4 person party playing Rogue, Fighter, Wizard, Cleric with a 15 pt. buy and relatively smart game choices (like tactics, spells, feats etc). The more a party deviates from that (Barbarian instead of Fighter, 25 pt. buy, moderate to high optimization...) the more the game becomes unbalanced and it's the job of the GM to balance it.
If you give a Barbarian pounce, you're going to see him kill things your monsters in the first round with a full attack.
If you allow Summoners, instead of a Wizard, you'll see either a hulking brute of destruction in the eidolon, or the battlefield littered with so many summons you won't be able to spit without hitting something.
If you allow Ninja's, you'll see self-contained little murder ghosts that vanish at a whim only to slice an enemies throat, sever their spine, rupture their lungs etc.
The more you allow outside of Core, the more you have to adapt the game to fit the changes. What if, instead of Fighter and Rogue, you have Ranger and Trapper Ranger, both with Favored Enemy (human) and (undead)in a campaign like Curse of the Crimson Throne that is mostly humans and undead?
The GM's job is to tell a story, and sometimes change it based on the PCs and their actions.
Unlike in PFS, the GM has the ability to change anything on the fly. He's not locked into a particular tactic with a particular build. If he wants, he can change it.
Crane Wing might have been a problem for some people, and in some fights, this is true. However, there are much more drastic and problematic abilities in the game than Crane Wing could ever hope to be.
Things like pouncing Barbarians mandate enemies with either higher armor, DR, or higher health, just to survive an opening attack. Come And Get Me mandates excluding melee enemies at all because the Barbarian also has Dazing Assault.
Oath of Vengeance Paladins with enough smites for everyone and their grandmother's mother means you need to change enemies to neutrality just so they stand a chance.
Zen Archers means every caster has to have Fickle Winds up and running if you don't want them pin-cushioned before they can do anything.
There are many things far more powerful than Crane Wing was in this game, some of which have been problems for far longer. Despite this, they haven't been changed, nor are they likely to be changed to the same degree that Crane Wing was.
The Development team says they prefer to issue small changes over a period of time to achieve the right balance. Where was this policy with Crane Wing? This wasn't a small change, it was a complete and total re-write of the feat and fundamentally changed how it worked and operated.
Incremental changes over a period of time would not have seen a reaction like this from the fan base. What we have here is a roaring fire that is only now dieing down, but it won't go away, it's just simmering below the surface. A slight change would have resulted in a firework. Burns really hot, explodes, then completely fades away.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Make crane wing a +10 instead of 4. That way you still get to basically guarantee that the first attack misses, but 20s and demi-gods can still hit you.
I like the new errataed errata. You have to have at least a semi-decent AC to auto-deflect, as far as I can see. I have mentioned a build I was going to play soon, and honestly, I was using Deflect Arrows and Crane Wing for an improved defense. And it felt a bit cheesy. Now I have to work on actual AC to give him better defense. *thumbs up*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haven't finished reading this thread by far, figured I should add this...
Not happy with the change, even though I haven't quite managed to build a character with crane wing yet.
Biggest personal problem with the change - PF needs to stop adding costly things that change AC against 1 specific unknown attack in a series of attacks. These kinds of things are bogging down gameplay. Not all GMs roll secretly, or individual attacks. Having to declare something vs only one of several attacks, at a specific point of the process does not contribute to fun gaming. If you want to keep a game flowing, don't complicate combat too much, it's bad enough with changing attack rolls already.
A feat with this many prerequisits should not be this weak.
give PCs some credit, they are skilled melee fighters and should have a better understanding of how tough opponents are than their players.
If you must limit it to 1 attack a round, a potential change: A character using crane wing may add +4 to their dodge AC vs a single successful attack roll that succeeded by 4 or less, OR may reduce 1 critical hit to a regular hit if +4 ac is not enough to deflect it.
This would make it simpler... in my group it would go like this:
DM: 1 claw, bite and a tail slap hit
PC: any hits by 4 or less?
DM: the bite and tail slap
PC: I deflect the bite using crane wing
And why can't a spring attacker use his weapon 2handed? Nothing in there requiring a one handed weapon...which he also has, by the way.
As for adding templates, you're now catering to it: I can't deal with Crane Wing, let me change EVERYTHING. If you have to change your entire game just to adjust for the one feat, it's too strong.
Or, in other words, if you took out Crane WIng, would you have to do all that stuff just to have effective melee beasties?
As for letting them be defensive: why not instead wave the whole combat, just say you kill the thing while taking one lucky hit, and just not play it? You'd accomplish more faster for about the same result.
Spring Attackers can use two-handed weapons. Crane Wingers can't. Well, maybe if they dip into Alchemist and get a vestigial arm, I suppose.
And if Crane Wing wasn't present, would I still be altering encounters? Yes. Yes I would. I'm doing it right now, in both games I'm running. That's not saying 'I can't deal with Crane Wing'--or the Heavens Oracle or the Summoner riding his Grappling specialist Eidolon. That's saying that Paizo doesn't know my group as well as I do, so I can use the framework of the story and characters they provided, while I take care of 'dealing with' whatever powers my players brought to the table.
So, a single combat passing by in which one PC doesn't take damage, and gets to feel good about their build, means to you that you should just throw out playing combat altogether. Good to know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(sighs) Any Crane user can use a one handed weapon with two hands on his turn and take his hand off it at the end of the turn, completely satisfying the feat. It would even look like he's flipping it around and ending his stroke with it held off to one side or something, poised to strike in the next round. Thematically, this is a katana or bastard sword, but both Aldori blades and longswords qualify, as do scimitars.
I didn't ask if you'd be altering encounters, wide open. I asked if you would modify your melee beasties the exact same way for a non-Crane Winger as you would for a Crane Winger. You're building a straw man and asking it the wrong questions.
And so, several dozen combats passing by in which the PC doesn't take damage without you radically changing the encounter to compensate for the one feat gets the GM feeling frustrated with their build, which means you should keep right on doing it and play through a meaningless combat. Good to know. (in other words, hyperbole doesn't make a point, either).
==Aelryinth
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only if by "radically changing the encounter" you mean "attack the same PC twice".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only if by "radically changing the encounter" you mean "attack the same PC twice".
Stupid entitled players
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Aelryinth
Why does it have to be all or nothing? I don't believe anyone (other than you) has said you have to change every encounter. Why not let the character with good Melee defense shine in Melee encounters and then throw in the occasional ranged or spell encounter to challenge him? Why have different types of monsters if not for varied encounters? Is there some need in you to damage every PC in every encounter?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Aelryinth
Why does it have to be all or nothing? I don't believe anyone (other than you) has said you have to change every encounter. Why not let the character with good Melee defense shine in Melee encounters and then throw in the occasional ranged or spell encounter to challenge him? Why have different types of monsters if not for varied encounters? Is there some need in you to damage every PC in every encounter?
*sigh* Because if PCs can do their cool thing the GM is losing.
|
*sigh* Because if PCs can do their cool thing the GM is losing.@Aelryinth
Why does it have to be all or nothing? I don't believe anyone (other than you) has said you have to change every encounter. Why not let the character with good Melee defense shine in Melee encounters and then throw in the occasional ranged or spell encounter to challenge him? Why have different types of monsters if not for varied encounters? Is there some need in you to damage every PC in every encounter?
I think it's more of a "if monsters can't do their cool thing."
Disclaimer: that is not the main reason I appreciate the CW errata, although it is a minor consideration.
It's a weird standard.
If I put out a feat called Steel Will, where you automatically passed the first Will save against you every round that you would otherwise fail...there would be screaming about how overpowered it was.
But neutralize a melee attack that would hit you and do stuff, that's not a problem?
Where the ranged attack also does it...but only against normal material missiles, not magic, not boulders, not anything?
Ah, well. everyone is entitled to an opinion.
==Aelrynth
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a weird standard.
If I put out a feat called Steel Will, where you automatically passed the first Will save against you every round that you would otherwise fail...there would be screaming about how overpowered it was.
But neutralize a melee attack that would hit you and do stuff, that's not a problem?
Where the ranged attack also does it...but only against normal material missiles, not magic, not boulders, not anything?
Ah, well. everyone is entitled to an opinion.
==Aelrynth
Multiple melee attacks are much, much more common than multiple will saves, though. If you're gonna put the two on the same level, then let's be fair and say Deflect Arrow is just as powerful as CW.
Because melee attacks are so much more common than will saves. There are way more critters that can generate multiple attacks than can generate multiple will saves.
People didn't like that CW can deflect attacks from huge critters. Fine, limit it to critters one or two sizes bigger than the deflector, with larger than that attackers getting partially deflected (say, damage halved from partial deflections).
People didn't like it that even nat 20s are stopped ? Fine, say that a nat 20 can't be deflected, or change it to a +20 untyped bonus to AC so it mirrors True Strike in reverse.
But the wholesale change that was made ? Over the top.
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
While I will cop to the snark (it's present in most of my posts), did I describe the character wrong?
|
|
Because melee attacks are so much more common than will saves. There are way more critters that can generate multiple attacks than can generate multiple will saves.
People didn't like that CW can deflect attacks from huge critters. Fine, limit it to critters one or two sizes bigger than the deflector, with larger attackers getting partially deflected (say, damage halved from partial deflections).
People didn't like it that even nat 20s are stopped ? Fine, say that a nat 20 can't be deflected, or change it to a +20 untyped bonus to AC so it mirrors True Strike in reverse.
But the wholesale change that was made ? Over the top.
Part of the problem is that many monsters have effects on successful melee attacks, and those tend to be a core part of the monster's ability to overcome a party's action economy. Grab, which allows a monster to make a free grapple attempt on a successful melee attack, allows the monster to spend the turn attacking AND make a grapple, rather than simply doing one or the other.
Crane Wing, or more specifically the old Crane Wing, completely threw that off. From a design standpoint, it was a very cool idea for a feat, but the old version was overpowered in its execution of the idea. To be fair, I think the new version is underpowered, but I'd rather see an underpowered feat than an overpowered one.
Part of the problem is that many monsters have effects on successful melee attacks, and those tend to be a core part of the monster's ability to overcome a party's action economy. Grab, which allows a monster to make a free grapple attempt on a successful melee attack, allows the monster to spend the turn attacking AND make a grapple, rather than simply doing one or the other.
Crane Wing, or more specifically the old Crane Wing, completely threw that off. From a design standpoint, it was a very cool idea for a feat, but the old version was overpowered in its execution of the idea. To be fair, I think the new version is underpowered, but I'd rather see an underpowered feat than an overpowered one.
The grappling monster could still attack and grapple. It just had to attack twice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't ask if you'd be altering encounters, wide open. I asked if you would modify your melee beasties the exact same way for a non-Crane Winger as you would for a Crane Winger. You're building a straw man and asking it the wrong questions.
==Aelryinth
Notice, I kept the signature :P
I think this is almost a strawman question in that you are asking a question in such away there is only 2 answers, both of which are wrong.
The answer to this question is both yes, and no.
How one modifies encounters or campaigns is based entirely on the PCs in question. For instance, whether a PC has Crane Wing or not, if they built their character to be defensively powerful, many of the things that would work on the non-Crane Wing PC, will also work on the Crane Wing PC.
For instance, One Big Hit (OBH) monsters are poor choices to use against Defensive PCs as it's all or nothing with them. Creatures with more attacks (even if weaker attacks) are generally going to be more effective as more attacks = more potential to do any damage at all.
An encounter typically only lasts 4 - 5 rounds at the most, though this isn't true for every one. What this means, is you have 4 - 5 rounds, at best, do deal any damage at all. Many of the non-Boss encounters only last 1 - 3 encounters, so you have an even more narrow window. If you design an encounter with OBH monsters, then they ~3 chances on average to deal any amount of damage at all. If you have multi-attack monsters, this increases. Just having 2 attacks instead of 1 doubles your chance of dealing any damage, even if they don't do as much as the OBH.
I would not alter an encounter, or campaign, for a high DPR Barbarian the way I would for a defensive Crane Winge user. Nor would I alter the campaign or encounter for a controller wizard the way I would for a blaster wizard.
It depends entirely on what the party brings to the table, and how the party uses them.
There is a saying that "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy" that I think is most apt here. Pre-planned encounters, such as PFS, Adventure Paths, modules etc are essentially, battle plans, and the PCs are the enemy. If you can't adapt plan based on the enemy, the enemy will crush you.
That's not to say the PCs should die, but you need to learn to adapt to the play style of the party, instead of trying to railroad them into one combat style only.
My Legacy of Fire group consists of 2 players that are Roll-play not Role-play types of characters. To the extent that they intentionally pick bad options for their character 'for the story'. We, as the players, don't have much of a problem with this. I mean, more glory for us, am I right?
However, it has forced the GM to alter encounters a little to account for the 'bad' combat players. Should the GM kill off their characters so the players learn to make better choices? Or should he adapt the campaign and encounters so that every one has a little fun?
|
|
The grappling monster could still attack and grapple. It just had to attack twice.Part of the problem is that many monsters have effects on successful melee attacks, and those tend to be a core part of the monster's ability to overcome a party's action economy. Grab, which allows a monster to make a free grapple attempt on a successful melee attack, allows the monster to spend the turn attacking AND make a grapple, rather than simply doing one or the other.
Crane Wing, or more specifically the old Crane Wing, completely threw that off. From a design standpoint, it was a very cool idea for a feat, but the old version was overpowered in its execution of the idea. To be fair, I think the new version is underpowered, but I'd rather see an underpowered feat than an overpowered one.
It has to hit twice. And that's assuming it has multiple attacks with grab attached to 'em. If a monster's core schtick is to chomp down on its prey, make a free grab attack, and then swallow whole the next round, the old CW renders that strategy ineffective.
And then what's the point of space whales?
There's a point to the space whale?
The grappling monster could still attack and grapple. It just had to attack twice.Part of the problem is that many monsters have effects on successful melee attacks, and those tend to be a core part of the monster's ability to overcome a party's action economy. Grab, which allows a monster to make a free grapple attempt on a successful melee attack, allows the monster to spend the turn attacking AND make a grapple, rather than simply doing one or the other.
Crane Wing, or more specifically the old Crane Wing, completely threw that off. From a design standpoint, it was a very cool idea for a feat, but the old version was overpowered in its execution of the idea. To be fair, I think the new version is underpowered, but I'd rather see an underpowered feat than an overpowered one.
It has to hit twice. And that's assuming it has multiple attacks with grab attached to 'em. If a monster's core schtick is to chomp down on its prey, make a free grab attack, and then swallow whole the next round, the old CW renders that strategy ineffective.
Tail slap, then bite.
It has to hit twice. And that's assuming it has multiple attacks with grab attached to 'em. If a monster's core schtick is to chomp down on its prey, make a free grab attack, and then swallow whole the next round, the old CW renders that strategy ineffective.
So...? Just because it makes one strategy ineffective, it doesn't mean it's an overpowered feat. It's just means it's good against that particular strategy.
How else are you going to fight the Saiyans?And then what's the point of space whales?There's a point to the space whale?
Frieza's, Androids, and Buus.
Anyways... Why are we throwing space whales at the guys who aren't challenged by space whales? I mean, supposing you want to challenge them. Edit: Actually throwing space whales at someone specializing in crane wing might be super effective. Pretty sure that's a ranged attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How else are you going to fight the Saiyans?And then what's the point of space whales?There's a point to the space whale?
|
|
Tail slap, then bite.The grappling monster could still attack and grapple. It just had to attack twice.Part of the problem is that many monsters have effects on successful melee attacks, and those tend to be a core part of the monster's ability to overcome a party's action economy. Grab, which allows a monster to make a free grapple attempt on a successful melee attack, allows the monster to spend the turn attacking AND make a grapple, rather than simply doing one or the other.
Crane Wing, or more specifically the old Crane Wing, completely threw that off. From a design standpoint, it was a very cool idea for a feat, but the old version was overpowered in its execution of the idea. To be fair, I think the new version is underpowered, but I'd rather see an underpowered feat than an overpowered one.
It has to hit twice. And that's assuming it has multiple attacks with grab attached to 'em. If a monster's core schtick is to chomp down on its prey, make a free grab attack, and then swallow whole the next round, the old CW renders that strategy ineffective.
This works somewhat, but there was a discussion earlier about the validity of using this method. Moreover, it assumes that the monster isn't attacking all at once, or that the CWer can't process the attacks anyway but individually. I'm sure there would be arguments about whether or not the PC would be able to tell how many attacks are coming towards him/her (not which will hit, just which attacks the creature is using), and a smart player is always going to block the bite.
Generally, bites are worse than tail slaps, especially when the creature has "arcs of brilliant energy filling its mouth."
|
|
It has to hit twice. And that's assuming it has multiple attacks with grab attached to 'em. If a monster's core schtick is to chomp down on its prey, make a free grab attack, and then swallow whole the next round, the old CW renders that strategy ineffective.
So...? Just because it makes one strategy ineffective, it doesn't mean it's an overpowered feat. It's just means it's good against that particular strategy.
It rendered multiple monster strategies ineffective - which were built into the core of the monsters' ideas during their design - and that's in addition to the potential critical hit blocks, among other things. It was an overpowered feat, plain and simple.
EDIT: @MrSin: I am so tempted to try to find a way to make a Whale Tossin' encounter work, now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Challenge 'with melee'. You know, like 75%+ of the monsters in the beastiary.
My favorite part about this attitude is you blatantly ignore the fact that, like 75% of that 75% have multiple attacks and aren't limited to only one a round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(sighs) Any Crane user can use a one handed weapon with two hands on his turn and take his hand off it at the end of the turn, completely satisfying the feat. It would even look like he's flipping it around and ending his stroke with it held off to one side or something, poised to strike in the next round. Thematically, this is a katana or bastard sword, but both Aldori blades and longswords qualify, as do scimitars.
I didn't ask if you'd be altering encounters, wide open. I asked if you would modify your melee beasties the exact same way for a non-Crane Winger as you would for a Crane Winger. You're building a straw man and asking it the wrong questions.
And so, several dozen combats passing by in which the PC doesn't take damage without you radically changing the encounter to compensate for the one feat gets the GM feeling frustrated with their build, which means you should keep right on doing it and play through a meaningless combat. Good to know. (in other words, hyperbole doesn't make a point, either).
==Aelryinth
You have to be 'fighting defensively with one hand free' to get Crane Wing's benefit. Fighting defensively is done as part of your attack. If you don't have a hand free when you attack, you don't have a hand free for the purposes of Crane Wing.
Someone else said it for me already, but no, I wouldn't change an encounter in exactly the same way for a party without Crane Wing as a party with Crane Wing. Because different parties with different strengths require different strategies to counter. But I do have highly defensive characters to counter, and similar strategies do apply.
Adding the Advanced Template--a so-called 'Simple' template designed explicitly for the GM to add on the fly--does not constitute a 'radical' change. Neither is adding another monster or two to the encounter. Adding class levels is a bit more involved, but if they were a classed enemy already, adding an extra level is not terribly taxing.
(Frankly, my most radical changes have nothing to do with countering party abilities--I give virtually every sapient enemy my players face (or at least the humanoids) class levels. Even if it's just a level of Commoner, there's no reason you should encounter a classless Ogre if you'd never encounter a classless Human. And I love to find thematic points to play with mechanics I haven't tried before, like turning the Queen's Physicians and the Gray Maidens in Curse of the Crimson Throne into Plaguebringer Alchemists and Order of the Lion Cavaliers. Or maybe Samurai with tweaked weapon proficiencies to really make them implacable...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have to be 'fighting defensively with one hand free' to get Crane Wing's benefit. Fighting defensively is done as part of your attack. If you don't have a hand free when you attack, you don't have a hand free for the purposes of Crane Wing.
In almost 1800 posts, I think you're the first one to catch that. Hah! Bravo, sir. ;)
...Lawyered!
People didn't like that CW can deflect attacks from huge critters. Fine, limit it to critters one or two sizes bigger than the deflector, with larger than that attackers getting partially deflected (say, damage halved from partial deflections).
People didn't like it that even nat 20s are stopped ? Fine, say that a nat 20 can't be deflected, or change it to a +20 untyped bonus to AC so it mirrors True Strike in reverse.
But the wholesale change that was made ? Over the top.
These are some good ideas.
I would hope that people one these boards try and give constructive criticism. Jason Bulmahn said the FAQ wasnt the last of it. Raging and arguing with each other probably wont help and makes it harder for the paizo staff to find good post among the rage.
You have to be 'fighting defensively with one hand free' to get Crane Wing's benefit. Fighting defensively is done as part of your attack. If you don't have a hand free when you attack, you don't have a hand free for the purposes of Crane Wing.
That is an excellent catch. Nice one!
I think it's more of a "if monsters can't do their cool thing."
You mean if monsters can't do all of their cool things to this one PC.
You have to be 'fighting defensively with one hand free' to get Crane Wing's benefit. Fighting defensively is done as part of your attack. If you don't have a hand free when you attack, you don't have a hand free for the purposes of Crane Wing.In almost 1800 posts, I think you're the first one to catch that. Hah! Bravo, sir. ;)
...
Lawyered!
That's only true of the new Crane Wing feat. The old one had slightly different wording I'm afraid.
.That said, if a player is constantly exploiting the round resolution system (and it is an exploit to base an entire build around being able to resolve six seconds of your own actions as if you constantly had two hands on your weapon, but resolving your enemy's actions during the same six seconds as if you constantly had a free hand), they should expect some of the same back. The old and new Crane Wing still appear to me to have a chink in their armor on the character's turn before they can start attacking, which ready actions (since they resolve before the triggering action), AoOs (especially with reach), etc would be able to exploit.
One reason why it's better to have some gentleman's agreements in place about this type of exploit. It may not be worth fixing or indeed a benefit to fix (since most fixes would also vacuum up a great deal of entirely innocent actions) but what is good for the goose is good for the gander as far as working with the chinks of the round based system goes...
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
You have to be 'fighting defensively with one hand free' to get Crane Wing's benefit. Fighting defensively is done as part of your attack. If you don't have a hand free when you attack, you don't have a hand free for the purposes of Crane Wing.That is an excellent catch. Nice one!
And when you release your hand from your sword at the end of your round, you can now benefit from Crane Wing and Riposte, which you couldn't do while you were attacking...because you were still defensive fighting while wielding a weapon with two hands. Now that you have a free hand, you can use Crane Wing in addition.
Whether you like it or not, that's how a combat round works.
Fighting Defensively is not the Defender enhancement.Fighting defensively doesn't actually require you to attack. You can fight defensively and just stand there and attack nothing. The benefits still apply. And you can swap your hands on and off your weapon freely.
You're trying to say that if you don't attack, you don't get the benefits, which is completely erroneous.
So, no rewriting the rules to fit your paradigm, thank you.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
You have to be 'fighting defensively with one hand free' to get Crane Wing's benefit. Fighting defensively is done as part of your attack. If you don't have a hand free when you attack, you don't have a hand free for the purposes of Crane Wing.That is an excellent catch. Nice one!
And when you release your hand from your sword at the end of your round, you can now benefit from Crane Wing and Riposte, which you couldn't do while you were attacking...because you were still defensive fighting while wielding a weapon with two hands. Now that you have a free hand, you can use Crane Wing in addition.
Whether you like it or not, that's how a combat round works.
Fighting Defensively is not the Defender enhancement.Fighting defensively doesn't actually require you to attack. You can fight defensively and just stand there and attack nothing. The benefits still apply. And you can swap your hands on and off your weapon freely.
You're trying to say that if you don't attack 'properly', you don't get the benefits, which is completely erroneous.
You MIGHT have one point. If the Crane Style bonuses WHILE fighting defensively are completely dependent on using one hand on a weapon, it probably means that you take the full -4 to hit from fighting defensively while using 2 hands, because you aren't in the Crane Style as long as you are using 2 hands. It depends on the wording of the feat...is CRane Style dependent on being a one hander with a free hand, or is Crane Wing?
But Crane WIng would be totally unaffected, unless someone attacked you while you were in the middle of 2h'ing. So, watch out for the CAGM barbarian.
So, no rewriting the rules to fit your paradigm, thank you.
==Aelryinth
Challenge 'with melee'. You know, like 75%+ of the monsters in the beastiary.My favorite part about this attitude is you blatantly ignore the fact that, like 75% of that 75% have multiple attacks and aren't limited to only one a round.
My favorite part about this rejoinder is that you blatantly ignore those 75% still have to get off full attack actions; still have to hit and do damage; and both the CW user and the party can take actions to limit the enemy to a move and strike each round (Slow comes to mind, among other status inflictions). In addition, you know, to still having to pass a high AC and whatnot.
Isn't snark fun?
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's called "Fighting Defensively," not "Partial Defense Action."
However, it's worth FAQing.
Challenge 'with melee'. You know, like 75%+ of the monsters in the beastiary.My favorite part about this attitude is you blatantly ignore the fact that, like 75% of that 75% have multiple attacks and aren't limited to only one a round.My favorite part about this rejoinder is that you blatantly ignore those 75% still have to get off full attack actions; still have to hit and do damage; and both the CW user and the party can take actions to limit the enemy to a move and strike each round (Slow comes to mind, among other status inflictions). In addition, you know, to still having to pass a high AC and whatnot.
Isn't snark fun?
==Aelryinth
Why are you assuming the party is free to help you with positioning? Why aren't they dealing with the other mobs? (After all, single-enemy combat is about the best way for a party to just outright slaughter an enemy force.)
Also, a bunch of those monsters have really good stats. They're probably out damaging the Monk/Duelist-style when moving and trading 1 blow for 1 blow.
Challenge 'with melee'. You know, like 75%+ of the monsters in the beastiary.My favorite part about this attitude is you blatantly ignore the fact that, like 75% of that 75% have multiple attacks and aren't limited to only one a round.My favorite part about this rejoinder is that you blatantly ignore those 75% still have to get off full attack actions; still have to hit and do damage; and both the CW user and the party can take actions to limit the enemy to a move and strike each round (Slow comes to mind, among other status inflictions). In addition, you know, to still having to pass a high AC and whatnot.
Isn't snark fun?
==Aelryinth
Why are you assuming the party is free to help you with positioning? Why aren't they dealing with the other mobs? (After all, single-enemy combat is about the best way for a party to just outright slaughter an enemy force.)
Also, a bunch of those monsters have really good stats. They're probably out damaging the Monk/Duelist-style when moving and trading 1 blow for 1 blow.
Why are you assuming the party is working against you? Because that's what you are saying. If the party is on board with your strategy, it's just a shift in tactics. If not, it's about potentially using Spring Attack, ins and outs of movement, or condition infliction.
And kindly note that just getting full attacks doesn't mean the monster is going to do squat. Remember, it doesn't have to attack you twice, it has to hit you...At LEAST twice!and if they are trading one blow, the CW wins, because their one blow doesn't do damage, and his one blow + Riposte does.
==Aelryinth