Crane Wing Errata in latest printing


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 2,304 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
So no, Crane Wing is completely to blame.

So because crane wing gives you a +4 to AC... oh wait, it doesn't! Worse, you were fighting in one of the most boring moments in gaming history. A bunch of mooks who hit you on a 20.


Rogue Eidolon wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
With flanking bonuses included, they will typically need something like 19 or 20 to hit.
Wise man once said wrote:
If they only hit you on a 20, Crane Wing is not to blame for it being an easy fight.

I just responded to that in another thread. Crane gave me that AC, without which there was no possible way I could have gotten a replacement, so they would have hit on a 15 instead of 19.

Also, with 4 of them, they are VERY likely to roll a 19 once per round because they throw 12 attacks around. It's a balancing factor of ghouls. They could have easily thrown in 4 dudes with 1 attack each but +4 more to hit who each hit me on a 15 instead, and the math works out very similarly and still in Crane Wing's favor.

So no, Crane Wing is completely to blame. Even if I ignored the +4 to AC completely, I am telling you right now that I deflected enough attacks to kill me. That in itself is proof that Crane Wing was necessary for victory (since I couldn't have deflected those without it, and they were enough to kill me).

let me ask. With the prerequisites already involved to get it, do you think this new version qualifies as fair?

I can even understand a small nerf or change to the feat, but are you honestly telling me that this is what you hoped for? It's not like they made it a bit worse to bring it to balance, they kneecapped it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:
Can't wait for the colour spray nerf!

It is an interesting question. how many spell needed a nerf more than crane wings?


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Crane Wing used to be one of the vanishingly few feats actually worth being third in a chain. Now it's balanced against skill focus: profession (hobo).

Way to go, Paizo.


icehawk333 wrote:
Nicos wrote:
So, does anyone think the new version is balanced?

Yeah! it's about on par with, say, anything else a martial can have.

Maybe a little better then prone shooter.

I'd say prone shooter is still better than crane riposte.


MrSin wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
So no, Crane Wing is completely to blame.
So because crane wing gives you a +4 to AC... oh wait, it doesn't! Worse, you were fighting in one of the most boring moments in gaming history. A bunch of mooks who hit you on a 20.

Let's not be pedantic please. You automatically get +4 AC while using the style of fighting necessary to activate Crane Wing.


Atarlost wrote:

Crane Wing used to be one of the vanishingly few feats actually worth being third in a chain. Now it's balanced against skill focus: profession (hobo).

Way to go, Paizo.

That's amazing. Post of the day, right there.

Also, the nerf is way over the top, not to mention breaks the next and final feat in the chain (Can't take AoO in total defense). Who is testing this stuff?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I laughed at the wild rager nerf. Can't wait to make one for pfs and legally kill my partners even easier!


Rogue Eidolon wrote:
I am telling you right now that I deflected enough attacks to kill me. That in itself is proof that Crane Wing was necessary for victory (since I couldn't have deflected those without it, and they were enough to kill me).

You say 'necessary for victory'... what I hear is 'necessary for survival!!'

Honestly, I can't see how or why a Monk can go from being the most unusable broken class in the game... to being OP with one feat.

Crane wing is awesome, there's no denying that, But between the weakness of the class it was a necessary bump that was long overdue for them.


Sub_Zero wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
With flanking bonuses included, they will typically need something like 19 or 20 to hit.
Wise man once said wrote:
If they only hit you on a 20, Crane Wing is not to blame for it being an easy fight.

I just responded to that in another thread. Crane gave me that AC, without which there was no possible way I could have gotten a replacement, so they would have hit on a 15 instead of 19.

Also, with 4 of them, they are VERY likely to roll a 19 once per round because they throw 12 attacks around. It's a balancing factor of ghouls. They could have easily thrown in 4 dudes with 1 attack each but +4 more to hit who each hit me on a 15 instead, and the math works out very similarly and still in Crane Wing's favor.

So no, Crane Wing is completely to blame. Even if I ignored the +4 to AC completely, I am telling you right now that I deflected enough attacks to kill me. That in itself is proof that Crane Wing was necessary for victory (since I couldn't have deflected those without it, and they were enough to kill me).

let me ask. With the prerequisites already involved to get it, do you think this new version qualifies as fair?

I can even understand a small nerf or change to the feat, but are you honestly telling me that this is what you hoped for? It's not like they made it a bit worse to bring it to balance, they kneecapped it.

Oh, I agree. This new version is ridiculously weak and is most certainly weaker than what I would call fully balanced. But I'm happy anyway. Because something that is way too strong affects the game whereas something that is too weak you can worst case ignore it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Some Random Dood wrote:

I'd say prone shooter is still better than crane riposte.

Prone shooter got a healthy buff. Its should now sit comfortably in the feats no one takes pile with oh so many other feats. Rather than in the feat people laugh at as the worst feat ever.

Grand Lodge

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
So no, Crane Wing is completely to blame.
So because crane wing gives you a +4 to AC... oh wait, it doesn't! Worse, you were fighting in one of the most boring moments in gaming history. A bunch of mooks who hit you on a 20.
Let's not be pedantic please. You automatically get +4 AC while using the style of fighting necessary to activate Crane Wing.

That's Crane Style giving the benefit, though, not Crane Wing.


phantom1592 wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
I am telling you right now that I deflected enough attacks to kill me. That in itself is proof that Crane Wing was necessary for victory (since I couldn't have deflected those without it, and they were enough to kill me).

You say 'necessary for victory'... what I hear is 'necessary for survival!!'

Hahaha, it's true. I had some stalwart friends who agreed to play some scenarios with a minimum character level for playing up team (so things like 2 level 2s and two level 3s playing a scenario designed for level 4-5), and in several cases the high level guy was a Heavens Oracle and there were ghouls that he couldn't color spray. We would have totally TPKed if not for Crane, but we knew we had it. We wanted to stress test it.


Jeff Merola wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
So no, Crane Wing is completely to blame.
So because crane wing gives you a +4 to AC... oh wait, it doesn't! Worse, you were fighting in one of the most boring moments in gaming history. A bunch of mooks who hit you on a 20.
Let's not be pedantic please. You automatically get +4 AC while using the style of fighting necessary to activate Crane Wing.
That's Crane Style giving the benefit, though, not Crane Wing.

*Fighting Defenisvely and a trait.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So what was so OP about crane wing? It was basically deflect arrows with prerequisites and many restrictions.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Paizo should definitely nerf Fly, then. since it completely negates all melee attacks... Oh, what about Maze? A no-save spell that completely removes the target from the fight?

Nah, those are balanced... It's those dirty Monks who are impossibly OP.


Jeff Merola wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
So no, Crane Wing is completely to blame.
So because crane wing gives you a +4 to AC... oh wait, it doesn't! Worse, you were fighting in one of the most boring moments in gaming history. A bunch of mooks who hit you on a 20.
Let's not be pedantic please. You automatically get +4 AC while using the style of fighting necessary to activate Crane Wing.
That's Crane Style giving the benefit, though, not Crane Wing.

I've always argued that the whole chain is super-synergistic and too strong. In fact, most of these threads talk about "Crane Style" being OP and are really talking about all three with an emphasis on Wing. The thing is, you can't use Crane Wing without getting that AC bonus as well, and it's a pre-req in Wing's chain so it's an important factor in all Crane Style-based discussions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I think I might be glad for not trying to do this with my Two-Handed Fighter in our home game, now that it turns out they're practically throwing this feat chain out the window. Too bad my brother's idea for a Monk Tank went down the drain because of this.

They might as well change the name of Crane Style to "Defensive Stance Training," since that's the only good feat anymore in the Crane Style feat chain.

It also hurts the concept that Monks could be any good. Now it's official, they're on par with the Rogue class.


Scavion wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
So no, Crane Wing is completely to blame.
So because crane wing gives you a +4 to AC... oh wait, it doesn't! Worse, you were fighting in one of the most boring moments in gaming history. A bunch of mooks who hit you on a 20.
Let's not be pedantic please. You automatically get +4 AC while using the style of fighting necessary to activate Crane Wing.
That's Crane Style giving the benefit, though, not Crane Wing.
*Fighting Defenisvely and a trait.

Which trait? The 4th comes from the 3 ranks in Acrobatics that I have never seen a Craner without.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Claiming that Crane Wing was broken is akin to claiming using a Tower Shield is broken. Both give you (Essentially) +4 to AC, and until the third feat in the Crane Wing line, they give you identically the same penalty to attack rolls. Of course, you actually have to be in melee combat to use Crane Wing, whereas with that shield, you can use it all the time. I can tell you from experience I've been nailed pretty hard by things just out of my reach, or when I have to eat AoO to get to something with reach.

Also, while a Tower Shield may not deflect attacks, it could give you total cover.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

Paizo should definitely nerf Fly, then. since it completely negates all melee attacks... Oh, what about Maze? A no-save spell that completely removes the target from the fight?

Nah, those are balanced... It's those dirty Monks who are impossibly OP.

Maze is fair because everyone buys the item that gives maze

Body slot so good, thank you based otherworldly kimono. It is even written poorly so you could say that the maze it gives doesn't check SR!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It also hurts the concept that Monks could be any good. Now it's official, they're on par with the Rogue class.

Somewhere out there a rogue is saying "Oh no, don't put me in with those guys!"


Xanzal wrote:

Claiming that Crane Wing was broken is akin to claiming using a Tower Shield is broken. Both give you (Essentially) +4 to AC, and until the third feat in the Crane Wing line, they give you identically the same penalty to attack rolls. Of course, you actually have to be in melee combat to use Crane Wing, whereas with that shield, you can use it all the time. I can tell you from experience I've been nailed pretty hard by things just out of my reach, or when I have to eat AoO to get to something with reach.

Also, while a Tower Shield may not deflect attacks, it could give you total cover.

you can always total defense or attack defensively against an empty square and then advance.


Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
So no, Crane Wing is completely to blame.
So because crane wing gives you a +4 to AC... oh wait, it doesn't! Worse, you were fighting in one of the most boring moments in gaming history. A bunch of mooks who hit you on a 20.
Let's not be pedantic please. You automatically get +4 AC while using the style of fighting necessary to activate Crane Wing.
That's Crane Style giving the benefit, though, not Crane Wing.
*Fighting Defenisvely and a trait.
Which trait? The 4th comes from the 3 ranks in Acrobatics that I have never seen a Craner without.

My bad. I'm remembering the trait for Combat Expertise. I knew the +1 came from somewhere easy.


Monks are still better than rogues. I can just throw a bonus to-hit and CMB on monks to make them nice, rogues I have to gestalt with fighter before they look useful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Xanzal wrote:

Claiming that Crane Wing was broken is akin to claiming using a Tower Shield is broken. Both give you (Essentially) +4 to AC, and until the third feat in the Crane Wing line, they give you identically the same penalty to attack rolls. Of course, you actually have to be in melee combat to use Crane Wing, whereas with that shield, you can use it all the time. I can tell you from experience I've been nailed pretty hard by things just out of my reach, or when I have to eat AoO to get to something with reach.

Also, while a Tower Shield may not deflect attacks, it could give you total cover.

you can always total defense or attack defensively against an empty square and then advance.

Is that a thing? If so, then my DM has been screwing me over pretty hard. I was unaware that I could defensively fight nothing to get bonuses. Seemed pretty silly to me.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It also hurts the concept that Monks could be any good. Now it's official, they're on par with the Rogue class.
Somewhere out there a rogue is saying "Oh no, don't put me in with those guys!"

nah, not this week anyway. The weekly rogues are good/bad/amazing/terrible thread has pretty much died this week with even its defenders admitting that they're just not that good. Of course, next week a new round will begin.

back on topic

I think it's a poor design decision to invalidate an entire feat line.

Heck the simple change to crane wing could have been:

crane wing: Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you. You expend no action to deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed. you lose your dodge bonus from fighting defensively until the next round after making the deflection. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you.

Grand Lodge

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
So no, Crane Wing is completely to blame.
So because crane wing gives you a +4 to AC... oh wait, it doesn't! Worse, you were fighting in one of the most boring moments in gaming history. A bunch of mooks who hit you on a 20.
Let's not be pedantic please. You automatically get +4 AC while using the style of fighting necessary to activate Crane Wing.
That's Crane Style giving the benefit, though, not Crane Wing.
I've always argued that the whole chain is super-synergistic and too strong. In fact, most of these threads talk about "Crane Style" being OP and are really talking about all three with an emphasis on Wing. The thing is, you can't use Crane Wing without getting that AC bonus as well, and it's a pre-req in Wing's chain so it's an important factor in all Crane Style-based discussions.

So a feat chain shouldn't synergise with itself? Well, that certainly explains more than it doesn't.

And just because other people incorrectly lump all three feats together doesn't mean you should. Crane Wing is its own feat, as is Crane Style and Crane Riposte. Crane Style helped you get that +4 AC (although in the strictest sense it only got you +1). Crane Wing let you say no if that wasn't enough. And Crane Riposte let you attack the fools for daring to try to hit you.

Crane Wing didn't boost your armor class any more than Crane Style let you get an AoO for something that didn't normally provoke. Talking about the feats together is fine, but just going out at saying that one feat does more than it does should be avoided.

Honestly, I'd rather have a neat to use feat that's too powerful than yet another feat on the pile of "boring, barely functional". We have too many of those already, and this errata just moved two from (possibly) the first category far into the second.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Eirikrautha wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Or is this because I said in the Swashbuckler thread that this was great for Swashbucklers?
You know, you might have been joking when you posted that, but it makes a lot of sense. One of the main complaints against the Swashbuckler Parry was that it was so much less than Crane Wing (a feat that anyone could take). Now that the ACG is in production, they fix the problem by... nerfing Crane Wing! LOL!

Honestly, I think the swashbuckler is exactly why Crane Wing is getting nerfed. A lot of people were talking about how the best swash build was to pick up Crane Wing so you could deflect TWO attacks per round. One with Crane Wing, and one with Parry.

Well... at least if this isn't the main reason, it is probably part of it.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.

And thus the entire point in taking crane style is dead and gone. But hey everyone, there is a silver lining (see also: sarcasm)! Casters got more powerful. :D .... Again.

Grand Lodge

The Beard wrote:
And thus the entire point in taking crane style is dead and gone. But hey everyone, there is a silver lining (see also: sarcasm)! Casters got more powerful. :D .... Again.

It's not entirely dead. Crane Style itself is still good if you were planning on fighting defensively a lot, like if you're using the Aldori Swordlord Archetype.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
So what was so OP about crane wing? It was basically deflect arrows with prerequisites and many restrictions.

It was a martial feat (other than power attack) that many characters found useful.

Dark Archive

ZanThrax wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
So what was so OP about crane wing? It was basically deflect arrows with prerequisites and many restrictions.
It was a martial feat (other than power attack) that many characters found useful.

Martials can't have nice things.


Jeff Merola wrote:
So a feat chain shouldn't synergise with itself? Well, that certainly explains more than it doesn't.

Its pretty crazy how many of them don't really. For example Dreadful Carnage.


Xanzal wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Xanzal wrote:

Claiming that Crane Wing was broken is akin to claiming using a Tower Shield is broken. Both give you (Essentially) +4 to AC, and until the third feat in the Crane Wing line, they give you identically the same penalty to attack rolls. Of course, you actually have to be in melee combat to use Crane Wing, whereas with that shield, you can use it all the time. I can tell you from experience I've been nailed pretty hard by things just out of my reach, or when I have to eat AoO to get to something with reach.

Also, while a Tower Shield may not deflect attacks, it could give you total cover.

you can always total defense or attack defensively against an empty square and then advance.
Is that a thing? If so, then my DM has been screwing me over pretty hard. I was unaware that I could defensively fight nothing to get bonuses. Seemed pretty silly to me.

You can always attack a square. If there was an invisible creature following you (which can happen surprisingly a lot), and it was in that square (unlikely), you even have a 50% chance to hit it!


The Beard wrote:
ZanThrax wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
So what was so OP about crane wing? It was basically deflect arrows with prerequisites and many restrictions.
It was a martial feat (other than power attack) that many characters found useful.
Martials can't have nice things.

Haha! I beat you to it!

Always makes me sad, how much I'm supposed to full attack.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Obviously martial feats that does something besides improve full attacks have to have feat taxes that do not synergy well in the chain. Look at Improved trip, without combat expertise there would be a lot of martial tripping bad guys, who want that in the games?. Or spring attack and whirlwind strike, synergy be dammed.

But of course that have to be only for martials, Because we know wizards need to be able to take fast study, metamagic feats and all their spells without prerequisites in order to be balanced.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:

Haha! I beat you to it!

Always makes me sad, how much I'm supposed to full attack.

All the time. Martial classes are not allowed to do anything else. In fact, if the martial character you're playing is not a DPR-focused 2-handed/archery character, you're not allowed to be effective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
But of course that have to be only for martials, Because we know wizards need to be able to take fast study, metamagic feats and all their spells without prerequisites in order to be balanced.

Pfft, they don't just get those, they also get two spell options per level, automatic scaling of those options, and more spells per day to ensure they always have those options at hand. Eventually this scales to leading armies, summoning outsider, going across continents in no time at all, interplanetary travel, crafting your own place, summoning mansions and banquets with pretty much no effort, etc...

But martials have to live with just being full attack guys with little to no alternative. Could you imagine if they could do something other than full attack? The game might explode!


Matrix Dragon wrote:
Eirikrautha wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Or is this because I said in the Swashbuckler thread that this was great for Swashbucklers?
You know, you might have been joking when you posted that, but it makes a lot of sense. One of the main complaints against the Swashbuckler Parry was that it was so much less than Crane Wing (a feat that anyone could take). Now that the ACG is in production, they fix the problem by... nerfing Crane Wing! LOL!

Honestly, I think the swashbuckler is exactly why Crane Wing is getting nerfed. A lot of people were talking about how the best swash build was to pick up Crane Wing so you could deflect TWO attacks per round. One with Crane Wing, and one with Parry.

Well... at least if this isn't the main reason, it is probably part of it.

It can not be. It would be worst thing to do. Mess with an already printed material in order to deliver a new material that they still can tweak to whatever form they want.

Parry: You can do .. blah blah blah..., this does not work with crane wings or snake style.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
MrSin wrote:

Haha! I beat you to it!

Always makes me sad, how much I'm supposed to full attack.

All the time. Martial classes are not allowed to do anything else. In fact, if the martial character you're playing is not a DPR-focused 2-handed/archery character, you're not allowed to be effective.

Players feeling so entitled. Next you will be complaining about how throwing water balloons is not an effective tactic :P

Dark Archive

Lemmy wrote:
MrSin wrote:

Haha! I beat you to it!

Always makes me sad, how much I'm supposed to full attack.

All the time. Martial classes are not allowed to do anything else. In fact, if the martial character you're playing is not a DPR-focused 2-handed/archery character, you're not allowed to be effective.

.... I really wish your sarcasm wasn't actually accurate. I really do. Unfortunately I'd be lying if I tried to dispute the validity.


Crane Riposte should have the following text:

Quote:
Benefit: You take only a –1 penalty on attack rolls for fighting defensively. When using the AC bonus from Crane Wing, if your opponent misses you with that attack, you may make an attack of opportunity against that opponent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
MrSin wrote:

Haha! I beat you to it!

Always makes me sad, how much I'm supposed to full attack.

All the time. Martial classes are not allowed to do anything else. In fact, if the martial character you're playing is not a DPR-focused 2-handed/archery character, you're not allowed to be effective.

Players feeling so entitled. Next you will be complaining about how throwing water balloons is not an effective tactic :P

Fill the water balloons with holy water/alchemist's fire/acid, take aim...

Oh, wait, there's an entire class that does this :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Xanzal wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Xanzal wrote:

Claiming that Crane Wing was broken is akin to claiming using a Tower Shield is broken. Both give you (Essentially) +4 to AC, and until the third feat in the Crane Wing line, they give you identically the same penalty to attack rolls. Of course, you actually have to be in melee combat to use Crane Wing, whereas with that shield, you can use it all the time. I can tell you from experience I've been nailed pretty hard by things just out of my reach, or when I have to eat AoO to get to something with reach.

Also, while a Tower Shield may not deflect attacks, it could give you total cover.

you can always total defense or attack defensively against an empty square and then advance.
Is that a thing? If so, then my DM has been screwing me over pretty hard. I was unaware that I could defensively fight nothing to get bonuses. Seemed pretty silly to me.
You can always attack a square. If there was an invisible creature following you (which can happen surprisingly a lot), and it was in that square (unlikely), you even have a 50% chance to hit it!

In which case, we're to a Tower Shield and Crane Wing functioning pretty much the same way most of the time. And if a character fights defensively with a Tower Shield, it's going to end up with an AC of +7 pretty easily. My point is simply that saying Crane Wing gives a +4, something easily replicable with armor or shields, makes it too powerful is rather silly. Armor and shielding doesn't cost a feat. Deflection is nice, but not a game changer.


Lemmy wrote:
MrSin wrote:

Haha! I beat you to it!

Always makes me sad, how much I'm supposed to full attack.

All the time. Martial classes are not allowed to do anything else. In fact, if the martial character you're playing is not a DPR-focused 2-handed/archery character, you're not allowed to be effective.

TWF makes me really sad. When I was younger and first started playing I thought guys wielding a weapon in each hand were the most amazing thing ever. DnD has... not been friendly to me, to say the least. Off topic probably. Though maybe one day some higher power might hear me and grant me a wish or something.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
MrSin wrote:

Haha! I beat you to it!

Always makes me sad, how much I'm supposed to full attack.

All the time. Martial classes are not allowed to do anything else. In fact, if the martial character you're playing is not a DPR-focused 2-handed/archery character, you're not allowed to be effective.

Players feeling so entitled. Next you will be complaining about how throwing water balloons is not an effective tactic :P

Guys guys. Clearly we're all supposed to just appreciate the roleplay value of the game and not care about balance whatsoever.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Some things are just meant to be worse like compare crossbows and bows or fighters and paladins or rogues and most other classes in the game or monks and druid animal companions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Beard wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
MrSin wrote:

Haha! I beat you to it!

Always makes me sad, how much I'm supposed to full attack.

All the time. Martial classes are not allowed to do anything else. In fact, if the martial character you're playing is not a DPR-focused 2-handed/archery character, you're not allowed to be effective.
.... I really wish your sarcasm wasn't actually accurate. I really do. Unfortunately I'd be lying if I tried to dispute the validity.

You and me both, brother... You and me both.

101 to 150 of 2,304 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Crane Wing Errata in latest printing All Messageboards