Crane Wing Errata in latest printing


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

2,101 to 2,150 of 2,304 << first < prev | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

It's one attack. If the player moves away, he provokes an AoO and is limited to 1 attack himself. He's not invulnerable or even particularly resilient.

He ignores ONE attack.

He invested 2~4 feats and/or delayed his caster level, BAB and class features by 2 levels just so he could have a good defense. What is the problem with a character having good defenses instead of putting all his resources in DPR for a change?

With a high armor class (which most crane wing users have little problem achieving), it isn't just ONE attack - it is the one attack (sometimes out of 3 or more) that was going to hit.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Marthkus wrote:
Tels wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

I realize you like the old feat, and I can totally understand why. I just see it as extremely powerful, and your argument seems to be "If I change the whole game to compensate for it, it's not that bad," which isn't very convincing to me.

==Aelryinth

If you think the old Crane Wing is extremely powerful, I can't imagine what you think of some other things that exist in this game.

I wonder if there was an amulet of anti martial field*, that people wouldn't think feats were so OP.

*Inside an anti martial field, feats do not work and all BAB and CMBs are reduced to 0.

there's something similar already in the game. It's called a 'non-full attack', where creatures and players with multiple attacks only get one of them if they take more then one step.

Very upsetting to melee toons and multi-attacking monsters. It seems to pervade the entire game world!

==Aelryinth


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Dude, if you'll say the ability to deflect one melee attack per round is the same as the ability to deflect one spell per round, I'll say that both of them are the same as deflecting one ranged attack per round. One comparison is just as valid as the other.

When the character moves, he's limited to one attack. Maybe he doesn't get hurt, since apparently, there is only 1 creature fighting party and it only has 1 attack, but even if that's the case, the player is also not hurting the enemy much.

It's not a good feat. It's a horrible feat. +4 to AC with on full defense, and you have to guess on which attack to use... Riiiight... Gotta take Run later and make my character really OP.

Aelryinth wrote:
I realize you like the old feat, and I can totally understand why. I just see it as extremely powerful, and your argument seems to be "If I change the whole game to compensate for it, it's not that bad," which isn't very convincing to me.

This part. This part irritates me. I never even used CW. I did GM for 3 players who used it in 3 different campaigns. Never had a problem with it.

And since when is using multiple enemies, multiple attacks, ranged weapons, maneuvers and spells the same as "changing the whole game"? If you're going to say (again) that those who want the old feat back want it because it's overpowered, then I'll say people who want it gone just dislike it because they are poor GMs and can't think of the multiple simple tactics that counter the feat.

And we'd both be making offensive generalizations. So let's not go there, okay?


Marthkus wrote:

I wonder if there was an amulet of anti martial field*, that people wouldn't think feats were so OP.

*Inside an anti martial field, feats do not work and all BAB and CMBs are reduced to 0.

So when you say "feats do not work" for this hypothetical ability, how would that work with spells prepared using metamagic feats? Say I'm a wizard and I've prepared a dazing fireball. Later in the day, I cast anti-martial field and all feats within a radius of me stop working. My fireball is still dazing, right? I mean, the feat lets me prepare metamagiced spells, not cast them. I'd still lose out on the bonus to DC from Spell Focus, but I'd get to keep the metamagic.

If it does work this way, this would be the greatest way to imbalance casters versus martials since Spell Perfection!


Aelryinth wrote:
Tels wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Like I said, you can argue with invisibility.

But your mirror Images? They aren't shielded, and are useless.

==Aelryinth

The images from mirror image aren't separate creatures in Pathfinder. That's why you can't use magic missile or Cleave to target the images. If you think true seeing overcame mirror image, you'd have to also think true seeing overcomes other personal figments such as disguise self. That's dumb.

Mirror Images are not part of the caster...they are 'around' the caster.

Saying Mind Blank wards them is akin to saying Mind Blank wards the Permanent Illusion of a fire you're standing in the middle of. They may well be centered on you, but they aren't ON you.

And yes, they'd go invisible if you did, since they reflect the reality of the caster.

==Aelryinth

So when a character gets hit by a Fireball, you deal fireball damage to all the items he's carrying right? Because they aren't part of the character, they are simply around him.

Now, now, around him and on his person are two very different things. That's just really bad hyperbole, Tels.

==Aelryinth

But it's no less true. Items aren't part of the character (hence the sunder, disarm and steal maneuvers), yet are still protected by the caster and his spells. Personal spells are protected by the caster's protections.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

And 'changing the game entirely' and 'using the full array of creatures, classes, abilities, and tactics in the game to account for the varied abilities of the PCs' are also two very different things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MechE_ wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

It's one attack. If the player moves away, he provokes an AoO and is limited to 1 attack himself. He's not invulnerable or even particularly resilient.

He ignores ONE attack.

He invested 2~4 feats and/or delayed his caster level, BAB and class features by 2 levels just so he could have a good defense. What is the problem with a character having good defenses instead of putting all his resources in DPR for a change?

With a high armor class (which most crane wing users have little problem achieving), it isn't just ONE attack - it is the one attack (sometimes out of 3 or more) that was going to hit.

If the monster only hits one attack a round, it's not a real threat anyway... And CW doesn't raise your AC.

And again... What is the problem of a character who specializes in defense having good defenses? That's why he specialized and put lots of resources into that.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

I wonder if there was an amulet of anti martial field*, that people wouldn't think feats were so OP.

*Inside an anti martial field, feats do not work and all BAB and CMBs are reduced to 0.

So when you say "feats do not work" for this hypothetical ability, how would that work with spells prepared using metamagic feats? Say I'm a wizard and I've prepared a dazing fireball. Later in the day, I cast anti-martial field and all feats within a radius of me stop working. My fireball is still dazing, right? I mean, the feat lets me prepare metamagiced spells, not cast them. I'd still lose out on the bonus to DC from Spell Focus, but I'd get to keep the metamagic.

If it does work this way, this would be the greatest way to imbalance casters versus martials since Spell Perfection!

Haven't you heard? Casters aren't powerful enough, that's why they nerf martials all the time.

Poor casters, always getting picked on by those mean, mean martials.


What complete and utter horse s++%.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

It creates a number of illusory doubles that inhabit your square. It does not create anything on your person. The target may be personal, the effect most assuredly is not. Doubles that are separate from you are treated just like any other illusion, and I'm not going to budge on that point. These illusionary doubles don't seem to participate in ANY spells on the caster's person by a read of the spell description.

Basically, if someone swings at you and hits, they may hit a double instead. If it misses by 5 or less, they still hit one. That's it. that's all it says. These doubles don't have AC, bodies, and are not separate creatures. They don't participate in Barkskin, Resist Fire, or anything else, because they have no substance and can't be targeted.

So, no, MIrror Image wouldn't work against True Seeing, even with a Mind Blank up.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:
Doubles that are separate from you are treated just like any other illusion, and I'm not going to budge on that point.

Except that you are wrong. They are treated differently. See the FAQ about Cleave and magic missile I linked above.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

They are illusions without substance. I read it all twice. There's nothing there that includes them in defensive spells of the caster. They just look like him. If he goes invisible, so do they, because they are visual illusions.

There is nothing in the spell description that conveys they share in any spells the mage has on his person. Everything directed at the mage is on the mage, the doubles, simply put, don't matter to anything else.

==Aelryinth


We really having an argument about whether mind-blank stops divination magic?

Let's argue about whether or not fighters can move full speed in heavy armor!


Fighters=Denver
Full Casters=Seattle

Losing from the first 12 seconds...


MechE_ wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

It's one attack. If the player moves away, he provokes an AoO and is limited to 1 attack himself. He's not invulnerable or even particularly resilient.

He ignores ONE attack.

He invested 2~4 feats and/or delayed his caster level, BAB and class features by 2 levels just so he could have a good defense. What is the problem with a character having good defenses instead of putting all his resources in DPR for a change?

With a high armor class (which most crane wing users have little problem achieving), it isn't just ONE attack - it is the one attack (sometimes out of 3 or more) that was going to hit.

So not much changed your saying? I mean if attack #2 at a -5 is reliably missing the high AC guy then if he declares his +4 to your opening attack your attack is now only one higher than a reliable miss. So capt AC is still just as hard to hit but now you might get lucky and crit I guess. But on the CW side he might waste his +4 on a bad roll and not get to save it like he would his deflect.


K177Y C47 wrote:

Fighters=Denver

Full Casters=Seattle

Losing from the first 12 seconds...

Non-Caster= Denver

Casters = Seattle

It's not just full casters, them 6th level casters out-perform their non-magical knock-offs too. Rangers and Paladins are allowed to come along. Someone has to be the meathead.


Tels wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

Fighters=Denver

Full Casters=Seattle

Losing from the first 12 seconds...

Non-Caster= Denver

Casters = Seattle

It's not just full casters, them 6th level casters out-perform their non-magical knock-offs too. Rangers and Paladins are allowed to come along. Someone has to be the meathead.

That game was like playing a rogue during an only elemental enemies session.


Marthkus wrote:
Tels wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

Fighters=Denver

Full Casters=Seattle

Losing from the first 12 seconds...

Non-Caster= Denver

Casters = Seattle

It's not just full casters, them 6th level casters out-perform their non-magical knock-offs too. Rangers and Paladins are allowed to come along. Someone has to be the meathead.

That game was like playing a rogue during an only elemental enemies session.

I didn't watch it, but the 9 others in my living room did.


Tels wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Tels wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

Fighters=Denver

Full Casters=Seattle

Losing from the first 12 seconds...

Non-Caster= Denver

Casters = Seattle

It's not just full casters, them 6th level casters out-perform their non-magical knock-offs too. Rangers and Paladins are allowed to come along. Someone has to be the meathead.

That game was like playing a rogue during an only elemental enemies session.
I didn't watch it, but the 9 others in my living room did.

It was worse than the crane wing rework.


Yeah... Denver was losing by the first 12 seconds... And that is NOT an exaggeration...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now, now, "losing" isn't the proper PC term! They were aggressively winning in reverse!

As for on-topic, I'm not understanding how it is CW stays relevant at higher levels while the mirror spell does not. CW faces the exact same problems in that enemies are far more likely to have counters to it at higher levels.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MagusJanus wrote:

Now, now, "losing" isn't the proper PC term! They were aggressively winning in reverse!

As for on-topic, I'm not understanding how it is CW stays relevant at higher levels while the mirror spell does not. CW faces the exact same problems in that enemies are far more likely to have counters to it at higher levels.

Shhhh don't point out the glaring logical fallacies to people who don't want to acknowledge that as long as you aren't playing the game directly copy pasted out of a book that it's tremendously easy to work around a CW PC it hurts the poor GMs feelings when you tell him he actually has to do work.


I also GM. And I know PFS doesn't allow variations from what's within the book.


MagusJanus wrote:
I also GM. And I know PFS doesn't allow variations from what's within the book.

Sorry I was aiming for sarcasm but I guess it didn't come across.

Anyways the point in general is that supposedly the CW PC has his AC cranked so high that he can't be hit except on a 20 to begin with in which case the -5 attacks from BAB would never land and thus he is invincible of course no one has successfully explained to me how the +1 AC difference from Crane Wing is the real problem here and not the fact that the monsters being thrown out there are trivial challenges to begin with. *shrug*


16 people marked this as a favorite.

BUG FIX REPORT

Bug Title - Monk Feat problem - Crane Wing Feat

Date Seen - 2011-2013

Versions - Pathfinder v. 1.0

Bug Summary - Players finding monk attractive class to play.

Bug Description - Bug in UC feat "Crane Wing" (Combat) renders Monk class attractive to players.

Severity - Major

Bug Fix Action - "Crane Wing" feat modified to remove attractive elements.

Bug Fix Results - Monk Class no longer attractive to players.

BUG FIX SUCCESSFUL

TICKET CLOSED


ericthetolle wrote:

BUG FIX REPORT

Bug Title - Monk Feat problem - Crane Wing Feat

Date Seen - 2011-2013

Versions - Pathfinder v. 1.0

Bug Summary - Players finding monk attractive class to play.

Bug Description - Bug in UC feat "Crane Wing" (Combat) renders Monk class attractive to players.

Severity - Major

Bug Fix Action - "Crane Wing" feat modified to remove attractive elements.

Bug Fix Results - Monk Class no longer attractive to players.

BUG FIX SUCCESSFUL

TICKET CLOSED

While likely not their intent, this still cracked me up. Gotta love programming humor.


Actually, if a monster needs a nat 20 to hit with its best attack then all its other attacks have the same chance to hit. Being hit 1 in 20 times is only trivial if your game is 1 encounter long and doesn’t include monsters capable of inflicting massive damage. Something with Grab and Constrict often only needs 1 actual hit before it switches over to CMB checks on its way to a 1-2 round kill. PCs who get hit 1 in 20 times might be well advised to invest in a Ring of Freedom of Movement if they like staying alive.

A Crane Style/Wing Monk might be able to get CMD high enough to avoid such a terrible fate even without the 40k item you can’t find for sale in most settlements. If so that’s a pretty nice defense. Even without Grab+Constrict+Swallow Whole certain hits can be pretty devastating. Getting touched by a banshee is generally bad news, for instance. As the GM you generally only need to kill the PC once to make a big impression.

Anyhow, it seems like a lot of the concerns here are based around the idea that Crane Wing shouldn’t have been changed while there were still other game elements which are more powerful. I’m not sure if going nuts over one nerf for 1,000+ posts is a great way to encourage further nerfs though. My attitude is more like, “Great, now can we see some nerfs to touch attacks and the remaining Save or Lose spells?”

That said, it would be nice to see Paizo throw the Monk a bone here though I think using the +4 AC as a reaction when you’re hit would be quite enough. I agree that Mirror Image is very powerful but have to point out that it wouldn’t be tough at all to build a PC who uses Crane Wing on top of Mirror Image. Enemies attacking a PC with Mirror Images can also close their eyes and take a 50% miss chance, but arguments over whether Mirror Image or nat 20 suppression in general should be nerfed could probably be their own thread (though probably not as popular as this one)


Devilkiller wrote:
[...] Enemies attacking a PC with Mirror Images can also close their eyes and take a 50% miss chance, but arguments over whether Mirror Image or nat 20 suppression in general should be nerfed could probably be their own thread (though probably not as popular as this one)

I'd take a 50% miss chance in every attack for Crane Wing, any day of the week. Even more if it also means the opponent is blind, has no DEX, and I get +2 to hit because I'm currently invisible.


50% miss chance isn't the only option folks facing Mirror Image have, but at least they have a choice. Setting up Mirror Image takes a standard action or Quicken Spell and a 6th level spell slot. Getting Mirror Image for a melee focused PC also often requires multiclassing 3-4 levels. Obviously Mirror Image is one of the more powerful defensive options available though, and like I said, it could easily be combined with the Crane feats to make a PC even tougher to hit. I'd considered doing this in a current game but backed off the idea since:
A - I thought it would frustrate the GM that even if he got past high AC and Mirror Images I'd just auto-deflect the attack
B - My PC gets hit infrequently enough that the old Crane Riposte would have been pretty dull

For what it's worth, Paizo's errata fixes both of my concerns to some extent (greater for B), and if we went back in time I might change my build and reconsider Crane. I'd probably be better served mechanically by Snake Style, but getting an AoO for about 20 damage every time the enemy misses might be another GM frustration exercise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Devilkiller wrote:
50% miss chance isn't the only option folks facing Mirror Image have, but at least they have a choice.

Sure. But if the best thing you can do vs Mirror Image, a 2nd level spell, is to close your eyes and take 50% miss chance plus a bunch of penalties (like losing DEX)... how do you compare that to Blur, a solid 2nd level spell that gives you 20% concealment and that's it?


Somebody facing Mirror Images certainly has other options. The old Crane Wing would severely limit their effectiveness though since if you happen to attack the right target or beat the 50% miss chance once you'd still get auto-deflected.

I guess worrying about such combinations might strike some folks as punishing the Monk for the sins of the Bard, but I think frustratingly overpowered stuff which encourages the GM to throw the CR system out the window and customize every encounter so that only carefully crafted PCs can hope to survive does more to squash variety and the use of allegedly weaker classes and other option than any nerf Paizo has handed down.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Devilkiller wrote:
50% miss chance isn't the only option folks facing Mirror Image have, but at least they have a choice.
Sure. But if the best thing you can do vs Mirror Image, a 2nd level spell, is to close your eyes and take 50% miss chance plus a bunch of penalties (like losing DEX)... how do you compare that to Blur, a solid 2nd level spell that gives you 20% concealment and that's it?

First of all, just because you close your eyes to attack someone with Mirror Images up does NOT mean that you have to leave them closed... We have FAQs saying that it's reasonable to re-grip your weapon twice per round (release second hand off two-handed weapon, cast spell, replace second hand onto two-handed weapon), is it unreasonable to close your eyes, swing your sword twice, and then re-open them? (Yes, you open yourself to readied action attacks, but then the guy with Mirror Images isn't using a full attack action, so this is probably a poor choice.)

Also, the 20% concealment from the Blur negates precision damage, which is pretty important.

I will agree that Mirror Image seems very powerful, but I feel that the fact that an attack which misses by 5 or less destroys an image really brings it down to an acceptable level.

My 2 cp.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MechE_ wrote:
First of all, just because you close your eyes to attack someone with Mirror Images up does NOT mean that you have to leave them closed... We have FAQs saying that it's reasonable to re-grip your weapon twice per round (release second hand off two-handed weapon, cast spell, replace second hand onto two-handed weapon), is it unreasonable to close your eyes, swing your sword twice, and then re-open them? (Yes, you open yourself to readied action attacks, but then the guy with Mirror Images isn't using a full attack action, so this is probably a poor choice.)

That argument has, IMO, already been lost in other threads. Just like for gaze attacks, you're choosing to close your eyes for a whole round.


Majuba wrote:
MechE_ wrote:
First of all, just because you close your eyes to attack someone with Mirror Images up does NOT mean that you have to leave them closed... We have FAQs saying that it's reasonable to re-grip your weapon twice per round (release second hand off two-handed weapon, cast spell, replace second hand onto two-handed weapon), is it unreasonable to close your eyes, swing your sword twice, and then re-open them? (Yes, you open yourself to readied action attacks, but then the guy with Mirror Images isn't using a full attack action, so this is probably a poor choice.)
That argument has, IMO, already been lost in other threads. Just like for gaze attacks, you're choosing to close your eyes for a whole round.

Mirror Image, Off Topic:
I had followed that thread for a bit and saw the disagreement on it. The only character I have who utilizes those tactics is a dragon disciple with greater blind fight, so he doesn't mind keeping his eyes closed.

That said, I would introduce the FAQ which discusses weapon re-gripping in defense of my position. It states: "As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair)."

So, one can re-grip his weapon twice in a round but cannot both close and open his eyes during the same round? I understand that this is (to some extent) abuse of the way "rounds" work in combat versus the way actual combat happens, but there were many similar abuses involving crane wing and full attacking with a scimitar, then re-releasing it, and this was (to the best of my knowledge) allowed.

Trying to draw a line between re-gripping a weapon and opening and closing eyes is silly. On the other hand, if there were a statement from Paizo along the lines of of "if you take a full round action, you are considered to be in that condition until the start of your next turn", I would support that in a heart beat.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
spectrevk wrote:
Can you explain, then, in what universe the errata'd Crane Wing is "as attractive" as its alternatives?

We were shooting to make it on par with some of the other style feats in Ultimate Combat. Whether or not we were successful I think is the point of this thread. Its pretty clear most folks here feel we fell short of the mark.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

This answer points towards the real issue. The errata Crane Wing adds very little value to a character that takes the feat. Thus, the new Crane Wing feat adds very little to the game as a whole. We can talk about removal of viable options / opportunity cost in other posts (ala a shield spell being a 100% better).

The precedent set by the errata Crane Wing is what worries me. The precedent that new martial abilities should add very little to the game is what is a grave concern. We are talking about Paizo's design philosophy going forward here.

Imho, the design philosophy should be higher level feats with lots of prerequisites should be better than lower level feats. Using the basic feats in the player's handbook as a limiter prevents that from occurring.


MechE_ wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Devilkiller wrote:
50% miss chance isn't the only option folks facing Mirror Image have, but at least they have a choice.
Sure. But if the best thing you can do vs Mirror Image, a 2nd level spell, is to close your eyes and take 50% miss chance plus a bunch of penalties (like losing DEX)... how do you compare that to Blur, a solid 2nd level spell that gives you 20% concealment and that's it?

First of all, just because you close your eyes to attack someone with Mirror Images up does NOT mean that you have to leave them closed... We have FAQs saying that it's reasonable to re-grip your weapon twice per round (release second hand off two-handed weapon, cast spell, replace second hand onto two-handed weapon), is it unreasonable to close your eyes, swing your sword twice, and then re-open them? (Yes, you open yourself to readied action attacks, but then the guy with Mirror Images isn't using a full attack action, so this is probably a poor choice.)

Also, the 20% concealment from the Blur negates precision damage, which is pretty important.

I will agree that Mirror Image seems very powerful, but I feel that the fact that an attack which misses by 5 or less destroys an image really brings it down to an acceptable level.

My 2 cp.

I guess every body has his own issues about verosimilitude.

Mine is the pocket time bubbles that the initiative system is, specially with delay action option.

In my game, if you close your eyes for six seconds and hit a guy with a two handed sword and you leave your grip to activate your force shield ring at the end of those six seconds, then your eyes are closed for six seconds and you'll get your shield for the NEXT 6 seconds
I marvel when people hinges qt the idea of martial heroes being able to jump 50 feet because it breaks their suspension of disbelief, but they allow any one capable to delay action to create time bubbles at will.

BTW: closing your eyes deny precision damage too


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alceste008 wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
spectrevk wrote:
Can you explain, then, in what universe the errata'd Crane Wing is "as attractive" as its alternatives?

We were shooting to make it on par with some of the other style feats in Ultimate Combat. Whether or not we were successful I think is the point of this thread. Its pretty clear most folks here feel we fell short of the mark.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

This answer points towards the real issue. The errata Crane Wing adds very little value to a character that takes the feat. Thus, the new Crane Wing feat adds very little to the game as a whole. We can talk about removal of viable options / opportunity cost in other posts (ala a shield spell being a 100% better).

The precedent set by the errata Crane Wing is what worries me. The precedent that new martial abilities should add very little to the game is what is a grave concern. We are talking about Paizo's design philosophy going forward here.

Imho, the design philosophy should be higher level feats with lots of prerequisites should be better than lower level feats. Using the basic feats in the player's handbook as a limiter prevents that from occurring.

The issue is the precedent that they set up in the CRB. While higher level feats and/or ones with lots of prereqs should be better than lower level ones without, there are plenty of CRB feats that reasonably should be lower level, and/or have fewer prerequisites (at least in my mind). Since their design goals include keeping those feats as the baseline for power, you're never going to see much more than the type of feats that we've already got. In essence, the CRB serves as a ceiling for the power of a feat, and more importantly, the ceiling for what a feat can do, in terms of altering such paradigms as Full-attacking and implementing status effects. And it's the reason I'm probably not going to purchase many more books, because, why should I? If I'm never going to see new and more interesting things (not even more powerful, just more interesting while still being viable) I don't see the reason to financially support paizo any more than I have already.

Grand Lodge

gnomersy wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
I also GM. And I know PFS doesn't allow variations from what's within the book.

Sorry I was aiming for sarcasm but I guess it didn't come across.

Anyways the point in general is that supposedly the CW PC has his AC cranked so high that he can't be hit except on a 20 to begin with in which case the -5 attacks from BAB would never land and thus he is invincible of course no one has successfully explained to me how the +1 AC difference from Crane Wing is the real problem here and not the fact that the monsters being thrown out there are trivial challenges to begin with. *shrug*

I think the point was that CW essentially scales off the number of enemy attacks that are made, which can overhaul CR values. Moreover, allowing the player to choose which specific attack to completely invalidate can potentially render certain monsters borderline useless against that individual. Attacks with special abilities attached to them (rend, trip, grab, etc.) - which are often there to help monsters overcome action economy - also fall by the wayside if the attacks do not connect.

It also somewhat encourages metagaming, as foreknowledge of a monster's abilities can change which attack is being blocked. (This is not a primary concern, but I figured I would mention it)

So, it's not a problem of lazy GMs. It's a problem with the feat itself. I don't think anyone here is opposed to the idea of Crane Wing, but its in-game application allows it to be more powerful than other feats. Whether or not feats should be more powerful in order to allow martials to scale like casters is arguably up for debate, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hi, if Paizo developers are still reading this thread,
Please post any new developments/FAQ updates in a separate thread. I can't really follow this thread indefinitely,
but it'd be nice to know when something actually does change, as you intimated could occur after you examine the issue more.
If you put any change in the FAQ that would also be great, but that doesn't always happen.


I do not know if this solution has been suggested (there is way too much content on this thread to wade through at this point). I think that the Crane Wing issue can be solved fairly simply. Make the feat so that you can apply the AC bonus after the roll is determined helps give it back some of its flavor I think and resolves alot of the 'dead feat' complaints that people have. You are still hitting the guy with a 60 AC on a 20 (which from what I gather was alot of what people were complaining about and has been the experience at tables where I have seen Crane Wing played.


Dan Jenkins 67 wrote:
I do not know if this solution has been suggested (there is way too much content on this thread to wade through at this point). I think that the Crane Wing issue can be solved fairly simply. Make the feat so that you can apply the AC bonus after the roll is determined helps give it back some of its flavor I think and resolves alot of the 'dead feat' complaints that people have. You are still hitting the guy with a 60 AC on a 20 (which from what I gather was alot of what people were complaining about and has been the experience at tables where I have seen Crane Wing played.

A lot of people has suggested that. It doesn't seem to have much traction among the Dev Team, because it raises metagame issues like "how does your character know that he's being hit?". I don't mind that, because I understand that it's not the character who take the decision, but the player. However, some people do have an issue with that, and Paizo Development Team in general seem to agree with them, as most (if not all) the feats that allow rerolls or add bonus to rolls in Pathfinder are done "before you know the outcome of the roll", so it seems it's important for them.


There are several abilities which you can use after a hit has been scores to negate it. Mounted Combat comes to mind. Even the new Crane Wing includes such an option when you're in Total Defense. I guess that being able to apply the bonus retroactively might make the defense from Crane Wing look better than the defense from Snake Style. Perhaps that's appropriate though since Snake Fang seems a lot better than Crane Riposte. An AoO on every miss seems absolutely brutal. Sure, the AoO has to be made with an unarmed strike, but that's not much of a limitation if you're already a Monk.

Being able to apply the bonus as needed would remove a decision point which players apparently find frustrating while also strengthening the feat significantly. It would also leave the player interestingly different options regarding Fighting Defensively and Total Defense. Obviously we've been around these points a few times by now, but I thought I'd reiterate them since there are some folks like Dan who don't feel like slogging through the entire thread. Of course Paizo might really hate the reactive defense idea. I don't have any special insight into that, but I doubt most other folks posting to this thread do either.


Copied this over from my post in the Giant in the Playground forum.

Other Post wrote:

Ugh. This is.... just frustrating. It was an amazingly flavourful feat that was the capstone of a rare and generally uncommon fighting style. And they not only killed it, they broke the followup feat without even noticing.

Defensive builds are exceptionally rare in PF, as you're generally better off killing or disabling enemies rather than being harder to attack. It's the same reason in-combat healing is considered sub-optimal unless it's an emergency and needed to prevent a death. Or using a very specialized Oradin-style build.

Things like this just cement the supremacy of Rocket-tag. A high-level caster has spells that are far more disruptive. And offensive builds like uber-chargers are far more capable of wrecking encounters. More defensive playstyles aren't necessarily better, but they certainly shouldn't be actively discouraged. Especially with official errata.

Even if what people are saying is true: That it was nerfed because it was powerful at low levels, and some PFS DMs were complaining...

Then you know what? It's on those DMs for not adapting. Players can break encounter design in a lot of ways. And the type of encounters Crane Wing builds "broke" are the simplest types of encounters in the game: Big Stupid Fighter walks up and makes a single big hit.

If a DM is incapable of designing an encounter that has more tactical depth, the feat chain/style is not the source of the problem. You cannot except to be able throw the same type of encounter at every type of party and build and except to be able to challenge them. One-trick pony DMing shouldn't be something Paizo balances around.

Ugh. Just.... ugh.

The types of characters this feat chain was most powerful on (high AC defensive martials) have already invested much of their WBL and feats on defensive power. They should be fairly hard to hit.

Now, I've had time to calm down a bit and think about it, and I can agree that it was a powerful feat. Perhaps even warranting a nerf due to it's power at lower levels. But this was overkill. It could stand to be brought back up a little. It at least needs to function with Crane Riposte, and ideally not be a trap, like it's current version is.

At this point, I'd be happy with it being reworked to allow you to add the +4 AC after the roll's revealed, and to work with Crane Riposte. So it's no longer an auto-deflect, but you can use it reactively to try and squeeze a little more AC to avoid that blow that's about to hit, as opposed to just tossing out a +4 to AC on a random hit per round.


You are able to see a blow coming before it connects and depending on your reaction time and training may well be able to deflect, block, or intercept that attack. There are in fact martial arts for which those things are a core part of the style so I don't believe the +4 after the attack is too terribly unrealistic nor would it be unbalanced.

I'd also like to say thank you to the folks that are responding the discussion so far is sounding civil and isn't getting out of hand. It's nice to be able to discuss things in that manner. Cheers to everyone and regardless of how the dice fall in the end I hope we have some happy gaming.


They have posted errata for Crane Riposte, which many here seems to have missed: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1g1#v5748eaic9rmn

For me the change is now a boost - not a nerf. The feat chain has changed from being primarily defensive, to primarily offensive.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Derwalt wrote:

They have posted errata for Crane Riposte, which many here seems to have missed: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1g1#v5748eaic9rmn

For me the change is now a boost - not a nerf. The feat chain has changed from being primarily defensive, to primarily offensive.

All that Errata does is make Crane Riposte functional again - It still activates on the Wing'ed attack only. Riposte works the same as it always has, except it will be used less often because Wing is now less reliable. This is a nerf to defense as well as offense.

It's been nerfed down to Swashbuckler Parry level - It's not something that will reliably stop attacks from hitting you. It's something that you'll use on an attack that would have missed you anyway, as a clunky mechanic to get an extra attack. And you could have just taken Snake Style to retaliate against every missed attack until you run out of AoO's.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Derwalt wrote:
For me the change is now a boost - not a nerf. The feat chain has changed from being primarily defensive, to primarily offensive.

I understand where you're coming from, but if you want a primarily offensive combat style that relies on AoOs, there are lots of viable style chains available (Snake and Panther spring to mind, both focus on AoOs and do it better than Crane), not to mention the vast majority of combat feats that already focus on offense.

I'd prefer to have Crane Style (and in theory Snapping Turtle, though the grapple bonuses muddy the waters for Turtle) be primarily (viable) defensive combat styles.

The old Crane Style chain did this well. The new one, not so much. There's already been numerous suggestions made for alternate solutions to the PFS issue with Crane Wing:

- Putting a limiter on MoMS and Unarmed Fighter to make them less dip-friendly for picking up style feats that are not level-appropriate
- Disallow the Deflect if the roll was a natural 20
- Placing a skill requirement on Crane Style similar to Snake Style
- Moving the automatic deflection from Crane Wing to Crane Riposte

A mix of the above would maintain the flavour and primarily defensive focus of Crane Style while making it less abusable by PFS munchkins.


Derwalt wrote:

They have posted errata for Crane Riposte, which many here seems to have missed: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1g1#v5748eaic9rmn

For me the change is now a boost - not a nerf. The feat chain has changed from being primarily defensive, to primarily offensive.

The issue is, there are plenty of ways to do offense. Crane Wing/Riposte isn't even in the same league as them.

However, there were very few ways to do defensive well. Crane Wing was one of the few that did. Now it's just a subpar offensive feat chain that lets you possibly evade a single attack per turn (though not very often), and potentially get an Attack of Opportunity in. Woo. Not like there weren't feats that did this better, and had less restrictive prerequisites.

2,101 to 2,150 of 2,304 << first < prev | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Crane Wing Errata in latest printing All Messageboards