Wanting to be invisible is for rogues.
==Aelryinth
Can't resist one last inexpensive observation.
Wanting to be invisible is for Rogues. Being invisible is for casters.
I suggest you ponder your own posting style instead of being condescending and trying to seem like a peacemaker.I'm sorry you feel that way.Indeed. I also notice a distinct lack of an apology, too, so don't post false condolences, please.
==Aelryinth
I didn't post an apology since, unlike you, I don't feel like I've done anything wrong. Nevertheless I am sorry that you feel upset.
We should just go back to using this thread to discuss potential improvements for the errata for when the developers decide to revisit it and leave it at that. The old crane wing is gone now so arguing about it is more or less a waste of time.
I believe one of the more popular suggestions is to make the +4 AC bonus reactive instead of proactive - ie the crane wing user can apply the AC bonus after the attack roll has been resolved instead of before.
Personally I'm not entirely thrilled with this solution, though I do think it's better than the current version. The reactive option is more streamlined than the current CW since the GM doesn't have to declare each attack, then wait for the player to decide if he wants to use Crane Wing, then continue with the attack details.
Personally I'd prefer to see the AC bonus scale with the level of the user - a +4 bonus is initially powerful but would quickly become less and less relevant. Something like a 2 + 1/2 level dodge bonus to AC, for instance.
Of course, ideally I'd like to see Crane Wing rolled back to the original wording but with a caveat that you cannot deflect a natural 20 - I'd also change the prerequisites to make it less dip-friendly.
The main problem with CW in PFS settings is that people were using fighter and monk archetypes to pick the feat up earlier than it's intended to come online - a MoMS monk can pick up Crane Wing at level 1.
Placing a skill limitation on Crane Style (3 ranks in Acrobatics?) and splitting up the deflection advantage between Crane Wing and Crane Riposte (encouraging players to take all three feats) would probably help fix that.
@ Aelryinth: Is it really a bad example? To a point, I will admit it's exaggerated, but at the same time I'm not. It doesn't have to be commoners. It could be some players with the Core Classes who make severely inoptimal choices. Such as a Fighter taking Great Fortitude. And then when they get slaughtered due to their builds, they complain about how lame the game is, and your stance, as you've said in previous posts, would be for you to simply say "That's how the game works. It's been like this for over 15 years."
Who the heck wants to play a game like that? A game where if you can't build a character strong that you just die quickly, and if you build it too strong you're chided for it and are threatened with mutiny by the GM?
The point of this game is to have fun, and if you aren't having fun with a player taking Crane Wing in your games, then that's your issue you need to resolve, which is fine. It comes up often at a table where a discrepancy takes place and a ruling or decision needs to be made. But as others have pointed out, look where the discrepancy most commonly took place at: PFS.
Except it is possible for a Single-Attack Monster to lock down and kill somebody with Crane Wing, you just simply don't know the tactics to go about it. Ever heard of Grapple? What about Sundering their equipment to death? Perhaps Tripping or Disarming, or Dirty Tricks would suit your fancy? Any one of these could work toward your goal of killing the guy; it might take longer than normal, but look what you're dealing with, and saying it can't be done is absolutely silly.
Not knowing how to counter something isn't an excuse to nerf/ban it. Knowing that there is no way to counter something, on the other hand, has more warrant for it.
And guess what, you're right that single-attack monsters are garbage. But it's hardly because of Crane Wing. It's because multiple successful attacks add up more than one giant attack ever will (outside of Mythic Vital Strike, which, by the way, makes Crane Wing a complete joke under the right circumstances).
Explain how and why he isn't going to be challenged. Crane Wing only works against 1 attack for deflection. When faced against several mooks (who shouldn't be too challenging in the first place; they're called mooks for a reason), or a couple BBEG's, the Crane Wing will only do so much. Even if we take the Crane Wing feat out, he's still going to be very damn hard to hit, since it's Crane Style gives a +1 Dodge Bonus to Fighting Defensive/Full Defense AC.
And that's not discounting the factor that you're not throwing enemies who don't use Feint (makes target flat-footed) or uses Touch Attacks to target the AC levels that aren't as strong.
So wait; the PCs can buff and debuff? And the Creatures/BBEGs can't do the same sorts of things? Just what exactly do you throw at the PC's, flower petals?
And it's not like the GM can't fight fire with fire every now and then. What if the party has a Wizard? Just because he casts 9th level spells means you can't throw a Wizard back at them who casts 9th level spells too? Logic these days.
Not targeting straight up AC is bound to be more effective regardless of Crane Wing's presence, since targeting Touch AC or Flat-Footed AC generally leads to differences of additions to those numbers, something which Crane Wing does not directly affect, though is much more useful towards.
As a 9th level Two-Hander Mobile Fighter who uses a Buckler and Full Plate for defenses, chilling at a base 29 AC, with +1 armor/shield enhancements, +4 Dex/Dodge, and +1 Luck, most creatures at my level who aren't a complete joke at melee combat will have a 50% chance of hitting me. Creatures who are fairly optimized at melee combat will have that same percent chance to hit me when I go Full Defense. And that's just my base AC. My Flat-Footed AC is much lower, and my Touch AC is absolutely abysmal. When fighting Incorporeals with Touch Attacks that drain stats, Crane Wing would probably be the only good means to protect myself outside of a potion of Mage Armor. Same can be said when fighting a bunch of Outlaw Gunslingers.
It's quite clear that the problem isn't the feat being broken. It's the fact you're trying to throw tiny toy tanks at the real thing and expecting them to destroy a real world tank.
The high AC deals with the mooks. The rare attack that gets through, gets winged. Mooks die fast.
A 'couple' BBEG's mean they are either being debuffed or the Wing guy is buffed...to higher AC, or to limit their actions.Using spells is the standard answer to Crane Wing. guess what? Spells work on everyone, even if you don't have Crane Wing. CW's power is to shut down the melee option. You're basically catering to the power it has to alter the campaign as soon as you start using spells all the time to deal with it.
target Touch AC...guess what? Touch AC works against normal fighters, too, and generally isn't a melee attack except for incorps. Guess what? The CW guy knows it. He can buy bracers of armor, ghost touch stuff, and hey, Crane Style is a DODGE bonus. Higher touch AC, doncha know.
At 9th level, the attack bonus of a CR9 Monster is from +12 to +17...below a 50% hit chance, which means you basically are going to take almost no damage if it attacks twice a round.
At CR 11, the nasty melee monsters finally hit a +19 and can hit you 50% of the time...and the first one every round is worth nothing.
At CR 13, a dire challenge at +16 to +22, the monsters can finally hit you more then 50%...except that's a dire boss encounter, you're probably buffed up to offset its bonus, and Crane Wing would be rocking fine.
It's pretty much a guarantee that a CW guy would be taking half the damage or less of what you are. Unless he's dealing with all attacks at +19 or higher for the same AC, which is unlikely, the GM simply isn't going to be able to do much damage. If he can limit the enemy to single attacks, say with Spring Attack, ride-by charges, Slow spells, dazing Assault, or similar things, you'd take no damage whatsoever from any single foe. You'd have to be gangpiled by multiple foes to do any damage to you, and that leaves your party way free to really mess them up.
Try it out and see how it changes your play style. The melee monsters which used to occasionally hit you and do damage will now occasionally be hitting you and doing nothing. It makes a big swing.
==Aelryinth
@ Aelryinth: Is it really a bad example? To a point, I will admit it's exaggerated, but at the same time I'm not. It doesn't have to be commoners. It could be some players with the Core Classes who make severely inoptimal choices. Such as a Fighter taking Great Fortitude. And then when they get slaughtered due to their builds, they complain about how lame the game is, and your stance, as you've said in previous posts, would be for you to simply say "That's how the game works. It's been like this for over 15 years."
Who the heck wants to play a game like that? A game where if you can't build a character strong that you just die quickly, and if you build it too strong you're chided for it and are threatened with mutiny by the GM?
The point of this game is to have fun, and if you aren't having fun with a player taking Crane Wing in your games, then that's your issue you need to resolve, which is fine. It comes up often at a table where a discrepancy takes place and a ruling or decision needs to be made. But as others have pointed out, look where the discrepancy most commonly took place at: PFS.
Except it is possible for a Single-Attack Monster to lock down and kill somebody with Crane Wing, you just simply don't know the tactics to go about it. Ever heard of Grapple? What about Sundering their equipment to death? Perhaps Tripping or Disarming, or Dirty Tricks would suit your fancy? Any one of these could work toward your goal of killing the guy; it might take longer than normal, but look what you're dealing with, and saying it can't be done is absolutely silly.
Not knowing how to counter something isn't an excuse to nerf/ban it. Knowing that there is no way to counter something, on the other hand, has more warrant for it.
And guess what, you're right that single-attack monsters are garbage. But it's hardly because of Crane Wing. It's because multiple successful attacks add up more than one giant attack ever will (outside of Mythic Vital Strike, which, by the way, makes Crane...
All of those have been brought up before.
Someone deliberately or accidentally gimping themselves is not the focus of this thread. It's about Crane Wing being used wisely and well, which is what causes problems.And Paizo repeatedly said that PFS isn't where they heard complaints most. Quit trying to jump on a bandwagon that's an illusion, please.
Sundering requires improved Sunder, and provokes an AoO if you don't have the feat. A hit from the AoO stops the attempt...and can kill the Sunderer. It's also a CMB check, and CW users don't ignore their CMB...they are perfectly aware of how vulnerable they are.
Grappling requires Improved Grab, or AoO and failure. Many fighters use the FC option for anti-grapple defense. At higher levels, FRee Action. Again, attack against CMD. Feinting requires Improved Feint and Greater Feint to not basically give up an attack to get an attack, and nothing says the CW guy can't invest in Sense MOtive to forestall the attack. How many monsters have the Bluff to actually pull it off? Or willingness to waste an entire turn to get off one successful attack?
Trip and Disarm run into the same feat requirements, and are attacks against a high CMD. Most monsters don't have either.
Etc etc.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually in the very first posts about the nerf the PFS was sited as a main reason. It wasn't until the internet exploded that suddenly it wasn't. Suddenly they were merely the ones that brought it to the designers attention. As far as the silent majority goes I know and or game with close to 50 players none of whom post or read these boards and ALL of whom hate this nerf(some more for what it represents as far as bad PF rule design philosophy or its general sloppiness. It took the designers 2 days to admit they had made riposte invalid with this nerf and fix it.) So don't claim to be the majority to me without real data to back up the claim. Data that I also have access to I might add.
People post to complain, not to support. It's a truism across the entire internet.
There's only two reasons on the first post - People posting on the boards, and PFS GMs. So of COURSE PFS is a main reason...there were only two! It's just not the 'only' reason, or the 'main' reason.
PFS is just a convenient target, and the horse is dead, quit whipping the simulacrum, it wasn't a real horse.
As for Riposte...even the people thinking Wing needed a nerf knew invalidating Riposte was wrong. And THAT got them to reconsider. I, too, agreed they pushed it too far when Riposte wouldn't work. Nothing wrong with Riposte. It's got precedent all the way back to d20 Modern.
==Aelryinth
@ Aelryinth:
And they do, but not by Mr. Crane Specialist. If they're Mooks, the damage dealers can clear through it in 2 seconds, and if they're weaklings, why would the Crane Specialist bother with them? His AC/Crane Deflection is better spent on the stronger creatures.
And it's not like BBEG's aren't prepared for those sorts of debuffs/buffs. Nope, all BBEG's have an intelligence of 1 and pick their noses, because they think they get rich by doing it. Any BBEG worth his salt is going to be prepared for whatever the party can throw at him, and he'll find out counters for Mr. Crane Specialist and his band of Support/Damage Dealers.
As I've said before, melees don't have to cater to using ranged/spells, they have other options that don't require melee weapon attacks. Maneuver Specialists are quite strong "counters" to Mr. Crane Specialist.
And so can the Fighter. However, he's busy buying other equally important things, since he knows the Crane Wing guy is Mr. Tank, and when the Ghosties are all like "Yup, he's a regular ninja," where do you think they'll go? Touch the Fighter/Cleric/Wizard, who's fatter than a Tarrasque. Plus, Gunslingers are an AC King's worst nightmare.
Those must be some very weak mooks; most of the creatures who are good in melee I've fought so far have had up to +20 to hit before, and we haven't even fought our first Dragon yet, a creature that generally has some of the highest to-hit numbers in the game.
|
Yeah, I know I'm not taking my own advice here but
Using spells is the standard answer to Crane Wing. guess what? Spells work on everyone, even if you don't have Crane Wing. CW's power is to shut down the melee option. You're basically catering to the power it has to alter the campaign as soon as you start using spells all the time to deal with it.
This may be the most impractical argument I have ever read. Are you suggesting it's a sign of weakness that you have to change the enemies' tactics to deal with PC builds? That's ridiculous.
What you're saying is no different than claiming that if someone has fire immunity, its "catering to the power it has to alter the campaign" whenever you opt to not use fire against that PC. You call it "campaign altering," but most other people call it common sense.
It's called strategy, and it's a big part of most games, especially this one. If a mook, bbeg, what have you knows that their enemy has a means of defending against melee attacks, the strategic thing to do is to not engage them with melee, and to either use a different tactic against that PC or just engage a different PC. This is really, really, not that hard.
EDIT: Also, your statement suggests that just because one person takes Crane Wing, you would have to eliminate melee entirely from your tactical options. This is hyperbole at best, unless of course you were only playing a campaign with one PC. Do not forget that you have other people at the table that likely have a completely different build.
EDIT 2: Sorry to ninja, but before you say something like "THERE ARE THINGS TO OVER COME FIRE IMMUNITY BUT NOT CRANE WING," let me remind you that you do have plenty of options, like arrows, spells, or even just ignoring the PC.
I suggest you ponder your own posting style instead of being condescending and trying to seem like a peacemaker.I'm sorry you feel that way.Indeed. I also notice a distinct lack of an apology, too, so don't post false condolences, please.
==Aelryinth
I didn't post an apology since, unlike you, I don't feel like I've done anything wrong. Nevertheless I am sorry that you feel upset.
Ah. You don't feel that attempting to label someone with a belittling acronym is wrong, and you don't feel that pointing out a detail to infer a false and demeaning truth is wrong.
huh.
It's called passive aggressive behavior on the web, here. Also, being sneaky with your insults.
You can keep your sorrow. I'll take an apology when you wise up and man up.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And it's not like BBEG's aren't prepared for those sorts of debuffs/buffs. Nope, all BBEG's have an intelligence of 1 and pick their noses, because they think they get rich by doing it. Any BBEG worth his salt is going to be prepared for whatever the party can throw at him, and he'll find out counters for Mr. Crane Specialist and his band of Support/Damage Dealers.
Fun Fact: Someone took a count of PFS season 3 earlier and found out that 29/45 boss fights would would either have to flee from, or perish in, a fight with a bee swarm. Later statements is that this also holds true for PFS in general, where roughly 50-75 % of all the boss fights would be unable to deal with the swarm.
Typically the spellcasters would have at least one AoE spell, whereas the martial bosses would be in trouble.The "gold digger" imagery might be quite appropriate.
Yeah, I know I'm not taking my own advice here but
Using spells is the standard answer to Crane Wing. guess what? Spells work on everyone, even if you don't have Crane Wing. CW's power is to shut down the melee option. You're basically catering to the power it has to alter the campaign as soon as you start using spells all the time to deal with it.This may be the most impractical argument I have ever read. Are you suggesting it's a sign of weakness that you have to change the enemies' tactics to deal with PC builds? That's ridiculous.
What you're saying is no different than claiming that if someone has fire immunity, its "catering to the power it has to alter the campaign" whenever you opt to not use fire against that PC. You call it "campaign altering," but most other people call it common sense.
It's called strategy, and it's a big part of most games, especially this one. If a mook, bbeg, what have you knows that their enemy has a means of defending against melee attacks, the strategic thing to do is to not engage them with melee, and to either use a different tactic against that PC or just engage a different PC. This is really, really, not that hard.
You're using hyperbole again.
Many monsters do NOT have the option of using spells instead of melee attacks. Many don't have ranged attacks at all. They are not PC's.
Being smart is one thing. Having a character that is virtually immune to melee combat when in melee is a teethgrinding experience. You can do it with an unreasonably high AC, which Monks do blowing Ki Points and Qinning Barkskin, but they dont' have offense.
CW does it with Wing.
What you seem to be saying is 'change every encounter so Crane Wing doesn't do its job.' Which is flat out admitting you can't really compensate for it, since it basically means don't use melee.
As for your fire example, are you going to throw the fire immune adventurer into an adventure on the elemental plane of fire? that's nuts.
Throwing a character virtually immune to most melee into melee combat with your monsters is exactly the same thing.
Now, you want to tell me how a purple worm is going to adjust its tactics to deal with a Crane Wing guy by throwing spells or tail spikes at him, I gotta hear this.
==Aelryinth
And it's not like BBEG's aren't prepared for those sorts of debuffs/buffs. Nope, all BBEG's have an intelligence of 1 and pick their noses, because they think they get rich by doing it. Any BBEG worth his salt is going to be prepared for whatever the party can throw at him, and he'll find out counters for Mr. Crane Specialist and his band of Support/Damage Dealers.Fun Fact: Someone took a count earlier and found out roughly 30% of all the PFS Boss fights in season 3(?) would either have to flee from, or perish in, a fight with a bee swarm.
The "gold digger" image might be quite appropriate.
If you want to be technical, a majority of bosses would probably die very, very quickly to a mixture of bottles of acid and alchemical fire, as such are touch attacks and do continuing damage that stops spells.
Ashiel points out such low level tactics routinely, throwing more nails in the coffins of melee combat.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Now, you want to tell me how a purple worm is going to adjust its tactics to deal with a Crane Wing guy by throwing spells or tail spikes at him, I gotta hear this.
Ok. Not what I told you. But thanks for twisting my words. Super polite, friendly, and mature of you to do so. But I'll bite.
Purple Worm has these attacks:
Melee bite +25 (4d8+12/19–20 plus grab), sting +25 (2d8+12 plus poison)
Special Attacks swallow whole (4d8+12 bludgeoning damage, AC 21, 20 hp)
That looks like two hits right there that have some pretty potent effects. Can't deflect both of them! Nor does crane wing do anything against that swallow whole. Still seems like an effective creature, especially given that 36 CMB to grapple. And reach of 15ft. Not sure what your case is here. Please explain to me how Crane Wing makes you immune to this creature's melee abilities? Actually don't bother, because that's demonstrably not the case.
Alternatively, you can just have the purple worm attack someone else. And if the guy moves away from you, attack someone who's squishier and easier to deal with.
Or more importantly, you choose monsters for your campaign that can deal with your party more effectively. And if you're using an adventure path, replace the monsters you know will flop with ones that will provide more of a challenge.
This is what everyone has been saying this entire time, and you've just been ignoring the advice.
You're talking like you don't have options here and it's totally absurd. Sounds like self inflicted failure to me. Sorry.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you seem to be saying is 'change every encounter so Crane Wing doesn't do its job.' Which is flat out admitting you can't really compensate for it, since it basically means don't use melee.
As for your fire example, are you going to throw the fire immune adventurer into an adventure on the elemental plane of fire? that's nuts.
Throwing a character virtually immune to most melee into melee combat with your monsters is exactly the same thing.
Now, you want to tell me how a purple worm is going to adjust its tactics to deal with a Crane Wing guy by throwing spells or tail spikes at him, I gotta hear this.
==Aelryinth
I don't get your thought process at all.
You don't have to change them all, just some, and hell let the CW player enjoy their toy some, you don't put difficult terrain everywhere so the Barb can't pounce do you?
And there's plenty of things on the plane of fire that can challenge people that isn't fire. Like easily. Most of the stuff there just does bonus fire damage, everything there can still attack, and as the home of efreeti, there's plenty of magic to back up some non fire hazards. Being fire immune doesn't make the plane boring, it just means *GASP* you have to change your tactics.
And a Purple Worm can't grapple? I should go tell them that.
@ Aelryinth:
And they do, but not by Mr. Crane Specialist. If they're Mooks, the damage dealers can clear through it in 2 seconds, and if they're weaklings, why would the Crane Specialist bother with them? His AC/Crane Deflection is better spent on the stronger creatures.
And it's not like BBEG's aren't prepared for those sorts of debuffs/buffs. Nope, all BBEG's have an intelligence of 1 and pick their noses, because they think they get rich by doing it. Any BBEG worth his salt is going to be prepared for whatever the party can throw at him, and he'll find out counters for Mr. Crane Specialist and his band of Support/Damage Dealers.
As I've said before, melees don't have to cater to using ranged/spells, they have other options that don't require melee weapon attacks. Maneuver Specialists are quite strong "counters" to Mr. Crane Specialist.
And so can the Fighter. However, he's busy buying other equally important things, since he knows the Crane Wing guy is Mr. Tank, and when the Ghosties are all like "Yup, he's a regular ninja," where do you think they'll go? Touch the Fighter/Cleric/Wizard, who's fatter than a Tarrasque. Plus, Gunslingers are an AC King's worst nightmare.
Those must be some very weak mooks; most of the creatures who are good in melee I've fought so far have had up to +20 to hit before, and we haven't even fought our first Dragon yet, a creature that generally has some of the highest to-hit numbers in the game.
Manuver specialists are not standard monster encounters, and the Crane Wing can compensate against them by raising his CMD, as I noted.
Touch AC's kill everyone...unless you've a high Touch AC. And if they ignore him, he just gets to kill them...win win for him. The casters have their own options to use.
Gunslingers are everyone's nightmare. Also, ranged, not melee.
I took the TH numbers directly off the Paizo chart for TH bonuses by CR. Your numbers seemed a bit wonky to me, so I checked. Your DM likes to hit you, is all.
Like I said, ask your DM if you can try a Crane Wing for a melee combat or three, and see what it does for you. It won't change your ranged or spell combat at all. but the effect on melee, especially if you use it smartly, and your party helps you, can be profound.
==Aelryinth
|
I always thought APs were tuned to be too hard. Maybe that gives me a bias in favor of the feat.
I am willing to accept that how many games are run it is a powerful feat. For example, The old school open door fight monster get the cake, open next door, repeat. Or a shadows of the colossus style game. Or a human heavy game where you are above the power level of the campaign world - I think the one is most likely the culprit. The APs I've seen don't focus on human melee enemies though.
In a human world magic is key at high levels, it takes work on the GM to avoid it. Crane feats were a step in a direction of magic freedom, where I could be useful with out wondrous items and consumables. It is frustrating to see this change bury the hope.
A martial should be powerful because of his feats. A wizard can fly and build Demi plans or puppet djinn; walking through weaker fighters seems on par. When this happens can be debated, but since the average joe Npc is lvl 5 in the inner sea that seems to be a good place for the pcs to start standing out.
/just disappointed.
All of those have been brought up before.
Someone deliberately or accidentally gimping themselves is not the focus of this thread. It's about Crane Wing being used wisely and well, which is what causes problems.
And Paizo repeatedly said that PFS isn't where they heard complaints most. Quit trying to jump on a bandwagon that's an illusion, please.Sundering requires improved Sunder, and provokes an AoO if you don't have the feat. A hit from the AoO stops the attempt...and can kill the Sunderer. It's also a CMB check, and CW users don't ignore their CMB...they are perfectly aware of how vulnerable they are.
Grappling requires Improved Grab, or AoO and failure. Many fighters use the FC option for anti-grapple defense. At higher levels, FRee Action. Again, attack against CMD. Feinting requires Improved Feint and Greater Feint to not basically give up an attack to get an attack, and nothing says the CW guy can't invest in Sense MOtive to forestall the attack. How many monsters have the Bluff to actually pull it off? Or willingness to waste an entire turn to get off one successful attack?
Trip and Disarm run into the same feat requirements, and are attacks against a high CMD. Most monsters don't have either.
It isn't, though you felt the need to bring it up before, and I'm simply calling you out on it. Interesting, how when you call me out on something, I respond with a more honest intent, but when I call you out on something, all you have to say is "That's not the focus of this thread, it's about [blah blah blah]." This means you either inadvertantly concede that or don't want to be proven right about it. But as you wish...
Fair enough, though Jason Bulmahn had this to say regarding his first post in the thread:
Part of our process of updating a book involves talking to various departments to see if there is anything that is causing them problems or needs a second look. In this particular case, Crane Wing was the #1 problem child on the list from the PFS folks. Without much work you could build a character with an incredibly high AC that could still make attacks, and if a foe would happen to get lucky and score a hit, deflect it. This build, which was not really all that difficult to setup, was all made possible by Crane Wing.
So...
We took a look and changed it to something a little more balanced. You can still play that game, you just can't take your full boat of attacks at the same time. You may not agree with the decision. That's fine. We knew this would ruffle some feathers (crane feathers even), but it was a call we had to make. We could not just put this in the bin of "let PFS ban it". That solution is generally reserved for rules that by there very concept, have trouble being implemented in PFS, or would require significant GM oversight to make viable.
The first bolded part implies (to say the least) that PFS complained about it the most, even more so than any other source of feedback. For all we know, the "#1 problem child on the list" from other sources of gameplay could've been the Pistolero Gunslingers, or that Devastating Strike sucks. We don't know, and until they tell us otherwise we will never know.
The second bolded part then implies that without Crane Wing, the defensive character would be almost impossible to set up to that level. To a point, they're correct; except, having an already high difficult to land AC already, simply increasing the amount of 20's needed to land a proper hit by 1 isn't as overpowered as one makes it, especially considering the already base strength of the character's defenses before Crane Wing took place (and actually makes Two Weapon Fighting worthwhile to invest in for a change).
The third and final bolded part brings up how "PFS Banning" can only be done if the issue is solely specific to problems in PFS gameplay, or requires major GM FIAT interpretation. Excuse me, but isn't a lot of PFS gameplay, which has significant differences from what the books would otherwise allow, having its own sorts of problems and GM FIAT interpretation? And Mr. Bulmahn, saying that PFS's "#1 Problem Child" is Crane Wing, leads one to suggest that it's a (widely believed to say the least) PFS Gameplay problem?
No. Just no. You don't have to take a feat to perform a maneuver. You don't know the rules for combat maneuvers as well as you think you do:
When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action. Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver. If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver. If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll). If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it.
The provocation isn't "lost" like you make it out to be. Is it more difficult? Yes, equal to the damage dealt in penalties. But having it outright go, even if the roll would've been a 20, is a clear contradiction of the RAW.
And if you're throwing Maneuver Specialists who aren't taking Improved/Greater Maneuvers (or even Quick Maneuvers, depending upon which specialization it is), then the problem isn't the characters being too strong, it's the DM building the encounters too weak. Why would people who claim to be so good at so and so performing be absolutely crappy at it? That's not including the fact that size discrepancies make a big difference in this matter too.
Manuver specialists are not standard monster encounters, and the Crane Wing can compensate against them by raising his CMD, as I noted.
Touch AC's kill everyone...unless you've a high Touch AC. And if they ignore him, he just gets to kill them...win win for him. The casters have their own options to use.
Gunslingers are everyone's nightmare. Also, ranged, not melee.
I took the TH numbers directly off the Paizo chart for TH bonuses by CR. Your numbers seemed a bit wonky to me, so I checked. Your DM likes to hit you, is all.
Like I said, ask your DM if you can try a Crane Wing for a melee combat or three, and see what it does for you. It won't change your ranged or spell combat at all. but the effect on melee, especially if you use it smartly, and your party helps you, can be profound.
And why not? Combat Maneuvers are an integral part of the game, and saying they're not standard to implement in a semi-optimal manner is ridiculous.
He can try to raise his CMD, though any specialist who's really optimized will lock him down through and through, while the rest of the party has to deal with the mooks/grunts/whatever.
They can ignore him, but he isn't going to Fight Defensively or use Crane Wing if he wants to better protect his party members, now is he? Isn't that the whole point of changing up encounters? So he isn't using Crane Wing every single encounter due to it being "absolutely broken"?
Not much works well against Incorporeals. Ghost Touch Weaps and Force Effects are essentially the only 2 things that fully affect Incorporeals, and while a caster tanks Incorporeals better than most other PCs, their best offensive spells to use on such creatures are things like Magic Missile, Force Punch, etc.
Likes to hit me is a slight overstatement. More like gets lucky a lot. Plus, using a giant D20 that barely rolls.
|
|
I believe one of the more popular suggestions is to make the +4 AC bonus reactive instead of proactive - ie the crane wing user can apply the AC bonus after the attack roll has been resolved instead of before.
Personally I'm not entirely thrilled with this solution, though I do think it's better than the current version. The reactive option is more streamlined than the current CW since the GM doesn't have to declare each attack, then wait for the player to decide if he wants to use Crane Wing, then continue with the attack details.
Personally I'd prefer to see the AC bonus scale with the level of the user - a +4 bonus is initially powerful but would quickly become less and less relevant. Something like a 2 + 1/2 level dodge bonus to AC, for instance.
Of course, ideally I'd like to see Crane Wing rolled back to the original wording but with a caveat that you cannot deflect a natural 20 - I'd also change the prerequisites to make it less dip-friendly.
I think the ability to apply retroactively would significantly increase the power of the feat (naturally, without making it as strong as before) simply because you eliminate the risk of misfires on the crane wing, and you can use it for attacks that you know you can successfully deflect. At the moment, the feat is best used on attacks that have super low to hit bonuses in order to get a Crane Riposte AOO, which I think is kind of a shame because that's basically Snake Style's deal.
The scaling bonus is a good idea, too. Having it scale to a wisdom score might not be a bad idea, either.
I think the ability to apply retroactively would significantly increase the power of the feat (naturally, without making it as strong as before) simply because you eliminate the risk of misfires on the crane wing, and you can use it for attacks that you know you can successfully deflect. At the moment, the feat is best used on attacks that have super low to hit bonuses in order to get a Crane Riposte AOO, which I think is kind of a shame because that's basically Snake Style's deal.
The scaling bonus is a good idea, too. Having it scale to a wisdom score might not be a bad idea, either.
I agree that the new Crane chain's increased focus on AoOs really is stepping on Snake's toes. However Snake still handles that concept much better than Crane ever did - the only real benefit of the Crane's take on AoOs is that it's not restricted to unarmed strikes. Personally I would like to see the primary focus of the Crane style be shifted back towards primarily defensive combat.
Having it scale to a wisdom score... I think having the bonus be directly tied to Wisdom would make the feat chain unattractive to many martial concepts that don't really benefit from high wisdom (US fighters, feral barbarians, duelists, aldori sword masters etc) but I really wouldn't mind some kind of additional benefit exclusive to monks. I'm not quite sure what that bonus should be though.
First I would just like to say loads of people are making personal attacks and violating boards rules. Mind what you say, I know I flagged a few of em myself. I would hope they don't like the thread though, mostly cause someone would just make a new one.
With that out of the way, I still stand by that Feinting and Combat Maneuvers get around the Crane Winger without little to no investment depending. I also find the idea that DMs aren't supposed to change tactics against players absurd, and relying on the above just makes sense and makes the old Crane Wing fair. Plus there are also loads of other tactics that negate Crane style.
That said, I think most of us are forgetting is that in a discussion like this there is supposed to be compromise ultimately. While I think myself and others don't think that Crane needed the nerf, it's clear it's gotten one heck of one. At this point I just hope we can get it buffed.
I recognize that we will likely not get it back to what it was on account of the incredibly vocal pro-nerf poster(s) in this thread, but can't we meet somewhere in the middle on this issue? Or are the pro-nerf crowd really happy with this feat as it currently is?
Can we please stop with the misrepresentation (by both sides) of where "the majority" stands...
Based on the results of this poll:
• 53% (of forum-goers who responded) believe that crane wing was fine the way it was
• 47% (of forum-goers who responded) believe that crane wing needed a reduction in power
Please stop claiming majorities - There is none amongst forum-goers.
The only majority that was achieved was in the minds of the developers who (apparently) thought that crane wing, as previously written, was too much of a game changer.
Edit:I expect the numbers on that pool to change slightly towards the "crane wing was fine crowd", since more of them are still following this thread. People who had no dog in the fight have long since moved on from this thread...
Can we please stop with the misrepresentation (by both sides) of where "the majority" stands...
Based on the results of this poll:
• 53% (of forum-goers who responded) believe that crane wing was fine the way it was
• 47% (of forum-goers who responded) believe that crane wing needed a reduction in powerPlease stop claiming majorities - There is none amongst forum-goers.
The only majority that was achieved was in the minds of the developers who (apparently) thought that crane wing, as previously written, was too much of a game changer.
Edit:I expect the numbers on that pool to change slightly towards the "crane wing was fine crowd", since more of them are still following this thread. People who had no dog in the fight have long since moved on from this thread...
OTOH
84% of people who responded thnk the nerf was unnecessary or too much.16% of people who responded think the feat is now balanced.
So yeah, majority. Actually there are three separate distinct answers. Conflating the middle one with any of the others causes a bias towards one opinion. Best way to see it would be:
53% think it was fine
31% think it needed change but got nerfnuked
16% think the change was good
Again majority to a certain opinion but not as pronounced.
|
My question for you is this: Do you think the only reason people take the Crane Style feat chain is to be more defensive?
For the one character I have who had monk levels? Yes.
If I had wanted to generate AoO's, I would have focused on snake or possibly panther instead.
Just my 2 cents. Crane was the only valid defense style we had in a sea of offense.
I'm willing to defend Paizo, the decision they made, and the very large silent majority who compelled them to actJust one question: If the majority is silent, how can we be sure they are the majority?
Better question, how can anyone be sure about which side the majority supports? Claiming to have the tacit support of the silent majority is disingenuous. It's impossible to know what a silent portion of the group supports. It is, after all, silent.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's leave our disagreements with Aelryinth aside and try to get back on point. There have been several reasonable suggestions placed for how to fix Crane Wing. Let's review in order of my personal favorite to least favorite:
Option #1
Works as written now with the option of spending 1 Ki for the auto-block. (rewards non-splash monks and takes away some of the edge of the almighty MoMS splash)
Option #2
Make it's function daily, and scale in effect with the number of monk levels you possess.
It can be used once a day for every 4 character levels you possess (or 1 for 1 with Monk levels, just like stunning fist).
At Monk levels 1 to 5, it provides a +3 bonus. 6 to 10, a +6 bonus. 11 and higher, auto-block but not natural 20's.
Option #3
Do away with the reactive auto-block/dodge bonus. Instead, have the entire feat chain scale up the fighting defensively bonus based on Monk levels. Something like:
Crane Style: Fighting defensively is now done at -2/+3.
Crane Wing: Add one additional dodge bonus to AC for every 6 Monk levels. By 18th Monk level with all three feats, that's a total of -1/+6.
Make Crane Riposte usable at any point at which a melee attacker misses, up to 1/round.
Option #4
Word Crane Wing to function like Duelist/Swashbuckler parry attempts. Not as fond of this one because Monks tend to have noticeably less bonus to hit than other melee classes, but it is still superior to the current feat.
I know that my opinion matters little, but I'd really it if people would stop claiming the majority when there is none.
Bobby: "Jimmy and Johnny both agree with me!"
Timmy: "Nuh-Uh, Jimmy and Johnny both agree with me!"
Bobby: "Jimmy and Johnny told me yesterday during play period that they agree with me!"
Timmy: "Well they told me TODAY during play period that they agree with me!"
Nevermind the fact that Jimmy and Johnny haven't bothered talking to either Bobby or Timmy in the last week because the two of them (and the rest of the playground) have moved past the issue that Jimmy and Johnny are hung up on...
Manuver specialists are not standard monster encounters, and the Crane Wing can compensate against them by raising his CMD, as I noted.
Touch AC's kill everyone...unless you've a high Touch AC. And if they ignore him, he just gets to kill them...win win for him. The casters have their own options to use.
Gunslingers are everyone's nightmare. Also, ranged, not melee.
I took the TH numbers directly off the Paizo chart for TH bonuses by CR. Your numbers seemed a bit wonky to me, so I checked. Your DM likes to hit you, is all.
Like I said, ask your DM if you can try a Crane Wing for a melee combat or three, and see what it does for you. It won't change your ranged or spell combat at all. but the effect on melee, especially if you use it smartly, and your party helps you, can be profound.
And why not? Combat Maneuvers are an integral part of the game, and saying they're not standard to implement in a semi-optimal manner is ridiculous.
He can try to raise his CMD, though any specialist who's really optimized will lock him down through and through, while the rest of the party has to deal with the mooks/grunts/whatever.
They can ignore him, but he isn't going to Fight Defensively or use Crane Wing if he wants to better protect his party members, now is he? Isn't that the whole point of changing up encounters? So he isn't using Crane Wing every single encounter due to it being "absolutely broken"?
Not much works well against Incorporeals. Ghost Touch Weaps and Force Effects are essentially the only 2 things that fully affect Incorporeals, and while a caster tanks Incorporeals better than most other PCs, their best offensive spells to use on such creatures are things like Magic Missile, Force Punch, etc.
Likes to hit me is a slight overstatement. More like gets lucky a lot. Plus, using a giant D20 that barely rolls.
The problem with Crane WIng isn't so much other PC's. Other PC's will simply use the standard take-out-melee tactics to dispose of anyone using Crane Wing; Spells, ranged combat, touch attacks.
The problem is on the GM's side.
You're advocating using combat manuevers. Now, you spent a whole paragraph berating me for saying with Improved it's almost useless to do a combat maneuver, then point out that without it, you're probably going to eat a -10 to a -30 to the monster's attack roll against an already high CMD.
COmbat maneuver specialists are widely derided as useless against anyone except humanoid opponents. Furthermore, most monsters in the beastiaries do not have the right feat chains to do this. You would be forced to customize each and every one of them because of the one feat. Monsters no longer fight and do damage, they attempt to trip instead!
Your note with incorps flies off the mark. Why would he not want fight defensively? Does he WANT the incorps to hit them? Offensively, he's no worse off then any other melee with no ghost touch. The best solution to incorps has always been force effects, anti-undead spells, or a channeling cleric. His solution to killing them will be to chug a Spirit Elixir or whatever that gives him a minute of ghost touch killing power and go to town on them, like any melee.
His whole fighting style is to use Crane WIng instead of a shield. I'm not sure why he would abandon the style, except maybe if he was going to use missile attacks.
Your CW specialist will only have to occasionally go up against a melee monster that is specifically built to be able to take him on (and he can take steps to thwart them, manuvers are countered in many ways). Every single melee monster that the GM sends against him has to deal with Crane Wing.
See if your GM will let you do the Crane Wing thing for a combat or three and come back and tell us the effect on your fighting. I can guarantee that most people will ignore it as anecdotal and unimportant, but the majority of stories I've read about it say it really transforms combat...and in my experience, I have to agree.
Oh, and hide the killer die.
==Aelryinth
Option #1.....
Option #2.....
Option #3.....
Option #4.....
I agree with constructive post like this. I would like to point out that all those effects going off of monk level should go off of Ranks of Acrobatics. You discounting other archtypes that give access to Combat Style feats, or just people that want to also use combat styles. This is not ment to be a exclusively monk chain.
Also to add to the options
Option #5
Leave the current bonuses as is, but add some utility to the feats. Example - Allowing the CraneWinger to 5ft step into new position still in the threat range of the attack whose attack he deflected. An opponent damaged by CraneRiposte is considered flat footed to the CraneRiposter until his next turn.
|
|
I agree with constructive post like this. I would like to point out that all those effects going off of monk level should go off of Ranks of Acrobatics. You discounting other archtypes that give access to Combat Style feats, or just people that want to also use combat styles. This is not ment to be a exclusively monk chain.
To the best of my knowledge, the only archetype that gives bonus style feats is Master of Many Styles. Have I overlooked one?
I proposed a Monk level-based scaling with that in mind. While the style feats can and should be used by any character they fit for, I personally do firmly believe they should function better for pure classed monks (and Brawlers now I suppose). This is for two reasons:
1). Monks need the boost vs. other martials.
2). It's martial arts, and if that is not the domain of Monks and Brawlers, then I don't know what is.
I respect your differing view, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters are the definition of the practitioners of the martial arts. Pretty much all martial arts are feat chains. Any use of weapons is a martial art. Full BAB is the true sign of a devoted student of the martial arts.
Monks in the game are defined by their pursuit of spiritual enlightenment and mastery of ki, and reliance on UA techniques that stem from that.
Style feats are all combat feats, aren't they?
==Aelryinth
|
|
Based on some evidence here, we have some data (granted, data that doesn't have fully correct assumptions about the nature of a full round attack, namely it assumes that the attack bonuses stays constant throughout) that suggests that Crane Wing would benefit positively from allowing the bonus to be made retroactively.
Crane Wing as it stands now has a non-trivial chance of being used incorrectly against an attack that would not be possible to deflect (that is, an attack that does not fall within +4 AC, or an attack that would not have hit anyway). The chance to correctly predict which attack can be deflected, if any at all, falls as attacks increase. A misfire is a waste that prevents it from being used later on in the sequence.
I assert the chance to actually use it successfully (lets ignore crane riposte for a moment) is too low, and wastes a lot of play time. Allowing the bonus to be applied retroactively would be a beneficial change.
EDIT: Also, there's no reason a change to allow it to be used retroactively couldn't be used in combination with the scaling bonus for a more complete fix.
The AC bonus is directly equal to that which a monk gets by spending a ki point, a key class feature.
Does the monk know if his +4 AC is actually going to be viable for the round? No. He pays out of limited resources for the privilege and doesn't know if that extra amount will actually do anything. Incoming hits can still be too high, or were never going to hit him in the first place.
Crane Wing burns no resources. On the flip side, it only now provides the benefits against one attack per round.
Tellingly, it now provides a trigger for an AoO. If the attack it is defending against does miss, you get an attack.
Thus, the feat has now become a tactical option. Do you want the very significant +4 bonus against a big attack? You might not get an AoO, but you have a better chance to avoid a hit.
Do you want the AoO? you can focus on a lesser blow and have higher odds of generating your extra attack.
And it makes Total Defense actually viable if you MUST defend, bringing back the complete annulment of a hit and allowing you to attack while doing so.
The retroactive, non-action cost of Crane Wing is one of the key things that broke the feat. It cost nothing in actions, it worked 100% of the time when it had to work, and it was never wasted.
Expanding the AC bonus to something higher then a monk gets from spending ki is likely not going to happen.
Having it work retroactively when a ki spending monk doesn't get to is probably not going to happen. The cost in using Crane Wing is now picking the attack, where a monk it is choosing to spend the ki. Both might fail, both might work. It's pretty close to par with class features, and it doesn't completely shut down other attack styles.
==Aelryinth
The AC bonus is directly equal to that which a monk gets by spending a ki point, a key class feature.
Does the monk know if his +4 AC is actually going to be viable for the round? No. He pays out of limited resources for the privilege and doesn't know if that extra amount will actually do anything. Incoming hits can still be too high, or were never going to hit him in the first place.
Crane Wing burns no resources. On the flip side, it only now provides the benefits against one attack per round.
Tellingly, it now provides a trigger for an AoO. If the attack it is defending against does miss, you get an attack.
Thus, the feat has now become a tactical option. Do you want the very significant +4 bonus against a big attack? You might not get an AoO, but you have a better chance to avoid a hit.
Do you want the AoO? you can focus on a lesser blow and have higher odds of generating your extra attack.And it makes Total Defense actually viable if you MUST defend, bringing back the complete annulment of a hit and allowing you to attack while doing so.
The retroactive, non-action cost of Crane Wing is one of the key things that broke the feat. It cost nothing in actions, it worked 100% of the time when it had to work, and it was never wasted.
Expanding the AC bonus to something higher then a monk gets from spending ki is likely not going to happen.
Having it work retroactively when a ki spending monk doesn't get to is probably not going to happen. The cost in using Crane Wing is now picking the attack, where a monk it is choosing to spend the ki. Both might fail, both might work. It's pretty close to par with class features, and it doesn't completely shut down other attack styles.
==Aelryinth
Would you spend four feats to get an ability slightly worse than what a monk gets?
|
|
Fighters are the definition of the practitioners of the martial arts. Pretty much all martial arts are feat chains. Any use of weapons is a martial art. Full BAB is the true sign of a devoted student of the martial arts.
Monks in the game are defined by their pursuit of spiritual enlightenment and mastery of ki, and reliance on UA techniques that stem from that.
Style feats are all combat feats, aren't they?
==Aelryinth
A valid distinction. Allow me to be more specific when I say I was referring to unarmed martial arts, which many (but not all) of the style feats specialize in.
I certainly believe they should be useful and usable by fighters or anyone else for that matter. I also believe they should work best when in the hands of a Monk.
|
|
I understand your points. For one thing, just because it "probably isn't going to happen" doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to make the suggestion. Additionally, I think the change to Riposte was a mistake because it makes Crane Style more offensive when it was originally defensive. I think it's valuable to examine how useful Crane Wing actually is as a defensive feat and to try and fix it in that area because that is what made it compelling in the first place. Right now, it is completely outclassed by Snake Style.
I think we had this exchange before, actually, but I don't see any problems with having certainty for when Crane Wing is used. That +4 window might not even show up at all in the full round attack. I think it has too much of a low chance to be used effectively, which is why I wouldn't consider it viable as a defensive option. It went from being too easy to use to being way too hard to use. Allowing the bonus to be applied retroactively would bring it back to the middle ground without making it guaranteed (lets not forget that natural 20's cannot be deflected!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Option #7: Make the AC bonus reactive to an attack roll.
Option #6: Leave the feat as is.
I agree with constructive post like this. I would like to point out that all those effects going off of monk level should go off of Ranks of Acrobatics. You discounting other archtypes that give access to Combat Style feats, or just people that want to also use combat styles. This is not ment to be a exclusively monk chain.To the best of my knowledge, the only archetype that gives bonus style feats is Master of Many Styles. Have I overlooked one?
Without the book in front of me, Unarmed Fighter.
Also I agree with this:
Fighters are the definition of the practitioners of the martial arts. Pretty much all martial arts are feat chains. Any use of weapons is a martial art. Full BAB is the true sign of a devoted student of the martial arts.
Monks in the game are defined by their pursuit of spiritual enlightenment and mastery of ki, and reliance on UA techniques that stem from that.
Style feats are all combat feats, aren't they?
==Aelryinth
and this:
Personal opinions on what is sufficient don't really belong in a post trying to sum up an entire thread.
Well, it's a straight up 20% miss chance at its worse, Acedio (if the enemy would otherwise miss you only on 1). If you're at a high AC, it's a 95% miss chance (hit only on a 20).
It no longer makes you absolutely immune to single attacks. That's a feature, not a bug. A single feat that can grant anywhere from a 20 to 95% miss chance is a very powerful feat. Restricting it to a single attack is quite viable.
It's more powerful then a monk spending ki because it never runs out.
Furthermore, a monk spending ki can't generate a free attack if someone misses him from his ki bonus AC. Wing is now an AoO generator, and the usefulness of thereof means that Crane can now vary between offensive focus and defensive focus at the discretion of the PC.
That's also a feature, not a bug.
The Sense Motive thing might be superior, except it requires burning skill ranks, and Snake Style has a dead feat in there. You're also basically subbing comparable AC from a Sense Motive check against a bonus to your AC in terms of effectiveness. It takes extra investment to really make Snake Style shine. Crane works just on its own...the investment is all against ways to overcome Crane, or to increase the offense once you have Wing in place guarding your back.
I would also like to point out that the Snake Style only works with UA. UA already has problems. Snake Style is also heavily reliant on spending immediate actions. That's not as big a problem for melees as it would be casters, but it still means giving up your next swift. Crane style is much, much friendlier to weapon wielders, which is why it got so much focus. UA is also generally regarded as one of the inferior and more expensive fighting styles. Snake Style is basically a style relegated to monks and UA fighters. Crane works for anyone who can use a weapon one-handed. Much friendlier.
Basically, what you have is a feat that went from a no-cost 100% effective auto-miss that was never wasted to a minor tactical choice variable effectiveness feat that falls pretty much in line with other martial feats. I consider it on a par or better then Snake Style, because I don't have to stay UA to make it work.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a fix idea: Go back to the way the feat originally worked, but reword it a little bit so it closes the stupid 2h loophole (in the same way that the new wording closes said loophole).
Now there's no more using a super-slight wording technicality to gain a benefit that is clearly not intended. Also, by doing so, the overall power of the feat goes down and qualifies for the "majority" opinion that, "it was too strong, but didn't need to get nerfed so badly."
(Hell, I'd even be fine letting natural 20s bypass it. It'd still be worth taking at least.)
Also, "when attacking" means "when making an attack roll." It does not mean anything else.
Therefore, you can only declare yourself to be "Fighting Defensively" when you're actually making an attack roll. It's as clear as day. There really is no way around that, because "attack" has a very specific meaning in Pathfinder terminology.
I would also like to point out that the Snake Style only works with UA. UA already has problems. Snake Style is also heavily reliant on spending immediate actions. That's not as big a problem for melees as it would be casters, but it still means giving up your next swift. Crane style is much, much friendlier to weapon wielders, which is why it got so much focus. UA is also generally regarded as one of the inferior and more expensive fighting styles. Snake Style is basically a style relegated to monks and UA fighters. Crane works for anyone who can use a weapon one-handed. Much friendlier.
Then why not make Crane Wing only work with Unarmed Strikes? If it's perceptively weaker to be restricted to just UA, and attempting to fix the MoMS early entry to the class would apparently be unfair to MoMS, then wouldn't that be a potential fix?
Keep in mind that you can 2 weapon fight as a Crane Wing. It's called being a monk, or throwing the dagger in your off hand at the end of your turn so its empty.
Closing the 2H 'loophole' should necessarily close both those options off, meaning that now you can't flurry when you have Crane Wing running, because it uses the 'off hand'.
Keep in mind that the off hand for any Crane user is a weapon, because they'll have IUS. They can fight with that weapon on their turn. They can fill that hand with a weapon, and then drop it, and it's STILL a weapon, even if it's empty.
Crane Wing is a defensive feat. It only activates when you are attacked.
If during your turn you trigger an AoO and are 2h'ing, guess what? You don't get the benefits of Crane Wing. So, for instance, 2h'ing against another Crane user means you get plinked by the Riposte. And you can't Wing a Come and Get Me Barbarian.
Crane Wing is not Swashbuckler Precision damage, which only activates on the attack. You can't 2h a Swashbuckler's weapon because of that (although you could draw a weapon with your off hand and 2h away after making your main hand precision attacks....OR you could be a Snake Style IUS user and precision damage all day with your 'empty hands').
It's an attempt to make artificial distinctions that really don't exist in the game. You're still going to be one handed on your off turns, which affects your riposte and AoO's, so you're not a true 2h'er, and you have to be using a non-2h weapon, so you're giving up some damage.
But you certainly are not restricted to using rapiers, finesse combat, and IUS to satisfy the feat, which seems to be the intent of this movement.
==Aelryinth
|
|
I would also like to point out that the Snake Style only works with UA. UA already has problems. Snake Style is also heavily reliant on spending immediate actions. That's not as big a problem for melees as it would be casters, but it still means giving up your next swift. Crane style is much, much friendlier to weapon wielders, which is why it got so much focus. UA is also generally regarded as one of the inferior and more expensive fighting styles. Snake Style is basically a style relegated to monks and UA fighters. Crane works for anyone who can use a weapon one-handed. Much friendlier.Then why not make Crane Wing only work with Unarmed Strikes? If it's perceptively weaker to be restricted to just UA, and attempting to fix the MoMS early entry to the class would apparently be unfair to MoMS, then wouldn't that be a potential fix?
Combat styles shouldn't just be a monk thing. We could make more style feats for fighters, that would be ideal any way. I would put it off of combat expertise(dodge, CE, martial weapon prof, int 13, As pre reqs for example).
Here's a fix idea: Go back to the way the feat originally worked, but reword it a little bit so it closes the stupid 2h loophole (in the same way that the new wording closes said loophole).
Now there's no more using a super-slight wording technicality to gain a benefit that is clearly not intended. Also, by doing so, the overall power of the feat goes down and qualifies for the "majority" opinion that, "it was too strong, but didn't need to get nerfed so badly."
(Hell, I'd even be fine letting natural 20s bypass it. It'd still be worth taking at least.)Also, "when attacking" means "when making an attack roll." It does not mean anything else.
Therefore, you can only declare yourself to be "Fighting Defensively" when you're actually making an attack roll. It's as clear as day. There really is no way around that, because "attack" has a very specific meaning in Pathfinder terminology.
I declare an AoO attack roll against the air.(One casual flourish later, I settle into defensive fighting to protect against the arrows heading my way). I declared my attack action, I'm in defensive fighting, and I'm going to stay that way until otherwise noted.
Condition satisfied. Let us now proceed with real problems, instead of beating a non-applicable dead horse? Defensive Fighting is not Defender. It works perfectly to defend against missile attacks and foes you can't reach, while keeping you able to retaliate if an opportunity does come up. Trying to rule otherwise is nowhere in the rules, anywhere, and never, ever has been.
Inferring that it works the way you suddenly think it does because of a single sentence is word-twisting at its finest. And I'll repeat that in years of posting, I've never, ever seen it argued that way until this thread and someone trying to make Crane Wing not seem so bad.
==Aelryinth