| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monks actually get some love. It's them dex/wis monks that are a problem. Either grab dragon style or GTFO!This errata is being thrown in the trash. Where it belongs.
I still wonder why Paizo won't just come out and say they hate Monks? It should be right there in the Core Rulebook.
Would make things a lot easier for players.
Marthkus SHHHH!!!! with comments like that we'll get an errata for the dragon style feat line next:
Dragon Style: you get a +1 bonus to attack that doesn't stack with masterwork
Dragon Ferocity: you get a +1 bonus to attack and damage that doesn't stack with enchantments.
but it'll be ok, because as you've just pointed out it's way to powerful.
Monks actually get some love. It's them dex/wis monks that are a problem. Either grab dragon style or GTFO!This errata is being thrown in the trash. Where it belongs.
I still wonder why Paizo won't just come out and say they hate Monks? It should be right there in the Core Rulebook.
Would make things a lot easier for players.
Marthkus SHHHH!!!! with comments like that we'll get:
Dragon Style: you get a +1 bonus to attack that doesn't stack with masterwork
Dragon Ferocity: you get a +1 bonus to attack and damage that doesn't stack with enchantments.
but it'll be ok, because as you've just pointed out it's way to powerful.
Eh monk is one of those classes I house rule anyways as to not need dragon style. Doesn't mean I make dex-wis monk a thing though. That would take too many house rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Addendum to my last post--what I'm trying to say is, we're all a bunch of opinionated and passionate folks who love this game, on both sides of this argument, and we're simply now on opposite sides of which group's view of balance falls in line with the official ruling compared to when UC first came out.
Hopefully we can still discuss it civilly and with an eye for constructive criticism, just as when the situations were reversed?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Excellent. Now I can murder all the monks in PFS again.
Once again TOZ sums up the whole thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Excellent. Now I can murder all the monks in PFS again.
Good. That will teach those dirty min-maxers for picking an OP class.
I think most of the frustration is that MONKS are getting nerfed and wizards can still go "doh hoy hoy hoy here I am casting wishes with money!"
FTFY
Hopefully we can still discuss it civilly and with an eye for constructive criticism, just as when the situations were reversed?
Give us a chance to get past all the bad jokes and humor.
Also, clearly wizards are the underpowered ones and we need to give them a buff. Putting down crane wing didn't quiet do enough I don't think.
I think most of the frustration is that MONKS are getting nerfed and wizards can still go "doh hoy hoy hoy here I am casting free wishes with blood money!"
Yeah, if they have like 50 Strength to have damaged. If you're going to make an analogy, at least be believable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Addendum to my last post--what I'm trying to say is, we're all a bunch of opinionated and passionate folks who love this game, on both sides of this argument, and we're simply now on opposite sides of which group's view of balance falls in line with the official ruling compared to when UC first came out.
Hopefully we can still discuss it civilly and with an eye for constructive criticism, just as when the situations were reversed?
As someone who doesn't play PFS, and who rarely GM's decisions like this hurt players alot more then they hurt the game imo.
If the group is playing and a feat that is a little on the power heavy side seems unbalanced, my GM will typically either work with us to balance it ourselves, or ban that particular feat (leadership for instance).
On the other hand, the next time we play and he see's that this is the new wording on the feat, that'll be it. We don't get to arbitrarily add more to a feat, and with all the numerous books out their I don't blame him.
So I guess my point boils down to "it's easier to let the GM fix a slightly overpowered feat, then it is to get the flavor of the lost feat back".
Paizo's ruling has officially ruined any future character builds that wanted to use this feat line.
Excellent. Now I can murder all the monks in PFS again.
Oh come now TOZ. I'm sure you were killing monks just fine before now.
Addendum to my last post--what I'm trying to say is, we're all a bunch of opinionated and passionate folks who love this game, on both sides of this argument, and we're simply now on opposite sides of which group's view of balance falls in line with the official ruling compared to when UC first came out.
Hopefully we can still discuss it civilly and with an eye for constructive criticism, just as when the situations were reversed?
As someone who doesn't play PFS, and who rarely GM's decesions like this hurt players alot more then they hurt the game imo.
If the group is playing and a feat that is a little on the power heavy side seems unbalanced, my GM will typically either work with us to balance it ourselves, or ban that particular feat (leadership for instance).
On the other hand, the next time we play and he see's that this is the new wording on the feat, that'll be it. We don't get to arbitrarily add more to a feat, and with all the numerous books out their I don't blame him.
So I guess my point boils down to "it's easier to let the GM fix a slightly overpowered feat, then it is to get the flavor of the lost feat back".
Paizo's ruling has officially ruined any future character builds that wanted to use this feat line.
If you and the GM had already come to a good way to weaken Crane into being on par, why would he toss that for the new errataed version?
In general, any house rules a group comes to as a consensus together will likely be better targeted for the exact specifications of your home game and its playstyle because they can't know every game and so they publish with a baseline in mind.
If you can, I would say to have confidence in your house rules and play the way the group finds most fun, and the GM can always announce ahead of time that if they start to crack, he won't feel shy about changing it then.
Have confidence in your house rules, and the GM can always announce ahead of time that if they start to crack, he won't feel shy about changing it then.
Many GMs rely on the devs for balance. If they say something is OP then most GMs will be like "well it is their whole job to balance RPG rules. I'm sure there is a good reason for it that I missed." house rules are rarely ever a buff.
If you and the GM had already come to a good way to weaken Crane into being on par, why would he toss that for the new errataed version?
I'd imagine its because future builds don't happen in the past. Unless you have a time machine I know of... but that just sounds confusing.
Have confidence in your house rules, and the GM can always announce ahead of time that if they start to crack, he won't feel shy about changing it then.Many GMs rely on the devs for balance. If they say something is OP then most GMs will be like "well it is their whole job to balance RPG rules. I'm sure there is a good reason for it that I missed." house rules are rarely ever a buff.
Most of my GMs have been like that, even if I point out its related to fluff. RAW or bust breaks my heart. They usually don't trust 3PP or conversions from 3.5 either. </3.
Have confidence in your house rules, and the GM can always announce ahead of time that if they start to crack, he won't feel shy about changing it then.Many GMs rely on the devs for balance. If they say something is OP then most GMs will be like "well it is their whole job to balance RPG rules. I'm sure there is a good reason for it that I missed." house rules are rarely ever a buff.
Sure, but if his group had their own nerf for Crane that seemed to work pretty well, why switch to the new nerf?
Hmm, that's an interesting observation that house rules are rarely a buff. Actually, I do have a house rule with major implications that turns out to be a massive buff to PC survivability (even though it looks like a nerf at first).
Addendum to my last post--what I'm trying to say is, we're all a bunch of opinionated and passionate folks who love this game, on both sides of this argument, and we're simply now on opposite sides of which group's view of balance falls in line with the official ruling compared to when UC first came out.
Hopefully we can still discuss it civilly and with an eye for constructive criticism, just as when the situations were reversed?
As someone who doesn't play PFS, and who rarely GM's decesions like this hurt players alot more then they hurt the game imo.
If the group is playing and a feat that is a little on the power heavy side seems unbalanced, my GM will typically either work with us to balance it ourselves, or ban that particular feat (leadership for instance).
On the other hand, the next time we play and he see's that this is the new wording on the feat, that'll be it. We don't get to arbitrarily add more to a feat, and with all the numerous books out their I don't blame him.
So I guess my point boils down to "it's easier to let the GM fix a slightly overpowered feat, then it is to get the flavor of the lost feat back".
Paizo's ruling has officially ruined any future character builds that wanted to use this feat line.
If you and the GM had already come to a good way to weaken Crane into being on par, why would he toss that for the new errataed version?
In general, any house rules a group comes to as a consensus together will likely be better targeted for the exact specifications of your home game and its playstyle because they can't know every game and so they publish with a baseline in mind.
If you can, I would say to have confidence in your house rules and play the way the group finds most fun, and the GM can always announce ahead of time that if they start to crack, he won't feel shy about changing it then.
Basically what Marthkus and MrSin said. With all the splat books, and other books out there, the rule is essentially "what the books and errata say stand". I get where they're coming from. I might enjoy coming onto the forums and building future characters, and looking at fun concepts, but my GM doesn't have enough time in the day to look up every feat, and maybe allow someone to buff it (he's too busy building dungeons). In fact a nerf from the Dev's is an indication that it's now in perfect balance.
Again, that's why I've said that I wouldn't have minded a small nerf, but what they've done is effectively remove entire character builds for no good reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of my GMs have been like that, even if I point out its related to fluff. RAW or bust breaks my heart. They usually don't trust 3PP or conversions from 3.5 either. </3.Have confidence in your house rules, and the GM can always announce ahead of time that if they start to crack, he won't feel shy about changing it then.Many GMs rely on the devs for balance. If they say something is OP then most GMs will be like "well it is their whole job to balance RPG rules. I'm sure there is a good reason for it that I missed." house rules are rarely ever a buff.
There's a lot of issues with 3.5 stuff based on the differences in design paradigm. As bad as I think Crane stuff was among PFRPG core line, it doesn't even light a candle to the excesses of some of 3.5.
However, I've generally found that there are a lot of 3pp publishers out there that really have a great nose for balance and more choices without power creep. Your GMs are missing out on some cool stuff if they won't try it out. Hey, let me know one of your GMs' paizo accounts and I'll gift them Convergent Paths: Fey Archetypes if they'd be willing to give it a try (even if it's only for NPCs at first). It's small, pretty balanced, and the monk archetype particularly is stronger than it looks (most people pass it up due to potential for MAD, but you can make some pretty powerful debuff monks with it).
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's frustrating. There are folks who popped in to just say they were happy about the ruling then left, they don't even care if it isn't functional anymore. They left without even a thought on "Well I hope they make it atleast a good choice" comment.
They just wanted it gone. Some characters had a neat trick and they just wanted to not deal with it anymore. Those people were PFS GMs.
That's disgusting to me. Thats why I mentioned PFS. It's why I hate it to be honest, among other reasons. In PFS you can rely upon a few cheap tricks and you'll be set. GMs are pretty powerless to stop you.
In a real game, intelligent enemies will adapt and the GM can tailor the encounters to the party. You'll feel your choices validated and yet they won't feel overpowering. Atleast a good GM can do these things.
I'm fairly certain this errata occurred because people were complaining on the PFS forums. I know theres been good debate in the normal forums on Crane Wing. I know there have been several discussions in the PFS forum as well, mostly clamoring to ban it. I had hoped that those discussions would have equal merit in determining this sort of thing, but apparently I was wrong.
If PFS is going to have such a strong pull on rules errata why bother making any other set of rules?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have confidence in your house rules, and the GM can always announce ahead of time that if they start to crack, he won't feel shy about changing it then.Many GMs rely on the devs for balance. If they say something is OP then most GMs will be like "well it is their whole job to balance RPG rules. I'm sure there is a good reason for it that I missed." house rules are rarely ever a buff.Sure, but if his group had their own nerf for Crane that seemed to work pretty well, why switch to the new nerf?
Hmm, that's an interesting observation that house rules are rarely a buff. Actually, I do have a house rule with major implications that turns out to be a massive buff to PC survivability (even though it looks like a nerf at first).
The new nerf has the dev seal of approval.
My two house rules are:
1. Monk monk armor bonus adds to CMB, CMD, AC, attack roles and damage rolls.
2. Fighter and rogue are gestalt-ed together.
Have confidence in your house rules, and the GM can always announce ahead of time that if they start to crack, he won't feel shy about changing it then.Many GMs rely on the devs for balance. If they say something is OP then most GMs will be like "well it is their whole job to balance RPG rules. I'm sure there is a good reason for it that I missed." house rules are rarely ever a buff.Sure, but if his group had their own nerf for Crane that seemed to work pretty well, why switch to the new nerf?
Hmm, that's an interesting observation that house rules are rarely a buff. Actually, I do have a house rule with major implications that turns out to be a massive buff to PC survivability (even though it looks like a nerf at first).
Maybe I was unclear (weird how that happens on the interwebs), but it's not that we had a pre-established rule. It's that if we had used the rule and the GM found it to powerful we'd work together and find a compromise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a lot of issues with 3.5 stuff based on the differences in design paradigm. As bad as I think Crane stuff was among PFRPG core line, it doesn't even light a candle to the excesses of some of 3.5.
I find your lack of faith in 3.5 disturbing... We're only playing 3.75 now anyway.(thanks for the offer btw.)
Whatever happened to those cranes anyway? Are they an endangered species now?
Basically what Marthkus and MrSin said. With all the splat books,...Addendum to my last post--what I'm trying to say is, we're all a bunch of opinionated and passionate folks who love this game, on both sides of this argument, and we're simply now on opposite sides of which group's view of balance falls in line with the official ruling compared to when UC first came out.
Hopefully we can still discuss it civilly and with an eye for constructive criticism, just as when the situations were reversed?
As someone who doesn't play PFS, and who rarely GM's decesions like this hurt players alot more then they hurt the game imo.
If the group is playing and a feat that is a little on the power heavy side seems unbalanced, my GM will typically either work with us to balance it ourselves, or ban that particular feat (leadership for instance).
On the other hand, the next time we play and he see's that this is the new wording on the feat, that'll be it. We don't get to arbitrarily add more to a feat, and with all the numerous books out their I don't blame him.
So I guess my point boils down to "it's easier to let the GM fix a slightly overpowered feat, then it is to get the flavor of the lost feat back".
Paizo's ruling has officially ruined any future character builds that wanted to use this feat line.
If you and the GM had already come to a good way to weaken Crane into being on par, why would he toss that for the new errataed version?
In general, any house rules a group comes to as a consensus together will likely be better targeted for the exact specifications of your home game and its playstyle because they can't know every game and so they publish with a baseline in mind.
If you can, I would say to have confidence in your house rules and play the way the group finds most fun, and the GM can always announce ahead of time that if they start to crack, he won't feel shy about changing it then.
Ah, I gotcha. This isn't one your group had already been eyeing before this errata, and he doesn't have enough time. Well how about this as a possible compromise--I'm working on a mitigation of this nerf, because even I think it swung a bit too far. If I do get a full write-up, tell me if you think you could convince your GM to look at a different version made by someone on the forums who was outspokenly in favor of a nerf for the feats for a while (and so isn't going to be biased towards them). If you think he might go for it, tell me now and I will try to remember to PM you the text (or a link if I post it here). Would that help at all?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
. . . and Crane Style (the entire chain) joins Scorpion Style and Gorgon's Fist among the feats that will never, ever be taken.
This saddens me.
MA
There's a lot of issues with 3.5 stuff based on the differences in design paradigm. As bad as I think Crane stuff was among PFRPG core line, it doesn't even light a candle to the excesses of some of 3.5.I find your lack of faith in 3.5 disturbing... We're only playing 3.75 now anyway.(thanks for the offer btw.)
Whatever happened to those cranes anyway? Are they an endangered species now?
Oh, I <3 the general chassis of 3.0, 3.5, and so on. And honestly, it's not that I think 3.5 should be banned because it's somehow from an alien system so different from Pathfinder. It's the sheer power level of some of the craziest things in 3.5. Honestly if a player brought me a 3.5 thing that was balanced that really excited them, I would work with them to get it into the game. But my blanket statement for my games is not to accept 3.5 stuff because that makes it easier to prevent the bad 3.5 stuff without having to explain on a case by case bsis (unlike when I ran 3.5 and had a player who insisted that I not ban some cheese celerity spell that gives you an extra turn. I warned him that enemies would use it too, and he didn't care...eventually they TPKed due to enemies using it)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get the basis for this ruling. Were there seriously too many people abusing an almost entirely defensive feat chain? In a game which promotes rocket tag at higher levels, especially with mythic being out? The third feat in the chain no longer works, for crying out loud! Either you deflect, in which case no attacks of opportunity for you because yay total defense and just sitting there doing your Tai Chi pose, or you get the lesser penalty for fighting defensively but can't hit back at all because you're not deflecting anything.
This is just dumb. Someone at Paizo obviously had a knee-jerk reaction to a feat that has three prerequisites and only protects against a single melee attack a round. Whoever that is, please reconsider this ruling.
A better nerf to Crane Wing would have been to stretch the Feat chain out over a few more levels. Instead of Monk level 1/BAB 2, BAB 5/Monk 5, BAB 8/Monk 7 they could have moved Crane Wing to BAB 8/Monk 7 and Crane Riposte to BAB 12/Monk 11 or something like that.
In PFS, this would mean characters aren't getting the full feat chain until the middle and end of their career. Unless they dip MoMS, but that's a separate issue.
Another, alternative nerf, could require the original Crane Wing's deflection to be declared before the attack is rolled This way, a player could say something like, "I deflect his first attack" only to find out it would have been a miss anyway, and the following attack is the one that hit instead. This would have toned down Crane Wing, as it's not longer deflecting the first hit, but the attack the player chooses to use it on (whether it hits or not).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's frustrating. There are folks who popped in to just say they were happy about the ruling then left, they don't even care if it isn't functional anymore. They left without even a thought on "Well I hope they make it atleast a good choice" comment.
They just wanted it gone. Some characters had a neat trick and they just wanted to not deal with it anymore. Those people were PFS GMs.
That's disgusting to me. Thats why I mentioned PFS. It's why I hate it to be honest, among other reasons. In PFS you can rely upon a few cheap tricks and you'll be set. GMs are pretty powerless to stop you.
In a real game, intelligent enemies will adapt and the GM can tailor the encounters to the party. You'll feel your choices validated and yet they won't feel overpowering. Atleast a good GM can do these things.
I'm fairly certain this errata occurred because people were complaining on the PFS forums. I know theres been good debate in the normal forums on Crane Wing. I know there have been several discussions in the PFS forum as well, mostly clamoring to ban it. I had hoped that those discussions would have equal merit in determining this sort of thing, but apparently I was wrong.
If PFS is going to have such a strong pull on rules errata why bother making any other set of rules?
I actually hadn't seen that many ban requests on the PFS forums, though it sounds like you would have found it preferable if they had just banned it in PFS, I guess.
I'll say that I play and GM a good amount of PFS and also a good amount of home games. I've been pretty against Crane Style ever since I got my results from playtesting it (I thought it was strong but didn't realize it would be as strong as it actually was). I was against old-school Crane Style, but for the errata I do think we'll actually be changing it a bit in home games to make it stronger (not too much, just a tad, probably to make the +4 come after eeing the results and if that thwarts the attack, you can riposte).