| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think most people are annoyed at the very notion that the MONK was being so brokenly OP that it needed a nerf.
Makes people question the devs decisions and how relevant those decisions should be to their own games.
The rage directed at the devs is because no one here wants to abandon them and their decisions. Because why are we even playing pathfinder if we don't trust the devs to balance the game correctly?
Damn straight. I love Pathfinder. Sometimes though things happen and it makes me think, "Really? That got the nerf hammer?"
I'm only angry because I care.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The counter to this was the Master of Many Styles who avoided those.
Bingo, and I think thats where the main complaint lies because you don't need all the prereqs that balanced out the feat. Dont nerf the feat, nerf MoMS.
Lead Designer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The extreme reaction is due because essentially the largest proponent of the change was PFS. This meant that Paizo considers those games to be of greater worth when taking game balance into account. This disgusts me as a whole because I don't play PFS and don't consider their games to be any more valid than my own
Neither do we. We value everyone who plays our games. The only difference is that we get some baseline info from them. It is much easier for us to get uniform feedback from a system that plays entirely using the same rules. We can not survey every home group, take into account their variance in terms of home rules and play styles, and use that information in the same way. It may "disgust" you, but it is the truth.
That said, they pointed it out to us. We took a long look at it and made a decision. Thats it. Its no different when folks here on the board talk about their home games and complain about a rule. We take a look at their issue and make a decision.
That is our job.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Which would be less disruptive to players? Nerfing their class or nerfing a feat they took with that class? I can understand the PFS side of it with this in mind. I don't agree, but I understand. If you change the nature of MoMS then you likely break more characters than just those who took Crane Wing.
|
I guessing also disagree with a lot of "craft-theory" and optimization builds that so many forum posters hold as ultimate truth as I have seen time and again a "build that should suck" complete own everything it has been stated to be terrible at. I don't see this as a devastating change like so many others do but I also don't consider the monk a mediocre class as much as I consider that they are often played ineptly.This may also come from a strong held belief that DPS is not the keystone of a good class. I mean it's one feat. That's what the stink is about. One feat. One build for (a/some) class(es) thst relies on that feat.
Idk I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion but just don't understand the extreme reaction
Theres a lot of misconceptions built in here.
A terrible build mathematically only functions at low levels due to the die roll being the main contributor of success. Also theres a difference between should and does.
Damage most definitely plays a large portion on whether a class is good or not. Failing that, some kind of versatility in combat that allows you to benefit your allies making them better at fighting. Combat is the one sure thing we can count on to involve all members of the party.
The one feat stink. The Crane chain was held up to be what feats should aspire to. Feats should have synergy with one another and validate builds. Especially chains that require many prerequisites. It was also one of the few ways to build a cool defensively oriented character. The biggest deal here is that a chain that requires many prerequisites should have powerful effects. The counter to this was the Master of Many Styles who avoided those.
The extreme reaction is due because essentially the largest proponent of the change was PFS. This meant that Paizo considers those games to be of greater worth when taking game balance into account. This disgusts me as a whole because I don't play PFS and don't consider their games to be...
Now that you've articulated your point of view without your rage face I can see where you are coming from (not to sound like a prick but seriously this argument is another well defined one and much better defined than your previous statements.)
I agree that damage is a large part of a character sans buffing, debuffing, field control options but a "large part" doesn't make it a key stone. More like an important corner stone lol. Semantics aside I do get what you are saying although I still believe the errata version of the feat is usable and strongly believe there are other viable options for character to replace it with if they are still not happy.
| 26 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll try this again. This is my predication of the results of the new ruling will.
After a few days/weeks everyone here who is upset and genuinely disappointed with Paizo over this will stop talking about it. After a few months random threads will pop up with more people who were shocked to discover this nerf. The debate will start up again, with it being locked.
After a year or so, no one will use this feat chain, and it will be discarded into the waste-bin of pointless feats. With the discussion ended, and no one complaining about it, it will never be changed again.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The extreme reaction is due because essentially the largest proponent of the change was PFS. This meant that Paizo considers those games to be of greater worth when taking game balance into account. This disgusts me as a whole because I don't play PFS and don't consider their games to be any more valid than my ownNeither do we. We value everyone who plays our games. The only difference is that we get some baseline info from them. It is much easier for us to get uniform feedback from a system that plays entirely using the same rules. We can not survey every home group, take into account their variance in terms of home rules and play styles, and use that information in the same way. It may "disgust" you, but it is the truth.
That said, they pointed it out to us. We took a long look at it and made a decision. Thats it. Its no different when folks here on the board talk about their home games and complain about a rule. We take a look at their issue and make a decision.
That is our job.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Did you ever consider the issue may have just been PFS specific?
Things like encounter design and total gear wealth may make for a broken PFS build that is non-issue for any other kind of game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The extreme reaction is due because essentially the largest proponent of the change was PFS. This meant that Paizo considers those games to be of greater worth when taking game balance into account. This disgusts me as a whole because I don't play PFS and don't consider their games to be any more valid than my ownNeither do we. We value everyone who plays our games. The only difference is that we get some baseline info from them. It is much easier for us to get uniform feedback from a system that plays entirely using the same rules. We can not survey every home group, take into account their variance in terms of home rules and play styles, and use that information in the same way. It may "disgust" you, but it is the truth.
That said, they pointed it out to us. We took a long look at it and made a decision. Thats it. Its no different when folks here on the board talk about their home games and complain about a rule. We take a look at their issue and make a decision.
That is our job.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
If i can get 1000 people to complain about a powerful feat nothing will happen. But if they have PFS next to there name does that carry more weight? Is that what your saying?
If so its time for a new game fellas.
The extreme reaction is due because essentially the largest proponent of the change was PFS. This meant that Paizo considers those games to be of greater worth when taking game balance into account. This disgusts me as a whole because I don't play PFS and don't consider their games to be any more valid than my ownNeither do we. We value everyone who plays our games. The only difference is that we get some baseline info from them. It is much easier for us to get uniform feedback from a system that plays entirely using the same rules. We can not survey every home group, take into account their variance in terms of home rules and play styles, and use that information in the same way. It may "disgust" you, but it is the truth.
That said, they pointed it out to us. We took a long look at it and made a decision. Thats it. Its no different when folks here on the board talk about their home games and complain about a rule. We take a look at their issue and make a decision.
That is our job.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
In the vein of playtests, why not put existing mechanics back under the microscope with the same system? That way you can tap into a much broader range of games than what even PFS can provide. Was the immediacy of the data that let you act or the ability to get it? Paizo's got a great rep for the latter and a community more than willing to give feedback.
The extreme reaction is due because essentially the largest proponent of the change was PFS. This meant that Paizo considers those games to be of greater worth when taking game balance into account. This disgusts me as a whole because I don't play PFS and don't consider their games to be any more valid than my ownNeither do we. We value everyone who plays our games. The only difference is that we get some baseline info from them. It is much easier for us to get uniform feedback from a system that plays entirely using the same rules. We can not survey every home group, take into account their variance in terms of home rules and play styles, and use that information in the same way. It may "disgust" you, but it is the truth.
That said, they pointed it out to us. We took a long look at it and made a decision. Thats it. Its no different when folks here on the board talk about their home games and complain about a rule. We take a look at their issue and make a decision.
That is our job.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
I can't tell Jason. I can't tell whether your team took into account PFS moreso than home games. I can't tell whether you're telling me the truth or not even with this message. All I have to go on is that you specifically mentioned that it was the #1 Problem Child in PFS. That immediately tells me it's not my problem. Then I see the Errata and it most definitely is my problem now.
I know for a fact that theres a majority of humanoid enemies with single attack or iterative attacks in PFS. I know that theres quite a few threads in those forums specifically to discuss banning options. I poked my head in one and it was literally just a thread of people saying "Ban it." or "Don't Ban it."
Then I see further justification for my feelings when I notice PFS GMs specifically come into the thread, say they're completely happy with the changes, then leave the thread when theres obvious problems without a discussion.
Those people weren't looking for a fix. They were looking for a ban.
I can't tell Jason. All I can hope for is that there will be a slightly better version for the final copy.
I'll try this again. This is my predication of the results of the new ruling will.
After a few days/weeks everyone here who is upset and genuinely disappointed with Paizo over this will stop talking about it. After a few months random threads will pop up with more people who were shocked to discover this nerf. The debate will start up again, with it being locked.
After a year or so, no one will use this feat chain, and it will be discarded into the waste-bin of pointless feats. With the discussion ended, and no one complaining about it, it will never be changed again.
It makes zero sense for a company to intentionally drive their product into the ground especially when they're on an upswing. Nothing I've seen over the last several years leads me to believe otherwise even with this change.
|
Lead Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The extreme reaction is due because essentially the largest proponent of the change was PFS. This meant that Paizo considers those games to be of greater worth when taking game balance into account. This disgusts me as a whole because I don't play PFS and don't consider their games to be any more valid than my ownNeither do we. We value everyone who plays our games. The only difference is that we get some baseline info from them. It is much easier for us to get uniform feedback from a system that plays entirely using the same rules. We can not survey every home group, take into account their variance in terms of home rules and play styles, and use that information in the same way. It may "disgust" you, but it is the truth.
That said, they pointed it out to us. We took a long look at it and made a decision. Thats it. Its no different when folks here on the board talk about their home games and complain about a rule. We take a look at their issue and make a decision.
That is our job.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
If i can get 1000 people to complain about a powerful feat nothing will happen. But if they have PFS next to there name does that carry more weight? Is that what your saying?
If so its time for a new game fellas.
Perhaps you should read the second paragraph before threatening to take your ball and go home. These sorts of posts are not helping the tone or nature of this discussion.
[edit]
I am going to go ahead and add an addendum here, because I dont want to be seen as being insulting. I specifically noted that we take into account the concerns we get through here and other forums with equal weight and gravity that we do from concerns coming from PFS. This was implying the opposite and saying it was time to play a different game. I think this sort of overblown reaction is not helping the tone of this thread.
[edit]
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If i can get 1000 people to complain about a powerful feat nothing will happen. But if they have PFS next to there name does that carry more weight? Is that what your saying?
If you could read his post and think that's what he was saying, you're mostly just taking everything as confirmation of what you already believe instead of actually listening.
He stated right there in his post that the response to an issue coming up in PFS is exactly the same as when an issue comes up elsewhere.
He literally said "We do X in response to PFS, and do the same X in response to other forms of feedback" and you somehow managed to come away thinking the exact opposite was said.
If you can be told exactly what you want and still think you're being told the opposite, then your rage has taken over and you need to step back and cool off, then come back and re-read with a clear head.
I'll try this again. This is my predication of the results of the new ruling will.
After a few days/weeks everyone here who is upset and genuinely disappointed with Paizo over this will stop talking about it. After a few months random threads will pop up with more people who were shocked to discover this nerf. The debate will start up again, with it being locked.
After a year or so, no one will use this feat chain, and it will be discarded into the waste-bin of pointless feats. With the discussion ended, and no one complaining about it, it will never be changed again.
Spot on. Even as a GM I'm not going to use the pre-errata version because I keep my house-rules to a bare minimum and simple. I'm not going to house-rule a feat when a player can just pick another one. Or even another class.
|
Lead Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll try this again. This is my predication of the results of the new ruling will.
After a few days/weeks everyone here who is upset and genuinely disappointed with Paizo over this will stop talking about it. After a few months random threads will pop up with more people who were shocked to discover this nerf. The debate will start up again, with it being locked.
After a year or so, no one will use this feat chain, and it will be discarded into the waste-bin of pointless feats. With the discussion ended, and no one complaining about it, it will never be changed again.
This is not how we do things. I keep all of our changes on my radar and we are constantly evaluating the decisions we have made.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to disagree on it being a balanced feat.
While there are many ways around it, the fact is those methods come up far, far less frequently then, say, Arrow Deflection. Arrow Deflection is not considered overpowered because the vast majority of attacks leveled at you are not missile attacks, and when missile attacks are made, they are often made with Rapid Shot and full attack actions.
Melee, on the other hand, has always had the move-and-strike problem. Monsters are the one that get Pounce, or a hydra's many heads, or full attack back at you after the hero charges.
Thus, an annulment of one melee attack a round is far, far more powerful then nulling one missile attack. It is probably just as powerful as a feat that said something like "The first magical effect directed at you per turn has no effect on you" or something like that.
That's the power Crane Wing had.
Getting a +4 Dodge bonus against a primary attack turns a foe's primary attack into a secondary attack. That's a pretty big bonus. The problem is now it's not REACTIVE...you always got the Crane Wing if an account hit. Now, you might waste your Dodge AC against an attack that was going to miss.
That right there should tell you how strong Crane Wing can be.
When you combined Crane WIng with builds that limited foes to single attacks, such as a good spring attack build, and combined it with a high AC, it did indeed become grossly overpowered. The Crane style was not meant to be seriously better then fighting with a Shield in your off hand. But there's no way even a +5 Shield can compete with near-identical AC, a free AoO, AND completely nullifying one melee attack per round, even if you throw in Improved Shield Bash and Shield Mastery, the Crane Wing is clearly superior all the way around.
Crane Wing should have had a declared target and a failure chance from the get go (i.e. a parry). It was the absoluteness of getting away with no damage from even the most powerful single attack (and not incidentally completely neutralizing standard action attacks and the whole Vital Strike feat chain) that spurred the decision.
Crane Riposte, however, should be restored to working on a proper parry. I.e. declare your Crane Wing target. If that attack misses you, you get an AoO. That's what Crane Riposte should do. That, however, is also extremely strong, as AoO's go off at full BAB, and extra attacks is monstrously strong (just ask Come and Get Me).
Still, nerfing it to working only when taking full Defense? you can't even move away effectively, since you're limited to a 5' step. If you added language to Crane Riposte allowing you to take normal movement when Crane Riposting in a full defense action, I think you'd actually have a decent feat chain, and hold pretty well to the swashbuckler style.
But the Riposte should still activate either when an attack misses OR when it's neutralized. It's just it should never be as automatic as it was.
==Aelryinth
The extreme reaction is due because essentially the largest proponent of the change was PFS. This meant that Paizo considers those games to be of greater worth when taking game balance into account. This disgusts me as a whole because I don't play PFS and don't consider their games to be any more valid than my ownNeither do we. We value everyone who plays our games. The only difference is that we get some baseline info from them. It is much easier for us to get uniform feedback from a system that plays entirely using the same rules. We can not survey every home group, take into account their variance in terms of home rules and play styles, and use that information in the same way. It may "disgust" you, but it is the truth.
That said, they pointed it out to us. We took a long look at it and made a decision. Thats it. Its no different when folks here on the board talk about their home games and complain about a rule. We take a look at their issue and make a decision.
That is our job.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Please answer this question: How can you say you get a baseline from them and more uniform feedback from them while still maintaining that their feedback is not of greater worth? Because getting what you describe as more accurate feedback inherently makes what they have to say more valuable... especially on an issue that, as you admit, they were the ones to point out. Because it really kinda looks like this is a PFS-only issue that you fixed.
You have an entire website of people who give feedback... people you rely on for playtesting items from upcoming books. Could you not have released a PDF playtest of the feat, collected the results, and ruled on that? You could even specify they must use RAW, with ho houserules, to make certain the results are the same across the board. And then you would know whether or not the issue is one related to how PFS plays or if it is a general issue. Plus, you would involve the community and make the community feel like it is being listened to. Plus, it would let you know of any items you did not think of that are not normally seen in PFS.
With this method, you could also playtest upcoming changes to balance to see if there are balance issues you didn't consider.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I may be completely out of line here, but why doesn't everyone take a step back and look at the big picture.
We have the Paizo Lead Designer here reading our input. How many other gaming companies (of paizo's size) actually do that? Think about that for a second before you make threats and spew your vitriol. I'm sure this change took many months, with many meetings with many a payroll dollar was spent trying to make /everyone/ happy with this change.
Some people here are so focused on the one burning tree, that they dont take into account the entire forest.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would ask when we can expect errata for blood money, or simulacrum but really that's just being bitter. It does feel like favouritism towards certain customers in some respect as to what is considered balanced or fair.
|
the main thing that really pisses me off about this change in print, is other feats which are terrible are not getting the changes they need. elephant stomp, monkey lunge, prone shooter, hamatula strike are not being fixed to be concise and functional (to my knowledge) but feats that are being used because of good function are getting changed first. i could see if crane wing was a broken feat that was confusing or poorly written and you were clarifying it, but this isn't the case.
this seems like a kick to the nuts for melee characters because "its OP"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the main thing that really pisses me off about this change in print, is other feats which are terrible are not getting the changes they need. elephant stomp, monkey lunge, prone shooter, hamatula strike are not being fixed to be concise and functional (to my knowledge) but feats that are being used because of good function are getting changed first. i could see if crane wing was a broken feat that was confusing or poorly written and you were clarifying it, but this isn't the case.
this seems like a kick to the nuts for melee characters because "its OP"
Prone Shooter was changed in the errata as well. Reduces the melee AC penalty by 2 and increases the ranged AC bonuses by 2.
A not terrible feat for a GM building a group of snipers, but not exactly a PC Feat.
|
Lead Designer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please answer this question: How can you say you get a baseline from them and more uniform feedback from them while still maintaining that their feedback is not of greater worth? Because getting what you describe as more accurate feedback inherently makes what they have to say more valuable... especially on an issue that, as you admit, they were the ones to point out. Because it really kinda looks like this is a PFS-only issue that you fixed.
You have an entire website of people who give feedback... people you rely on for playtesting items from upcoming books. Could you not have released a PDF playtest of the feat, collected the results, and ruled on that? You could even specify they must use RAW, with ho houserules, to make certain the results are the same across the board. And then you would know whether or not the issue is one related to how PFS plays or if it is a general issue. Plus, you would involve the...
In an ideal world, sure. We would release the entire book for playtest, collected data and made changes. In an ideal world, we would do the same with all of our proposed changes. Unfortunately, we just do not have the time for that. Its takes us months to develop a book without doing a playtest. The ACG playtest for example, which was only the classses, took up a full two months of our time, which we are now desperately trying to claw back.
It all comes down to time and resources on these sorts of things. We have no choice but to use our best judgement. Most of the time, it is not an issue. Occasionally we hit thorny patches like this.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer who really should be finishing up the Shaman right now...
|
I would ask when we can expect errata for blood money, or simulacrum but really that's just being bitter. It does feel like favouritism towards certain customers in some respect as to what is considered balanced or fair.
True, both are a bit much. However, crane gives me far worse of an issue as a GM in most any game; particularly on critical hits, than anything else in the system at the moment. Yes, there are areas that need to be balanced, such as crane style. The ability to negate criticals was just by far way to powerful for the minimal investment it had.
Jason Bulmahn, thank you for your response and your time. I understand.
I wish you a lot of luck. And I am looking forward to the shaman.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll try this again. This is my predication of the results of the new ruling will.
After a few days/weeks everyone here who is upset and genuinely disappointed with Paizo over this will stop talking about it. After a few months random threads will pop up with more people who were shocked to discover this nerf. The debate will start up again, with it being locked.
After a year or so, no one will use this feat chain, and it will be discarded into the waste-bin of pointless feats. With the discussion ended, and no one complaining about it, it will never be changed again.
This is not how we do things. I keep all of our changes on my radar and we are constantly evaluating the decisions we have made.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
If I make ask a question / make a suggestion: why is this being applied universally instead of just to PFS? You said it yourself, it was the PFS people who listed it as their #1 complaint. In contrast, I've seen it mentioned here on the general forums once, where a LOT of people jumped to defend it. Why not just modify the PFS house-rules to ban this feat chain like you guys did Synthesist? If it's that huge a complaint for them, well, it seems like that'd give BOTH camps what they want.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This change literally only affects people playing PFS. If you can't be bothered to change a rule you don't like or talk to your GM about it, that's not Paizo's problem.
"Crane wing wasn't overpowered, any good GM would just change the tactics or monsters to avoid single attacks."
and
"I'm not going to use the pre-errata version because I keep my house-rules to a bare minimum and simple."
How do you reckon those two with any sort of intellectual honesty? "If it's a problem I'll just change things to fix it." "YOU CHANGED THIS AND I REFUSE TO FIX IT BACK TO THE WAY I LIKED IT."
"Crane wing wasn't overpowered, any good GM would just change the tactics or monsters to avoid single attacks."
Personally I dont like my players to metagame, so why should I run my monsters avoiding melee with the MoMS monk because somehow he "knows" he can deflect the first hit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This change literally only affects people playing PFS. If you can't be bothered to change a rule you don't like or talk to your GM about it, that's not Paizo's problem.
"Crane wing wasn't overpowered, any good GM would just change the tactics or monsters to avoid single attacks."
and
"I'm not going to use the pre-errata version because I keep my house-rules to a bare minimum and simple."
How do you reckon those two with any sort of intellectual honesty? "If it's a problem I'll just change things to fix it." "YOU CHANGED THIS AND I REFUSE TO FIX IT BACK TO THE WAY I LIKED IT."
It should be obvious by the volume of responses that the Official rules matter a great deal, for all the reasons he cited. Why shouldn't PFS be the ones to put into place custom changes?
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
What a mess of a thread. Stop being so passive agressively snarky guys, seriously. To balance what's been in the past 6 pages since I saw this thread yesterday, this needs to be said:
Thank you, oh thank you Paizo dev team for finally nerfing Crane Wing. It's clear that it was very high powered feat, by seeing how often it is picked up in comparison to any other style feat chain as well as watching how it affects any table where it's used.
Thank you again. Long overdue, better late than never, etc. Thank you.
If I make ask a question / make a suggestion: why is this being applied universally instead of just to PFS? You said it yourself, it was the PFS people who listed it as their #1 complaint. In contrast, I've seen it mentioned here on the general forums once, where a LOT of people jumped to defend it. Why not just modify the PFS house-rules to ban this feat chain like you guys did Synthesist? If it's that huge a complaint for them, well, it seems like that'd give BOTH camps what they want.
I'm going to try to correct a misconception here.
The change was not for PFS. The change was made because data from PFS proved to the designers that it was not appropriately balanced.
If people had a different experience with the Feat, they should post playtest data similar to Rogue Eidolon's, along with any house rules or adjustments they make in their campaign. That's the kind of data that would be instrumental in reversing or altering this decision, not anecdotal evidence and "we use it and it's fine."
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to repeat my post from the poll thread, because I want to make sure it gets seen.
This change wasn't needed, it was balanced and acceptable. The only problem with Crane Wing was Master of Many Styles made it possible to get at 2nd level, or first level as a human. The feat was designed to be used at mid to high levels, where is was strong, but there are many counters to it. By taking it at first or second level it becomes imbalanced at that level of play.
Master of Many Styles is the culprit of many low level power imbalances. Since PFS operates at lower levels, this impacts all play levels. Instead of nerfing the feat, change master of many styles to require bonus style feats to meet the monk level requirement.
If I make ask a question / make a suggestion: why is this being applied universally instead of just to PFS? You said it yourself, it was the PFS people who listed it as their #1 complaint. In contrast, I've seen it mentioned here on the general forums once, where a LOT of people jumped to defend it. Why not just modify the PFS house-rules to ban this feat chain like you guys did Synthesist? If it's that huge a complaint for them, well, it seems like that'd give BOTH camps what they want.I'm going to try to correct a misconception here.
The change was not for PFS. The change was made because data from PFS proved to the designers that it was not appropriately balanced.
If people had a different experience with the Feat, they should post playtest data similar to Rogue Eidolon's, along with any house rules or adjustments they make in their campaign. That's the kind of data that would be instrumental in reversing or altering this decision, not anecdotal evidence and "we use it and it's fine."
I don't think your suggestion is worthwhile.
Jason Bulmahn wrote: "We can not survey every home group, take into account their variance in terms of home rules and play styles, and use that information in the same way. It may "disgust" you, but it is the truth."| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to try to correct a misconception here.The change was not for PFS. The change was made because data from PFS proved to the designers that it was not appropriately balanced.
If people had a different experience with the Feat, they should post playtest data similar to Rogue Eidolon's, along with any house rules or adjustments they make in their campaign. That's the kind of data that would be instrumental in reversing or altering this decision, not anecdotal evidence and "we use it and it's fine."
Till I can be sure otherwise, the Change was most definitely for PFS, it just applies to everyone this time.
Also here come the PFS GMs to praise the nerf, and then leave happily without discussing the sad state it's currently in.
I can agree that it could use a slight nerf. That's fine. It is unacceptable to me to degrade such a perfect example of what good Martial feats should be like to such a mess.
This change literally only affects people playing PFS. If you can't be bothered to change a rule you don't like or talk to your GM about it, that's not Paizo's problem.
"Crane wing wasn't overpowered, any good GM would just change the tactics or monsters to avoid single attacks."
and
"I'm not going to use the pre-errata version because I keep my house-rules to a bare minimum and simple."
How do you reckon those two with any sort of intellectual honesty? "If it's a problem I'll just change things to fix it." "YOU CHANGED THIS AND I REFUSE TO FIX IT BACK TO THE WAY I LIKED IT."
1. I didn't say the first part. I did say "I'm not going to use the pre-errata version because I keep my house-rules to a bare minimum and simple."
2. When I GM, I keep my house rules to a bare minimum and simple because I want my players to learn how to play the game. If I have a small book of house rules this only adds confusion to my games especially with players depending on online resources to build their characters and the rules.
The players in my games tend to move on and GM their own games when mine is finished because they are confident in their understanding of the rules.
I'm not going to go out of my way to de-errata rules and confuse my players just because I didn't see the wisdom in that decision.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to repeat my post from the poll thread, because I want to make sure it gets seen.
This change wasn't needed, it was balanced and acceptable. The only problem with Crane Wing was Master of Many Styles made it possible to get at 2nd level, or first level as a human. The feat was designed to be used at mid to high levels, where is was strong, but there are many counters to it. By taking it at first or second level it becomes imbalanced at that level of play.
Master of Many Styles is the culprit of many low level power imbalances. Since PFS operates at lower levels, this impacts all play levels. Instead of nerfing the feat, change master of many styles to require bonus style feats to meet the monk level requirement.
This right here. 1000 times. Having a PC that can deflect a blow from Aroden himself at 2nd level isn't 'fair and balanced', and the MoMS monk is just now getting his rear handed to him at level 7-8 when the baddies get multiple attacks and the Crane Wing usefulness drops off.
Its a good feat if you keep the prereqs, its a bad feat if its abused by MoMS and given for no cost.
The issue is having to provide a list of house rules to players, as well as a list of accepted and banned material. A lot of work goes into running a game already, avoiding the need to dump more information on the players is a good reason to voice displeasure.
A better reason to voice complaint is to make your opinion known, if you want better service or a certain product to be produced you should let a company know, it's to be helpful. Personal attacks are of course unhelpful but saying you think a decision was poorly made isn't really an attack. You can impact future decisions even if you don't get a reversal of the original decision.
A better reason to voice complaint is to make your opinion known, if you want better service or a certain product to be produced you should let a company know, it's to be helpful. Personal attacks are of course unhelpful but saying you think a decision was poorly made isn't really an attack. You can impact future decisions even if you don't get a reversal of the original decision.
This is why I took part in the ACG Playtest a great deal. I wanted to impact the development of the game I love to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also here come the PFS GMs to praise the nerf, and then leave happily without discussing the sad state it's currently in.
Seems to be the only people who thought the nerf was needed. How can we serious be expected to believe that this change was not for the premium PFS players?
Till I can be sure otherwise, the Change was most definitely for PFS, it just applies to everyone this time.
I can't tell Jason. I can't tell whether your team took into account PFS moreso than home games. I can't tell whether you're telling me the truth or not even with this message.
If you're not going to take Jason at his word, there's not much point in continuing the discussion. You can't have a reasonable conversation if you believe the other party is being dishonest with you.