Crane Wing Errata in latest printing


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

2,301 to 2,304 of 2,304 << first < prev | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

GeneticDrift wrote:
Darth Grall wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
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).

I personally feel that someone with Expertise should get additional benefit out of other combat feats automatically. Adding more feats and pre-reqs is just more clutter.

And kindly note that a monk can TWF with Crane style freely, since his off hand remains 'free'. He, too, is not restricted to a one-handed finesse weapon, and can use his most effective style.

==Aelryinth

Lantern Lodge

Majuba wrote:
Personal opinions on what is sufficient don't really belong in a post trying to sum up an entire thread.

I apologize if my post was misunderstood or misrepresented. It was not my intention to summarize the entire thread - only to re-draw attention to ideas put forth that I personally found meritable, and to draw attention away from some of the bickering.

Slacker2010 wrote:
Without the book in front of me, Unarmed Fighter.

Excellent call. I had completely forgotten about that archetype. If the style feats are to scale off of Monk/Brawler levels, I would suggest including this archetype (or others with a similar unarmed focus) as Monk levels for that purpose.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:

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

And, as a GM, I'll use the power granted by the Core rules to disallow your attempt at a random unprovoked AoO.

One, because it is unprovoked. You can't just choose to make an attack turn into an attack of opportunity because you want to.
Two, because you have no reason to believe you're actually attacking anything. Why do I know this? Because, as the GM, I haven't given you any reason to believe.

Swinging at air in this way (ie: without an actual defender present) is probably the lowest form of rule manipulation I think I've ever seen. Any GM who would actually allow this sort of nonsense doesn't need to be GMing.

Digital Products Assistant

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Locking. We've given plenty of warnings that personal attacks aren't OK. I think we're done.

2,301 to 2,304 of 2,304 << first < prev | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Crane Wing Errata in latest printing All Messageboards