Crane Wing Errata in latest printing


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

1 to 50 of 2,304 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

15 people marked this as a favorite.

Thank you Paizo for turning this feat into something reasonable.

Quote:

Benefit: Once per round, when f ighting defensively

with at least one hand free, you can designate one melee
attack being made against you before the roll is made.
You receive a +4 dodge bonus to AC against that attack.
If you using the total defense action instead, you can
def lect one melee attack that would normally hit you.
An attack so def lected deals no damage and has no other
effect (instead treat it as a miss). You do not expend an
action when using this feat, but you must be aware of the
attack and not f lat-footed.


24 people marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:

Thank you Paizo for turning this feat into something reasonable.

Quote:

Benefit: Once per round, when f ighting defensively

with at least one hand free, you can designate one melee
attack being made against you before the roll is made.
You receive a +4 dodge bonus to AC against that attack.
If you using the total defense action instead, you can
def lect one melee attack that would normally hit you.
An attack so def lected deals no damage and has no other
effect (instead treat it as a miss). You do not expend an
action when using this feat, but you must be aware of the
attack and not f lat-footed.

Yes lets nerf the guys that figth unarmed or with a one handed weapon.

A.k.a. i think this is a bad call.


28 people marked this as a favorite.

Well that sucks hard.

Add that to the "Stupid errata/FAQ I'll ignore" pile.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Awesome! I was always a bit leary of the power of that feat.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Huzzah! All my playtesting finally paid off. Rock on Paizo!


23 people marked this as a favorite.

Well that's unfortunate. Martials can't have nice things though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Too bad it actually raises some more questions than it could have possibly answered for.

For example, does that +4 Dodge AC from Fighting Defensively stack with subjects that are dependant upon AC received from Fighting Defensively? The (Improved) Stalwart feat(s) would like to know so I can turn it into a total extra of 5 (or 10) DR instead of being left at 4 (or 8) DR; saving every hit point counts.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
Well that's unfortunate. Martials can't have nice things though.

Fun fact: you can have balanced and nice things at the same time. "nice things" doesn't have to mean "overpowered things".

And martials get nice things.


18 people marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:


Fun fact: you can have balanced and nice things at the same time.

Obviously not if this errata is any indication.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

And there you make the mistake of thinking it was balanced, despite ample playtesting experience over the past two years saying the opposite.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Damn shame.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Well that's unfortunate. Martials can't have nice things though.
Fun fact: you can have balanced and nice things at the same time. "nice things" doesn't have to mean "overpowered things".

Crane wing wasn't overpowered though, or at least to me. It was insanely powerful if for some reason you only fought T-rex(a single one at a time...) and it only helped builds that had a free hand(hand-and-a-half, free hand, and unarmed).

Here's the thing that really gets me though. It was one of the few options that wasn't just numbers attached to a feat. Now its numbers, except when using a total defense, but to be honest I never see a total defense action used if that means anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow, Do not really know what to feel. The original feat was too much I wanted they to nerf it but just a bit.

The new version seem to just suck.


Cheapy wrote:
And there you make the mistake of thinking it was balanced, despite ample playtesting experience over the past two years saying the opposite.

It is balanced now?

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
Paizo, this is why I love you.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
KestlerGunner wrote:

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!

Paizo, this is why I love you.

You love them for nerfing crane wing and doing nothing to rumormonger?

I don't want to live on this planet anymore...

Edit: Darn, can't find the proper link to remind people its a reference... So much more perfect if your read it in depressed Farnsworth voice.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
And there you make the mistake of thinking it was balanced, despite ample playtesting experience over the past two years saying the opposite.

And just as much playtesting concluding that it was, indeed, balanced.

Let's not pretend there was any sort of objective conclusion here.

Even if it was unbalanced there was no reason to stomp it into the ground like this. Underpowered is just as poorly designed as overpowered.

Grand Lodge

12 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't hear you over the sound of the rushing, picturesque waterfall of delicious player tears. I can feel the spray of the salty air in my face. It is beautiful.


19 people marked this as a favorite.

Poor Crane Style, you used to be potentially worth using.


Rynjin wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
And there you make the mistake of thinking it was balanced, despite ample playtesting experience over the past two years saying the opposite.

And just as much playtesting concluding that it was, indeed, balanced.

Let's not pretend there was any sort of objective conclusion here.

No one ever posted a single playtest of Crane Style in a standardized environment like PFS in my PFS Crane Style Playtest Thread except me and a few others. Most of the claims that Crane Style was balanced were either from people who claimed that the offense automatically suffers drastically, which they showed by making a character with bad offense (ignoring other characters with serious offense capability and Crane), or who claimed that Crane Wing was weak because they dumped AC assuming Crane would completely protect them on its own (it won't--it in fact synergizes extremely well with high AC, to make you basically unkillable via AC).


We already have assumptions and claims about other people... That always ends well.

If it matters, my entirely anecdotal evidence about 2 characters with crane wing is that its not overpowered and that those characters still get hit, they just get hit slightly less. The only time it was really bad was when they took on characters with one big weapon, but those guys could always go after other characters and to be honest in the case your only getting one attack against you per round that foe tends to be murdered by action economy anyway. Probably doesn't matter at this point though.


MrSin wrote:

We already have assumptions and claims about other people... That always ends well.

If it matters, my entirely anecdotal evidence about 2 characters with crane wing is that its not overpowered and that those characters still get hit, they just get hit slightly less. The only time it was really bad was when they took on characters with one big weapon, but those guys could always go after other characters and to be honest in the case your only getting one attack against you per round that foe tends to be murdered by action economy anyway. Probably doesn't matter at this point though.

That'd be my second case situation. The goal of crane "invulnerability" is to have an AC such that the opponent needs a high number to hit you period, then when it occasionally happens, deflect it. You take control of narrow corridors and chokepoints, possibly using enlarge when useful such that you are the only one they can attack in melee. I thought there wouldn't be that many chokepoints honestly, but there were a lot more than I expected when I started.

Now, if you've got another guy who demands to go past your chokepoint, all bets are off. Pretty much the only time I played on-tier was to protect a party that was pretty dicey but forced to play high tier going through Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment, and another fighter ran past my chokepoint despite a warning, after which he was KOed instantly and only spared due to GM mercy.


Rogue Eidolon wrote:
The goal of crane "invulnerability" is to...

Well that's your idea goal maybe... I don't think I used the word invulnerability or stated a goal. If its not about what I said then I don't know why I'm being immediately quoted with this.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Does this mean you can only use Crane Riposte's attack of opportunity if you were taking a total defense action first? that's the only thing I'll miss about old crane wing.


Honestly, I think its a change for the better. I think it still holds it own as a viable feat. +4 ac to a melee attack per round isn't bad at all. And I very much like that you have to use it before the attack role (which was my house rule fix though it still autodeflected.) That said, I do regret what it does to crane riposte as I don't think that feat has much value at all after this change.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, no. This errata goes in the ignore pile.


MrSin wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
The goal of crane "invulnerability" is to...
Well that's your idea goal maybe... I don't think I used the word invulnerability or stated a goal. If its not about what I said then I don't know why I'm being immediately quoted with this.

I was talking about the two characters you mentioned. They fit into one of the two classes of cases where Crane Wing might seem like it's OK because the character didn't synergize. Case 1 is where they ignored offense. Case 2 is where they threw AC out the window.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you could apply the bonus after the roll I'd still consider it a decent feat.


Rogue Eidolon wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
The goal of crane "invulnerability" is to...
Well that's your idea goal maybe... I don't think I used the word invulnerability or stated a goal. If its not about what I said then I don't know why I'm being immediately quoted with this.
I was talking about the two characters you mentioned. They fit into one of the two classes of cases where Crane Wing might seem like it's OK because the character didn't synergize. Case 1 is where they ignored offense. Case 2 is where they threw AC out the window.

I didn't even say who those characters were, and your already telling me who they are and what they did? I don't think that's how that works.

MrSin wrote:
We already have assumptions and claims about other people... That always ends well.

Assumptions aren't always the best way to handle things.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Needlessly Nerf-batting the things that need not be Nerf-batted.

That's alliteration folks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do want to say. I despise the fact they waited 2.5 years to make this change the various other changes. That's an awfully long time for people to settle in and accept things as they are.


I'm curious, where was this found?


Aleron wrote:
I'm curious, where was this found?

http://paizo.com/products/btpy8mcz?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Ultimate-Com bat


Aleron wrote:
I'm curious, where was this found?

This is errata released today for Ultimate Combat.


Thank you!

Shadow Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
KestlerGunner wrote:
I can't hear you over the sound of the rushing, picturesque waterfall of delicious player tears. I can feel the spray of the salty air in my face. It is beautiful.
What a mature response.

pbththtththths


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well for all the talk on it I have only seen one crane wing build. A magus who used it the few times a hit got through his mirror images. But that build has its own problems as I understand it is unclear if spell combat and defensive fighting are comparable. So this will just change his AC to 28, still a decent boost for him.


MrSin wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
The goal of crane "invulnerability" is to...
Well that's your idea goal maybe... I don't think I used the word invulnerability or stated a goal. If its not about what I said then I don't know why I'm being immediately quoted with this.
I was talking about the two characters you mentioned. They fit into one of the two classes of cases where Crane Wing might seem like it's OK because the character didn't synergize. Case 1 is where they ignored offense. Case 2 is where they threw AC out the window.

I didn't even say who those characters were, and your already telling me who they are and what they did? I don't think that's how that works.

If they were also pumping AC to synergize, then the GM either had freakishly high rolls near to each other (it happens, but usually not with such consistency) or they would have only been hit extremely rarely. It certainly sounds like a classic Case 2. To be clear, I don't mean they had like 10 AC. I just mean they didn't prioritize AC beyond what Crane gave (which is 5 AC already, so the temptation isn't too unexpected).


12 people marked this as a favorite.

Well,this feat is now worthless.


Rogue Eidolon wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
The goal of crane "invulnerability" is to...
Well that's your idea goal maybe... I don't think I used the word invulnerability or stated a goal. If its not about what I said then I don't know why I'm being immediately quoted with this.
I was talking about the two characters you mentioned. They fit into one of the two classes of cases where Crane Wing might seem like it's OK because the character didn't synergize. Case 1 is where they ignored offense. Case 2 is where they threw AC out the window.

I didn't even say who those characters were, and your already telling me who they are and what they did? I don't think that's how that works.

If they were also pumping AC to synergize, then the GM either had freakishly high rolls near to each other (it happens, but usually not with such consistency) or they would have only been hit extremely rarely. It certainly sounds like a classic Case 2. To be clear, I don't mean they had like 10 AC. I just mean they didn't prioritize AC beyond what Crane gave (which is 5 AC already, so the temptation isn't too unexpected).

Are you still talking about characters I haven't said anything about? You don't know their class, their build, or anything about them, other than I mentioned I've played with 2 guys who use crane wing and I didn't think it was overpowered. At least stop quoting me if its not about me.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Once per round, +4, declare before? lol Wow, there's nerfing and there's just destroying. Kinda makes Crane Riposte suck even more too, what a shame. They could of tweaked it a bit, instead they hit it with a sledgehammer. Like Rynjin said this is just poorly designed now, I kinda wonder if they even tested it. I will so be ignoring this errata in home games, cripes...

Shadow Lodge

Or combine it with spring attack: you're only hitable with a range weapon or pounce.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe i should just always play a caster.

Makes things easier, as,you can have things like polymorph any object, a spell so poorly worded you can create a sun the size of the universe.


10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 23 people marked this as a favorite.

Crane Riposte now does nothing. You can't take an AO while doing Total Defense.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It's really irritating to see these abilities grant a bonus to a roll (or against a roll) before the roll is made. There is huge potential for it to simply be wasted on an attack what wouldn't have hit you anyways.

And it's irritating to see an actual good combat feat nerfed to the ground for no reason. Apparently just being reliable makes something overpowered. Or is this because I said in the Swashbuckler thread that this was great for Swashbucklers?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, does anyone think the new version is balanced?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Or combine it with spring attack: you're only hitable with a range weapon or pounce.

Well... Spells. One of the guys I played with for a while had crane wing on a free hand fighter. Spells were his bane. He got thrown into pits, charmed, and all sorts of things happen to him.

Nicos wrote:
So, does anyone think the new version is balanced?

Looks kind of like a bump in the hill to crane riposte if your trying to make fighting defensively work to me. Guess it depends on what you call balanced. Looks less fun, less powerful, and doesn't look on par with a feat I'd call attractive.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
So, does anyone think the new version is balanced?

Yeah! it's about on par with, say, anything else a martial can have.

Maybe a little better then prone shooter.

1 to 50 of 2,304 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Crane Wing Errata in latest printing All Messageboards