Crane Wing nerf


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 365 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scavion wrote:


This renders Crane Riposte completely non-functional as you can't take AoOs in a Total Defense.

Specific overrides general. So Crane Riposte becomes the exception to the rule on Total Defense.


LazarX wrote:
Scavion wrote:


This renders Crane Riposte completely non-functional as you can't take AoOs in a Total Defense.

Specific overrides general. So Crane Riposte becomes the exception to the rule on Total Defense.

Now that we have clarification I agree. Still a pretty worthless feat chain except for Crane Style.


I think Jason tried to say that when you use crane wings to avoid being hitted you can use crane riposte and it does nto mean if used the deflection thing or the +4 AC.

It is certainly not clear from what he said tough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason S wrote:

First problem was the Crane Style feats were a little too good. Everyone was trying to get them. This was made possible because of MoMs, which was the real problem.

Second problem is that it should have been a monk only buff, because monks desperately need it.

But the nerf was completely too harsh. Crane Style has gone from one of the best feat chains in the game to something no one will use. They did a poor job at redesigning it imo, they should have selected something in between the extremes.

I agree with your first point, which is why, I think allowing it to be used after the fact (aka a +4 AC, after the attack is rolled, but before damage is rolled, and make it so, if the attack misses, you get a riposte) would have been a lot more acceptable as a nerf.

But really, the reason I responded was because of your second point; I feel like a lot of what could solve the monks' problems would be to give monks a lot more monk-only feats. A lot of the things like AoMF, Crane Wing, and such, were powerful, not because of what they do for monks, but what they do for other classes. MoMS aside, Crane Style chain, for a monk, was not overpowered (and even MoMS wasn't too bad, if the DM is good about recognizing how to challenge the weaknesses of a party, even with strong choices like Crane Wing/Riposte; this is the reason it was such a problem in PFS, because the GMs can't alter their encounters to be effective against a Crane Style).


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Tholomyes wrote:


MoMS aside, Crane Style chain, for a monk, was not overpowered (and even MoMS wasn't too bad, if the DM is good about recognizing how to challenge the weaknesses of a party, even with strong choices like Crane Wing/Riposte; this is the reason it was such a problem in PFS, because the GMs can't alter their encounters to be effective against a Crane Style).

This is exactly why it should have been a PFS Ban instead of bringing it down on all of us.


Scavion wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:


MoMS aside, Crane Style chain, for a monk, was not overpowered (and even MoMS wasn't too bad, if the DM is good about recognizing how to challenge the weaknesses of a party, even with strong choices like Crane Wing/Riposte; this is the reason it was such a problem in PFS, because the GMs can't alter their encounters to be effective against a Crane Style).
This is exactly why it should have been a PFS Ban instead of bringing it down on all of us.

Yeah I didn't see why they didn't just ban it.

With errata all the monks depending on that feat do not get a respect. If they banned the feat, those monks could have respected.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
No one from Paizo is going to knock down your door and tell you you're playing wrong.

Actually, that's exactly what they did. Because of PFS complaints, they changed an entire feat chain, which invalidates lots of peoples' character builds. And they changed for the ENTIRE RPG, not just for PFS. There's no greater example of "You're playing it wrong" possible...


Marthkus wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:


MoMS aside, Crane Style chain, for a monk, was not overpowered (and even MoMS wasn't too bad, if the DM is good about recognizing how to challenge the weaknesses of a party, even with strong choices like Crane Wing/Riposte; this is the reason it was such a problem in PFS, because the GMs can't alter their encounters to be effective against a Crane Style).
This is exactly why it should have been a PFS Ban instead of bringing it down on all of us.

Yeah I didn't see why they didn't just ban it.

With errata all the monks depending on that feat do not get a respect. If they banned the feat, those monks could have respected.

I can see the reasoning behind it. PFS Banning is a very harsh way of going about it, as it basically limits options to a portion of players. Though the 'fix' isn't really much better, since now the feat is bad enough that while it is an option, it's a trap option, which is almost as bad as a ban.

However I still claim that it was powerful enough that it could be nerfed to a lesser extent, and things would have been better for everyone.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

My question. Does Crane Riposte give you OoA on a miss that is because of the +4 AC or does one need be in Total Defense and deflect the attack to get the OoA.

I assume it counts against your total OoA in a round each time?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:

My question. Does Crane Riposte give you OoA on a miss that is because of the +4 AC or does one need be in Total Defense and deflect the attack to get the OoA.

I assume it counts against your total OoA in a round each time?

Not by RAW on the first (though I'd argue not to limit it just to misses due to Crane Wing), but I think it'll be a pretty common house rule.

Also, if you take an attack of opportunity due to crane wing, it counts as your attack of opportunity for the round, just like any from another source.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Eirikrautha wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
No one from Paizo is going to knock down your door and tell you you're playing wrong.
Actually, that's exactly what they did. Because of PFS complaints, they changed an entire feat chain, which invalidates lots of peoples' character builds. And they changed for the ENTIRE RPG, not just for PFS. There's no greater example of "You're playing it wrong" possible...

No, you're still allowed to modify it for your home game. In fact I believe Jason has explicitly said in the past 24 hours that you are allowed to make whatever changes you see fit.

People get too caught up on the "official" word and treat the game as some sort of legalese. While they have to design and write it that way, to help avoid confusion, you are still entitled to make any changes you want.


LazarX wrote:
Scavion wrote:


This renders Crane Riposte completely non-functional as you can't take AoOs in a Total Defense.

Specific overrides general. So Crane Riposte becomes the exception to the rule on Total Defense.

+1


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 5 people marked this as a favorite.

Jason,
Can you please explain exactly how this feat was causing PFS problems (other than lazy GMs who can't take 2 seconds to think of a workaround)?
Considering all the things the old Crane Wing did NOT work against, how exactly was it a problem?

And I'm sorry but I have to agree with some of the others: The "benefit of the doubt" is seriously eroding away at this point. Some people don't want to play a Power Attacker. It's pretty lame that you're taking away one of the ONLY serious contenders to that feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Eirikrautha wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
No one from Paizo is going to knock down your door and tell you you're playing wrong.
Actually, that's exactly what they did. Because of PFS complaints, they changed an entire feat chain, which invalidates lots of peoples' character builds. And they changed for the ENTIRE RPG, not just for PFS. There's no greater example of "You're playing it wrong" possible...

No, you're still allowed to modify it for your home game. In fact I believe Jason has explicitly said in the past 24 hours that you are allowed to make whatever changes you see fit.

People get too caught up on the "official" word and treat the game as some sort of legalese. While they have to design and write it that way, to help avoid confusion, you are still entitled to make any changes you want.

The problem is that, for discussions of rules, any changes to fix it are always dismissed as houserules; even Jason himself dismissed houserules in his post where he explained how they got the data that led to the change being made. And for learning new rules, it is the official rules people learn.

So no matter what, the changed ruling is the one that has the widest effect, as it is the one that is most likely to be widely discussed and the only one valid for playtest results that further influence game balance.


Irontruth wrote:
Eirikrautha wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
No one from Paizo is going to knock down your door and tell you you're playing wrong.
Actually, that's exactly what they did. Because of PFS complaints, they changed an entire feat chain, which invalidates lots of peoples' character builds. And they changed for the ENTIRE RPG, not just for PFS. There's no greater example of "You're playing it wrong" possible...

No, you're still allowed to modify it for your home game. In fact I believe Jason has explicitly said in the past 24 hours that you are allowed to make whatever changes you see fit.

People get too caught up on the "official" word and treat the game as some sort of legalese. While they have to design and write it that way, to help avoid confusion, you are still entitled to make any changes you want.

that's a pointless comment though. Saying that we can homebrew the rules doesn't help anyone, because I could homebrew the rules before this too.

The problem is many GM's don't want to take the time to houserule entire feats, and when they see an errata that nerfs a feat they assume that it was done with good reason (unfortunately in this case they threw the baby out with the bathwater).

In short the new errata screws over many players, and the comment that you can homebrew it however you want does nothing for most people.


I like how they manage to change this feat RIGHT after the crane style monk just started to become mortal in the game I'm running. They're level 11. I'll probably let him keep the old crane style, though.

However, imo this feat was a bit too much early game. In a hard to explain way it really hurt the immersion in combat when a single attack monster couldn't pose even te slightest threat to the monk.


Neo2151 wrote:

Jason,

Can you please explain exactly how this feat was causing PFS problems (other than lazy GMs who can't take 2 seconds to think of a workaround)?
Considering all the things the old Crane Wing did NOT work against, how exactly was it a problem?

And I'm sorry but I have to agree with some of the others: The "benefit of the doubt" is seriously eroding away at this point. Some people don't want to play a Power Attacker. It's pretty lame that you're taking away one of the ONLY serious contenders to that feat.

I don't think it was that the DMs were lazy, but it's one of the issues with society play, in any system. They simply don't have the freedom to make changes to an encounter to meet the party. Crane Wing was one of those abilities that isn't all that powerful, when you can tailor encounters to your party (by adding effects that don't need to hit, or running more enemies, so the deflected attack represents a lower proportion of the enemies' damage for the round, and so on), but because they don't have the freedom it can get frustrating. I can recognize that. But for any other game, these challenges are lessened making the feat completely worthless, because the original feat was not significantly overpowered.


Tholomyes wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:

Jason,

Can you please explain exactly how this feat was causing PFS problems (other than lazy GMs who can't take 2 seconds to think of a workaround)?
Considering all the things the old Crane Wing did NOT work against, how exactly was it a problem?

And I'm sorry but I have to agree with some of the others: The "benefit of the doubt" is seriously eroding away at this point. Some people don't want to play a Power Attacker. It's pretty lame that you're taking away one of the ONLY serious contenders to that feat.

I don't think it was that the DMs were lazy, but it's one of the issues with society play, in any system. They simply don't have the freedom to make changes to an encounter to meet the party. Crane Wing was one of those abilities that isn't all that powerful, when you can tailor encounters to your party (by adding effects that don't need to hit, or running more enemies, so the deflected attack represents a lower proportion of the enemies' damage for the round, and so on), but because they don't have the freedom it can get frustrating. I can recognize that. But for any other game, these challenges are lessened making the feat completely worthless, because the original feat was not significantly overpowered.

If that was truly the issue, then there was no reason to extend an official errata. A PFS-explicit fix would have worked just fine.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Can we expect a similar nerf to "Deflect Arrows" for the exact same reasons, or is that feat fair and balanced for "reasons you won't be explaining to us?"

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow this really stinks. Time to retrain and see what other feats are out there.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

PFS doesn't make explicit fixes to game rules unless that particular rule doesn't mess well with the organized part of organized play or in some other way conflicts with one of the rules of Pathfinder Society.

Things like no evil characters necessitated banning some archetypes and PrC's that were quite obviously evil based.

Things like time limits on scenario runs necessitated banning some archetypes that exacerbated the time it took to adjudicate combat.

But PFS is not in the habit of banning valid rules just because someone feels they are too powerful. Especially after they have already been a part of the game.

PFS absolutely isn't going to change how something works from the RAW text just for the organized play campaign, because the campaign coordinators feel that it shouldn't work that way.

PFS is built to be a marketing tool for Pathfinder sales. As such, it needs to try to include as many rules options as it can without damaging the integrity of how organized play works. It also doesn't work very well as a marketing tool if it decides to change the rules as written because it feels the game shouldn't work the way it does.

Asking for PFS specific rules changes isn't going to happen, and shouldn't happen.

The developers saying they used PFS specific feedback to make a determination about whether something needed fixing is just that. They used the over 100,000 game sessions per year over 2 years, as a proving ground, so to speak.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
2. The Crane Riposte feat still works just fine. It ALLOWS you to take an AoO in that specific circumstance (even though you normally could not). It could perhaps use a callout specifically to that effect, but the wording is pretty plain.
Not one person who isn't you has said in any of the threads on this errata that I've read that they thought Crane Riposte still worked. If the wording is plain it's plainly not saying what you intended.

Feats allow you to do things that you could not otherwise do based on the rules all the time. That is the entire point of them. Like I said, it could probably have used a parenthetical stating "(even though you could not normally do so)", but I think the wording is still plain enough.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

If it were plain you wouldn't have had this upset.

Crane Riposte refers to deflecting an attack. Crane Wing no longer deflects attacks except when used with the full defense action. It's as plain as can be that it constitutes deflection where it uses the word deflect. A dodge bonus, after all, is pretty much the opposite of deflection and the deflection allowed with full defense is still called deflection.

As many feats as you've printed that didn't actually allow you to do anything or only allow you to do something that makes no sense (the original prone shooter and elephant stomp are the most blatant) your audience seems to believe you're more likely to forget what the total defense action allows than to actually intend for feats to allow you to do things that actually work in the rules system.

That's not a good place to be with D&D Next on the horizon. I'm no oracle to tell you how to fix things, but I'd guess that admitting there's a problem is the first step.


Personally, I think the problem wasn't really Crane Wing, but MoMS. That archetype lets you get plenty of feats at first level that are fine when you're supposed to have them, and utterly broken when you slap them on a 1st level monk even without flurry. Crane Wing's just the biggest offender, far from the only one.


Atarlost wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
2. The Crane Riposte feat still works just fine. It ALLOWS you to take an AoO in that specific circumstance (even though you normally could not). It could perhaps use a callout specifically to that effect, but the wording is pretty plain.
Not one person who isn't you has said in any of the threads on this errata that I've read that they thought Crane Riposte still worked. If the wording is plain it's plainly not saying what you intended.

Feats allow you to do things that you could not otherwise do based on the rules all the time. That is the entire point of them. Like I said, it could probably have used a parenthetical stating "(even though you could not normally do so)", but I think the wording is still plain enough.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

If it were plain you wouldn't have had this upset.

Crane Riposte refers to deflecting an attack. Crane Wing no longer deflects attacks except when used with the full defense action. It's as plain as can be that it constitutes deflection where it uses the word deflect. A dodge bonus, after all, is pretty much the opposite of deflection and the deflection allowed with full defense is still called deflection.

As many feats as you've printed that didn't actually allow you to do anything or only allow you to do something that makes no sense (the original prone shooter and elephant stomp are the most blatant) your audience seems to believe you're more likely to forget what the total defense action allows than to actually intend for feats to allow you to do things that actually work in the rules system.

That's not a good place to be with D&D Next on the horizon. I'm no oracle to tell you how to fix things, but I'd guess that admitting there's a problem is the first step.

Ummm isn't a DEV telling you how the feat works good enough?

Also RAW crane riposte still works because it says you can take an AOO not that the target generates an AOO. World of difference.

Silver Crusade

I just hope they fix it so you get the Riposte off of the attack you give the +4 AC bonus to, if it causes the attack to miss, otherwise Crane Riposte is completely useless, in my opinion. Crane wing gave my rogue that had it the ability to continue to contribute in combat at higher levels without dying. This entire business just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.


Chris Kenney wrote:
Personally, I think the problem wasn't really Crane Wing, but MoMS. That archetype lets you get plenty of feats at first level that are fine when you're supposed to have them, and utterly broken when you slap them on a 1st level monk even without flurry. Crane Wing's just the biggest offender, far from the only or worst one.

The problem was more with the fact that they were gained with only a dip. Monk already, by the necessity of the mechanics behind the flavor of the class, is one of the most dip-friendly classes out there, and MoMS even moreso, since it lets you get Style Feats significantly before they should be attained, all for the cost of a single level.

UndeadMitch wrote:
I just hope they fix it so you get the Riposte off of the attack you give the +4 AC bonus to, if it causes the attack to miss, otherwise Crane Riposte is completely useless, in my opinion. Crane wing gave my rogue that had it the ability to continue to contribute in combat at higher levels without dying. This entire business just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I'd go as far as saying just if the attack misses, rather than if the +4 causes the attack to miss. Otherwise, it becomes even more disappointing, when you use Crane Riposte, and the opponent rolls a 2.

Grand Lodge

It looks like the lessened penalty for attack rolls for fighting defensively is gone from Crane Riposte as well.


bsctgod wrote:
It looks like the lessened penalty for attack rolls for fighting defensively is gone from Crane Riposte as well.

How do you suppose that? It's not in the errata document, as far as I can tell.


Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:
The developers saying they used PFS specific feedback to make a determination about whether something needed fixing is just that. They used the over 100,000 game sessions per year over 2 years, as a proving ground, so to speak.

I think it's worth asking how much of the problem is created by Masters of Many Styles getting early access to Crane Wing, his much is Crane Wing itself, and how much is the tendency for PFS scenarios to be populated with solitary enemies in called quarters.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

crane wing was always a no brainer for many of my martial classes, even those not "monk" like.

It was in it's previous rendition completely ridiculous. As a player I loved it, as a GM it was like "ok... I have to either not attack you or attack you and not do anything"

Silver Crusade

Tholomyes wrote:
I'd go as far as saying just if the attack misses, rather than if the +4 causes the attack to miss. Otherwise, it becomes even more disappointing, when you use Crane Riposte, and the opponent rolls a 2.

That's more in line with what I was aiming for, I just worded that poorly.


Well there went an idea for a Aldori Swordlord (none dipped one as well). No a fan of this either. If the Monk of the Many Style for it's super ease of dipablity than what was done. Something link the ranger style list of feats available at first level (only first feat of the chain, not any). I am wholly disappointed with this.


Sub_Zero wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Eirikrautha wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
No one from Paizo is going to knock down your door and tell you you're playing wrong.
Actually, that's exactly what they did. Because of PFS complaints, they changed an entire feat chain, which invalidates lots of peoples' character builds. And they changed for the ENTIRE RPG, not just for PFS. There's no greater example of "You're playing it wrong" possible...

No, you're still allowed to modify it for your home game. In fact I believe Jason has explicitly said in the past 24 hours that you are allowed to make whatever changes you see fit.

People get too caught up on the "official" word and treat the game as some sort of legalese. While they have to design and write it that way, to help avoid confusion, you are still entitled to make any changes you want.

that's a pointless comment though. Saying that we can homebrew the rules doesn't help anyone, because I could homebrew the rules before this too.

The problem is many GM's don't want to take the time to houserule entire feats, and when they see an errata that nerfs a feat they assume that it was done with good reason (unfortunately in this case they threw the baby out with the bathwater).

In short the new errata screws over many players, and the comment that you can homebrew it however you want does nothing for most people.

Lets examine the logic of your argument.

Paizo made a change that so drastically alters the game that players are screwed.
But it's not important enough for you to work with your GM to fix.

There's a fundamental disconnect in that logic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only problem I have with the errata is that it might be nice if you could use the +4 AC as an immediate action when you get hit. I’d certainly still consider taking the Crane feats either way though. The first one especially seems really nice for fighting defensively. I’ve actually considered using it with a sword and board set up to boost AC a little (lots of little boosts equals big AC)

I’d thought about taking Crane Wing with one of my PCs in the recently, but I backed off since I knew it would drive the DM nuts and decided it might be more fun to explore other avenues for that PC. If the errata were in place maybe I would have gone for the Crane feats after all. It seems to me that you’re still getting a +8 AC against your foe’s first attack for just a -2 to hit. I guess you could also combine this with Snake Style and boost AC against two attacks per round.

The original feat was very strong. I think Paizo made the right move here. A lot of DMs will rejoice now that their natural 20s won't be deflected.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 7 people marked this as a favorite.

This errata is deplorable and very poorly thought out. All it does is make even worse the problems with the game. All because GMs apparently have no imagination, or in the case of PFS, no freedom to try and use simple tactics like multiple attacks, ranged weapons and spells. All of which are extremely common and easily accessible from level 1 through 20.

Martial vs caster disparity is part of the problem. There are all sorts of spells that can completely break any campaign, and I can't remember the last time I saw any spell or caster-specific feat being nerfed. Then, we have Crane wing, one of the very few options available to martial character that do something other than increase DPR, and it's not only nerfed, but kneecapped into uselessness. It became yet another trap option that won't be seeing play anytime soon.

I've GM for 3 players with this feat before, 1 of them quite the munchkin. Never had any problem dealing with them. As a player I've never used the feat cause I didn't see it as particularly useful except for a few specific builds.

I spent hundreds of hours with PF. I own most hardcover books and player companions, as well as all Pathfinder novels. Not even once have I insulted Paizo or any of its employees.

Now, in a single strike I see an errata unnecessarily nerfing one of the few good feats for martial character despite lots of people saying it's not broken at all, find out Paizo is willing to screw homegame players in order to please PFS GMs and learn that forum posters can be banned simply for ridiculing awful rulings.

Never before have I been this disappointed with Paizo.

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Atarlost wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
2. The Crane Riposte feat still works just fine...I think the wording is still plain enough.

If it were plain you wouldn't have had this upset.

Poppycock! This is exactly how I assumed Crane Riposte would work.

The people who think this errata broke Crane Riposte are primarily the people who are upset with the change to begin with. Perhaps, just perhaps, their bias against this errata is influencing their interpretation of the rules?

Maybe, just maybe, they're reading this rule in the worst, clunkiest way possible because they don't want it to work? Because the rule not working gives them ammunition to fight the change?

Just saying, bro, just saying. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:

But PFS is not in the habit of banning valid rules just because someone feels they are too powerful. Especially after they have already been a part of the game.

Fairly certain Synthesist Summoner was banned because it is too powerful.

So if PFS is willing to ban an entire archetype because it's too powerful, why wouldn't they ban a single feat chain?

Sczarni

Cairen Weiss wrote:
Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:

But PFS is not in the habit of banning valid rules just because someone feels they are too powerful. Especially after they have already been a part of the game.

Fairly certain Synthesist Summoner was banned because it is too powerful.

So if PFS is willing to ban an entire archetype because it's too powerful, why wouldn't they ban a single feat chain?

They also banned a couple archetypes that weren't too strong for flavor reasons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To be honest, as long as Crane Riposte works off a missed designated attack, I'm cool with this change. Crane Wing WAS a very powerful feat, especially for the level at which you could gain it. It doesn't compare to Deflect Arrows, because Deflect Arrows required a DC20 Reflex save in order to deflect the attack, and Crane Wing was automatic. No dice-roll, no attempt to make it work, just "Nah, it missed." As someone pointed out, it meant a 3rd level character could stand off a tyrannosaurus.

It's not how I would have fixed it, and it could have done with an errata for Crane Riposte as well, but I can live with that. Now, Paizo, how about fixing the monk class itself? :D


Irontruth wrote:
Sub_Zero wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Eirikrautha wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
No one from Paizo is going to knock down your door and tell you you're playing wrong.
Actually, that's exactly what they did. Because of PFS complaints, they changed an entire feat chain, which invalidates lots of peoples' character builds. And they changed for the ENTIRE RPG, not just for PFS. There's no greater example of "You're playing it wrong" possible...

No, you're still allowed to modify it for your home game. In fact I believe Jason has explicitly said in the past 24 hours that you are allowed to make whatever changes you see fit.

People get too caught up on the "official" word and treat the game as some sort of legalese. While they have to design and write it that way, to help avoid confusion, you are still entitled to make any changes you want.

that's a pointless comment though. Saying that we can homebrew the rules doesn't help anyone, because I could homebrew the rules before this too.

The problem is many GM's don't want to take the time to houserule entire feats, and when they see an errata that nerfs a feat they assume that it was done with good reason (unfortunately in this case they threw the baby out with the bathwater).

In short the new errata screws over many players, and the comment that you can homebrew it however you want does nothing for most people.

Lets examine the logic of your argument.

Paizo made a change that so drastically alters the game that players are screwed.
But it's not important enough for you to work with your GM to fix.

There's a fundamental disconnect in that logic.

The disconnect is that you're making the assumption that everyone has the luxury of playing with GMs who are receptive to working with players to "fix" anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lantzkev wrote:
Cairen Weiss wrote:
Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:

But PFS is not in the habit of banning valid rules just because someone feels they are too powerful. Especially after they have already been a part of the game.

Fairly certain Synthesist Summoner was banned because it is too powerful.

So if PFS is willing to ban an entire archetype because it's too powerful, why wouldn't they ban a single feat chain?

They also banned a couple archetypes that weren't too strong for flavor reasons.

Flavor, I can understand (like vivsectionist being 'too evil' for PFS). However, the claim is PFS isn't in the habit of banning things that are too powerful. Synthesist was regarded as being too powerful, and was banned. Crane Style is a feat chain that was errated instead of banned.

Crane Wing has been shown to not be a big problem in home games, it's a problem for GMs who are only willing to run melee encounters with enemies that have only a single attack. Any moderately GM that isn't garbage is going to change up the fights to throw in more than just "I attack" into play.

For homegames, Crane Wing wasn't an issue. For PFS, Crane Wing was an issue. So why is the homegames suffering the same fate as PFS when PFS has a history of fixing it's own problems or issues with the rules?

Crafting? Hard to balance - Ban it.
Synthesist? Too powerful - Ban it.
Rich Parents? Too powerful - Ban it.
Crane Style? Too powerful - Errata it for every single person in the game.

This kind of reminds me of the claims from the Developers that Dexterity to Damage is too powerful even as a Mythic Feat, like Mythic Weapon Finesse. Mythic, you know, the game system designed to allow players and GMs to bend or outright break the rules.

Keep that in mind. Dexterity to damage is more powerful than a character who can only be killed by Mythic beings. Or only dieing at 3 times your constitution score. Or the ability to spend Mythic Power to get a pseudo-pounce. Or the ability to grant spells to followers.

Dexterity to damage is more powerful than ascending to nearly the same power as that of a demi-god.

The Agile Enhancement and Dervish Dance, by the reckoning of the design team, are *the* most powerful enhancement, and *the* most powerful feat in the game.


Cairen Weiss wrote:

This kind of reminds me of the claims from the Developers that Dexterity to Damage is too powerful even as a Mythic Feat, like Mythic Weapon Finesse. Mythic, you know, the game system designed to allow players and GMs to bend or outright break the rules.

Keep that in mind. Dexterity to damage is more powerful than a character who can only be killed by Mythic beings. Or only dieing at 3 times your constitution score. Or the ability to spend Mythic Power to get a pseudo-pounce. Or the ability to grant spells to followers.

Dexterity to damage is more powerful than ascending to nearly the same power as that of a demi-god.

The Agile Enhancement and Dervish Dance, by the reckoning of the design team, are *the* most powerful enhancement, and *the* most powerful feat in the game.

I must have missed that one. When did they claim that? Because obviously they must have changed their minds, given the current Mythic Weapon Finesse.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dabbler wrote:
To be honest, as long as Crane Riposte works off a missed designated attack, I'm cool with this change.

It works when you use a total defense action, which is the only way to deflect an attack with Crane Wing.

Quote:
It doesn't compare to Deflect Arrows, because Deflect Arrows required a DC20 Reflex save in order to deflect the attack, and Crane Wing was automatic.

There is no reflex save involved in using Deflect Arrows.

Sczarni

a bit of hyperbole there.

And the devs are correct imo when you consider how combat works to make a single feat go straight up dmg from dex than str is the most powerful feat possible to make (except maybe crane wing... hehe...)

you'd eliminate the need to multi stat at all. Dervish dance requires several pre-reqs, is limited to 1hand weapons, finesse etc.. it's not a singular feat on its own and still won't apply to any weapon you pick up etc. yeah it's fine on it's own but as a feat that just said dex instead of str? yeah op yo.

Quote:
Dexterity to damage is more powerful than ascending to nearly the same power as that of a demi-god.

I don't think you understand what mythic is.

Quote:
For homegames, Crane Wing wasn't an issue.

guess my experiences differ, crane wing was an issue anytime it came out. Have you played rise of the runelords with a character running around with crane wing? oh hai, that gnome just deflected a cloud giants club attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Limiting it to opponents of the same size would have been a reasonable fix then.


lantzkev wrote:

Quote:
For homegames, Crane Wing wasn't an issue.
guess my experiences differ, crane wing was an issue anytime it came out. Have you played rise of the runelords with a character running around with crane wing? oh hai, that gnome just deflected a cloud giants club attack.

A fantasy character doing something fantastic? Yeah, that's a problem.


In one of the Mythic Weapon Finesse threads (can't find the post or I'd link it) Jason Bulmahn clarified how Mythic Weapon Finesse is supposed to only work for the Finesseable weapons, or something like that. He said that obviating the need for strength is not the intent of the feat, but that with the right builds, Mythic Weapon Finesse is still perhaps too good of a feat.

My interpretation of his post was that, "We don't intend to be able to reduce strength to an unimportant stat, however, Mythic Weapon Finesse allowing dexterity to damage is perhaps too good."

This, in my mind, says that Jason Bulmahn (posting in his role as Lead Designer) thinks that the ability to use Dexterity for your Damage is 'perhaps too good' as a 'Mythic Feat'.

lantzkev wrote:
Cairen Weiss wrote:
Dexterity to damage is more powerful than ascending to nearly the same power as that of a demi-god.
I don't think you understand what mythic is.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a 20th level PC with 10 Mythic Tiers is a CR 24 threat. Demi-Gods (and beings of equivalent power such as Demon Lords, the Four Horsemen, Emypreal's etc) are in the range of CR 26 to CR 30. My statement claiming the ability to 'ascend to nearly the same power as that of a demi-god' remains true. Point of fact, one can take a Mythic ability to grant spells to followers (similar to that of a demi-god) so it is doubly true in that regard as well. Also, since Mythic is designed to allow PCs to slay Demi-Gods (and equivalent), by design, it is a three-fold aspect of truth.

Perhaps you do not understand what Mythic is?

Sczarni

that was a point to show you how silly it can get...

but that doesnt' change the fact that with the feat can negate the attack of a character 30 levels above him.

You cannot have a fight with a BBeG in any sort of reasonable manner unless it's a caster with the presence of crane wing.

Any cool high level monster with one "really big attack" is neutered forevermore against crane wing. it's just bad design to be able to do it with full offense.

changing it so that now it has that same benefit only when doing total defense, is totally acceptable.

The change now did not remove the functionality of the ability, it removed the ability to continue your own personal assault without drawback essentially.

yeah you had a -2 to attack, but your opponent effectively has one less attack against you (and that's mamoth as the first is the most likely to hit and the rest less likely) as it stands a +4 vs that that stacks with defensive...

Anyone crying that it's hugely and grossly nerfed is just trying to keep their cake, and the pie, and the ice cream... rather than just keep their cake.

The ability to deflect the first attack is still present, you just can't do it and attack your opponent at the same time.


lantzkev wrote:

that was a point to show you how silly it can get...

but that doesnt' change the fact that with the feat can negate the attack of a character 30 levels above him.

You cannot have a fight with a BBeG in any sort of reasonable manner unless it's a caster with the presence of crane wing.

Any cool high level monster with one "really big attack" is neutered forevermore against crane wing. it's just bad design to be able to do it with full offense.

changing it so that now it has that same benefit only when doing total defense, is totally acceptable.

The change now did not remove the functionality of the ability, it removed the ability to continue your own personal assault without drawback essentially.

yeah you had a -2 to attack, but your opponent effectively has one less attack against you (and that's mamoth as the first is the most likely to hit and the rest less likely) as it stands a +4 vs that that stacks with defensive...

Anyone crying that it's hugely and grossly nerfed is just trying to keep their cake, and the pie, and the ice cream... rather than just keep their cake.

The ability to deflect the first attack is still present, you just can't do it and attack your opponent at the same time.

Wow, this post just shows that you really don't seem to grasp the full ramifications of this change.

See, by forcing the deflection mechanic of Crane Wing to Total Defense, they have insured that it will almost never be used. The only time entering Total Defense is a viable option, is when you have a character that can bottleneck and take the assaults of others. For instance, standing in a 5-ft. doorway with Total Defense, Crane Wing and Crane Riposte while your allies sling spells and ranged attacks (or reach weapons) over your shoulder.

This is, basically, the only time Crane Wing/Riposte could be usefull. A very niche situation that is far more likely to never happen, than it is too occur.

Otherwise, any time a character enters Total Defense, they are taking themselves out of the battle. They have completely removed their character as a viable threat to enemies, and are broadcasting "Ignore Me, I'm Harmless, Attack My Allies Instead!" to the monsters attacking a party.

Because Crane Wing's deflection will never be used, Crane Riposte only provides a further reduction in the penalty for fighting defensively (dropping it to a -1 penalty). Is this worth one feat? No, not really.

Fact of the matter is, Crane Wing/Riposte will hardly, if ever, see the light of day as long as the errata stands.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
To be honest, as long as Crane Riposte works off a missed designated attack, I'm cool with this change.
It works when you use a total defense action, which is the only way to deflect an attack with Crane Wing.

Yes, I know. What I am talking about is allowing it to work if the designated attack for the +4 boost to AC misses. It sounds like the devs intended that to be the case, but didn't change the wording on the Crane Riposte feat.

Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Quote:
It doesn't compare to Deflect Arrows, because Deflect Arrows required a DC20 Reflex save in order to deflect the attack, and Crane Wing was automatic.
There is no reflex save involved in using Deflect Arrows.

Damn, they changed it! Then again, it's easy to get multiple attacks with archery so automatically deflecting one attack isn't so much of a problem.

201 to 250 of 365 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Crane Wing nerf All Messageboards