I like the change, it takes away a feat that is insane and has a decent replacement with multiple options for both fighting defensively and total defense. It's not the change I would have made personally but I believe that the paizo staff have a better idea of game design than a random player such as myself. Changing the feat will stop monks from being the superhero that can fend off a mounted unit with a lance and takes away most of the threat which I agree with. Yes deflect arrows completely negates a ranged attack but that has a size limit on what it can and cannot do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not the change I would have made personally but I believe that the paizo staff have a better idea of game design than a random player such as myself.
I used to believe that. Now, I'm not so sure (not just from this decision, but this is one of them that's made me question it).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I used this feat as a GM and had my players call it BS, I think most of the people that are upset have a character that use the feat and now see their character 'ruined', hardly an objective measure of the feat's worth.
To me it doesn't seem it was doing much for martials, move - attack - automatic miss is hardly fun if you are on the side facing the feat, it actually makes casters and archers better dealing with these characters having this feat.
The feat as is now still offers good use in normal mode or total defense, people are just upset how dramatically their character is downgraded imo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, it offers lackluster use in "normal mode" because you have to call it before the roll. In other words, you have to use it blindly and pray to the dice gods that it works.
And it doesn't work at all in "total defense" because no one wastes their time taking total defense actions, because they'd rather participate in a fight instead of sitting on the sidelines while the enemies ignore them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stop monks from being the superhero that can fend off a mounted unit with a lanceBut that's something a monk should totally be able to do. :(
That's one of the things that I never seem to get. If a monk consistently performs subpar in combat, nothing gets done. If the monk gets an ability which reasonably fits in with what a monk should be able to do, fluff wise, and while it can be broken, but is easily negated or reduced, through spells, ranged attacks, creatures with multiple attacks, ect, that is where they decide to try to balance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the change, it takes away a feat that is insane and has a decent replacement with multiple options for both fighting defensively and total defense. It's not the change I would have made personally but I believe that the paizo staff have a better idea of game design than a random player such as myself. Changing the feat will stop monks from being the superhero that can fend off a mounted unit with a lance and takes away most of the threat which I agree with. Yes deflect arrows completely negates a ranged attack but that has a size limit on what it can and cannot do.
Shame on those OP Monks! How dare they have any nice toys? Don't they know they are taking all of the limelight away from the Barbarians and Rangers and Paladins and Wizards and Sorcerers?
...
Oh.. wait, these are Monks we're talking about. No one complains about Monks ruining their game unless their game was ruined from the get go. Neither Crane Wing, nor Monks are the problem. Other classes dipping Master of Many Styles for easy feat access is the real problem.
Monks have a very hard life. It just got harder.
One-weapon/Open hand combatants have VERY VERY LITTLE mechanical support for that playstyle. Their list of good options also just got shorter.
And why? Because PFS GMs don't have the freedom to alter encounters based on the group that they're GMing for.
So dumb.
| 6 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.
Really sums up my feelings on the matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And it doesn't work at all in "total defense" because no one wastes their time taking total defense actions, because they'd rather participate in a fight instead of sitting on the sidelines while the enemies ignore them.
Hell, I remember another d20 game somewhere, which had a feat like that (Use total defense and if it misses, you get to counterattack), but as that system removed iterative attacks, there really was no difference in damage between a normal attack and a counterattack, and it still wasn't worth a feat. If you're not forcing the enemy to pay attention to you, no smart enemy will. You can't tank by just being a turtle, because your opponents have no reason to attack you. In fact, you're being the Anti-tank, because you're basically removing yourself from the list of potential targets, allowing the enemies to spread their damage across your allies.
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.
Where do you get that impression? (genuinely asking) All the dev comments about Riposte still working that I've seen focus on the specific trumping general (re: taking an AoO while using total defense).
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.
As far as I'm aware there's never been a reflex save to use Deflect Arrows in 3.5 or PF.
|
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.
They no longer have it in the description of Crane Riposte in the PRD. I know it's still messed up and switched with the new Crane Wing. Let's hope they put it back. Still might not be enough for me to keep Crane Riposte though.
They no longer have it in the description of Crane Riposte in the PRD. I know it's still messed up and switched with the new Crane Wing. Let's hope they put it back. Still might not be enough for me to keep Crane Riposte though.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.
The PRD =/= the official rules. The official rules consist of what is printed in the books, the errata, and anything on the FAQ. Whenever the PRD comes into conflict with those sources, the PRD is incorrect. The PRD is just a reference document. Just because it has an incorrect line doesn't mean the rules have changed.
My fighter/monk was very much based on the crane style feat chain. This has nerfed him considerably. But going over the changes I still think a nerf was needed.
I do think they went a little too far - but a nerf was definitely needed.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So could I functionally replace the greater part of the feat with a +2 steel shield? :)
I find this change odd in light of many of the exploits already present in the game, e.g. the barbarian 'come and get me' rage power, among other things, which are far more unbalancing , but that's another issue I suppose.
We've being playing with a snake/crane monk for a while now and I can't see the feat causing any trouble, It's actually brought the monk in line with the other fighter and Mage types in terms of survivability and damage. In fact it was nice on the very few occasions to see the monk 'tanking it'. We have far greater AC issues with the paladin, eidolon, inquisitor and Druid. It's not, after all, a competition between the gm and players and there are ways to circumvent the issue anyway. As for the deflected attack Spells like displacement effectively negate 1 in every 2 attacks.
An interesting note is the mirror image spell. It is pretty well a no brainer with our players. I'm yet to see a spell caster or UMD-user NOT take it, 25%+ chance of a miss with a hit is excellent, especially as a second level spell.
I also think the superhero fending off a lance complaint us a little ludicrous in a game like pathfinder. That act is no more OTT than almost anything else I the game, let's face it a group of 4 medium heroes successfully defeating a colossal creature is just as silly yet we have no problem with that.
threatening to boycott the game over decisions like this is childish. Yeah Paizo makes some odd calls, sometimes the in staffers come across a little like 'it's my game so that's how it works, so nerr to you, what would you know anyway " . I'm pretty sure that not the intention- online communication is notoriously unreliable in that regard (well. I hope that's the case anyway since the other option is fairly distressing for the games future). I'm still a big fan of paizo and despite the missteps I read lately their regard for their customer base is second to none, nowhere near the disregard WotC show it's customers. I may eat my words If 2nd ed hits the shelves in the next year or so but I think that's very, very unlikely.
I think a lot of people are viewing the original version of the feat as overpowered because maybe some of the ways around it are being overlooked.
It requires either a standard or full attack action to activate, an opponent can ready an attack to hit before the character can fight defensively or use total defence, if they use ranged attacks just ready to move next to them so they will provoke an attack if they want to fire.
It only works against melee attacks. Obvious but worth mentioning.
Every creature has access to two weapon fighting and unarmed strikes, many can used improvised weapons. This may be a subpar fighting style for the creature in question but it does mean you still have a chance of hitting anytime you can full attack.
You don't have to attack the character using this feat most of the time, I doubt every character in a party makes use of this feat.
If we are going to be stuck with a change couldn't we just allow a reflex save once a turn against damage dealt when fighting defensively or using total defence. High reflex save characters would benefit more and you would always have a chance of success or failure when negating an attack.
It still involves more rolling, but less guess work on the players part and provides more of a benefit. It also makes big single hits harder to avoid while making many less damaging attacks easier too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Master of Many Styles is the primary reason why Crane Wing is considered broken and was also published in Ultimate Combat - was that 'errataed' by any chance? I can't access the PDF at the moment.Of course not. Why take a scalpel to something delicate as game balance with what you could do with a Hacksaw?
But yes. Master of Many Styles is the primary reason why Crane Wing was so good.
We thought the Master of Many Styles was too good too at first but then we realized we missed that part of losing Flurry of Blows. Then the Master of Many styles monk in our game was no so good any more. Very defensive but had no offensive ability, the player retired that character for that very reason.
|
Master of Many Styles is the primary reason why Crane Wing is considered broken and was also published in Ultimate Combat - was that 'errataed' by any chance? I can't access the PDF at the moment.Of course not. Why take a scalpel to something delicate as game balance with what you could do with a Hacksaw?
But yes. Master of Many Styles is the primary reason why Crane Wing was so good.
We thought the Master of Many Styles was too good too at first but then we realized we missed that part of losing Flurry of Blows. Then the Master of Many styles monk in our game was no so good any more. Very defensive but had no offensive ability, the player retired that character for that very reason.
But its stupidly powerful as a two level dip for another class. For two levels from a fighter/Magus/whatever, you loose one point of BAB, but gain two style feats that bypass prerequisites, evasion, and the ability to have two styles active at once. There is a Brawler Fighter build that made heavy use of it, as well as several Kensai builds. Flurry isn't missed if you are full BAB or have other means of boosting accuracy.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Defintely never going to be using errata. At all. Not even if you payed me alot of money. One of the things that bothered me towards the end of 3.5. was a very vocal minority demanding that anything they deemed "unbalanced" and Wotc for the most part complied. Now Paizo is doing the same with PFS. No offence what happens in PFS should not go over into the core game. I respect what they do. Yet sometimes it feels like watching a bunch of new developers still making the same mistakes. It's not 2008 any longer. This type of horrible nerfing should not be happening. Five or it it six years working on the rpg the devs should and can do better. While I agree the feat needed a nerf. It's like another poster has said they used dynamite consquences be damned. Instead of sclapal and being precise.
Why would most of be happy with the change. It's like Paizo comes out with a nerf or change that is imo not very well thought out. Then can't seem to understand why the fanbase is angry. Or feeling generally negative. When your changes come across as taking five steps forward while going ten step back well what do they expect. I'm not giving up on Paizo yet more and more I'm disliking their "balance at all cost" philiosophy. Even if it makes something less fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't expect to influence the people who really hate the change much, but it seems like it might be important for those who don't to speak up and support Paizo on changes like these instead of letting some vocal folks on the boards hijack the game to a higher power level. Maybe there's also a chance I can influence some folks who are on the fence.
I agree with Netopalis that if GMs felt like they had to rewrite encounters (or entire APs) specifically to deal with Crane Wing that’s a good indicator it was too strong. The common defense of “it only stopped one attack” seems pretty flimsy to me. The fact that you could use the auto-deflect after you got hit means you’d only deploy it as needed. If you have a high AC that might reasonably be once per round or less. It would probably cut the damage you’re taking in melee dramatically, maybe down to just about nothing.
Anyhow, you can still automatically stop one hit per round. You just have to use Total Defense. If you feel like the new Crane Wing is useless I guess you feel not only that a +4 bonus to AC once a round is useless but that Total Defense is useless too. Crane Style improves Fighting Defensively. Crane Wing improves Total Defense. Crane Riposte improves both a little bit more. All 3 feats do something, and to me it seems like something worthwhile.
If you can get a +7 to AC plus automatically stop 1 hit per round and still get 1 attack that seems pretty nice actually. Sure, you only get 1 attack that round, but you’re trading that offensive power for defensive power. If a Master of Many Styles combines Crane and Snake Styles (aka “Snake in Eagle’s Shadow?) he could use Total Defense to auto block one attack per round and substitute Sense Motive for another. He’d be almost “unhittable”.
Also, he might gets two more attacks assuming that Jason’s statements about Crane Riposte being an exception to the regular AoO rules would also apply to Snake Fang too. Maybe the idea is that these aren’t normal AoOs but a feat based ability which eats up your AoO resource, kind of like Bodyguard. If so then +7 AC and 2-3 attacks per round all at your highest attack bonus sounds pretty good to me.
I could see a Monk/Paladin with this being tons of fun since he could use LoH to heal himself if once in a while when a hit which can’t be deflected sneaks through. With Smite Evil and 2-3 attacks at his highest bonus this guy could still cause significant damage (maybe add a Bane Bandolier too).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I respectfully disagree Devilkiller. I get your reason and others for defending the change. Yet I refuse to support bad rpg design philiosophy on any level. If we never say anything negative and only positive when changes occur they will just keep making the same errata mistakes. They keep doing them still no matter what anyone says. Yet if your going to sell a product then hearing both negative and positive feedback is part of the job. I work in retail and hear both. So they won't get much sympathy from me on that.
While the vitriol indicated by many of these posts may not be valuable, the general response to the change in this feat is. Seems like it might merit another rewrite.
I think Paizo is trying to make a better game, but I don't always think they're right of always say positive things about the original rules texts or FAQs and erratas though. There are many other powers I'd like to see nerfed and a few I think have been nerfed too hard. Even here I'd like to see the +4 bonus used as a reaction when you're hit, but overall I'd take the errata over the original in this case.
Anyhow, I actually checked back in to clarify my "vocal folks on the boards" comment. Obviously there are vocal folks both for and against the change, and I'm one of the former. I didn't mean to denigrate message board users in any way but just to point out that not every player and GM is a frequent message boards poster. I'd say that less than a third of the players and GMs I know use the boards frequently. I'd also say that none of them would have any problems with this nerf beyond what I've already expressed. In fact, several of them including GMs had previously expressed great dismay over my tentative plans to use Crane Wing in the future.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would most of be happy with the change. It's like Paizo comes out with a nerf or change that is imo not very well thought out. Then can't seem to understand why the fanbase is angry. Or feeling generally negative. When your changes come across as taking five steps forward while going ten step back well what do they expect. I'm not giving up on Paizo yet more and more I'm disliking their "balance at all cost" philiosophy. Even if it makes something less fun.
Look, man, if it was "balance at all costs", then I would probably a bit more okay with it. But it more seems like the nerf lottery and Crane Wing just "won". Nobody at Paizo seems to be thinking about nerfing Greater Beast Totem or generally two-handed weapon problems or Mirror Image or any of the myriad other problem areas of the game.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I don't think the vitrol is deserved. It needs to be heard. Imo they keep making the same errata mistakes over and over. Once, twice three times I can ignore it. When it seems to happen more often than not when they tamper with the rules. Well my patience with such errors while not gone is wearing thin. It's as if they never learn imo.
Look, man, if it was "balance at all costs", then I would probably a bit more okay with it. But it more seems like the nerf lottery and Crane Wing just "won". Nobody at Paizo seems to be thinking about nerfing Greater Beast Totem or generally two-handed weapon problems or Mirror Image or any of the myriad other problem areas of the game.
I'm with you on this. Don't get me wrong. There are other areas of the game like Greater Beast Totem or the Gunslinger. I have to multiply the hp of the enemy by four or even five because of the ability to target touch ac. Were on the same page. I sure as hell am not and will not defend the change. As well this happens way too often.
As far as I'm aware there's never been a reflex save to use Deflect Arrows in 3.5 or PF.Damn, they changed 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.There is no reflex save involved in using Deflect Arrows.
It was 3.0 -> 3.5 that took out the Reflex save.
A good design principle, by the way. There's no need to be adding extra rolls and layers of resolution onto things.
|
|
Interesting, I just had a thought that might make this change more palatable, at least to my monk anyway. The new rule as per Errata:
"Benefit: Once per round, when fighting 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."
Now the old wording required you TO BE IN CRANE STYLE to use. Can it be interpreted with this wording that the only requirement to get the benefit of the feat is to be fighting defensively that you don't have to be in Crane Style at the time to gain the benefit?
If you feel like the new Crane Wing is useless I guess you feel not only that a +4 bonus to AC once a round is useless but that Total Defense is useless too.In every live table game I've ever been in, a +X to affect any one thing that you're not doing is useless because most GMs won't hold up to tell you when he's looking to hit you, he'll just figure out your AC and announce "3 hits, X damage" (And most of the time not even the number of hits unless you have DR) unless you force him to hold up the game for every time you're attacked, which annoys everyone.
And this is even more the case in slower mediums, like vtts, mIRC, or pbp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am against the change. Not only for monks loosing a cool ability that fitted with their flavour, but also because it will now take up mode admin at the table. I used to just say like I do with deflect arrows: the first hit is the one i deflect. Now I'm going to have to weigh my options and call a specific attack.
Id also like to know as a PFS player: will characters be allowed to retrain? I have a level 6 monk who was going for crane wing on his next level up, but now I don't see a point to doing it. This was my "jedi" monk character and deflecting a melee attack a round with a temple sword seemed like it was a perfect fit for the concept -> the feat states you need a hand free, not that you deflect with said hand ;)
weapon focus is now a better option than crane riposte tbh.
Somehow I hope this gets undone, like the monk's Flurry = TWF that was fixed back to "you can flurry with one weapon".
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Crane chain has multiple problems. First, let's compare it to a pouncing barbarian.
The pouncing barbarian is nigh useless at low levels, unless he's wielding two weapons, which is strictly inferior to using a big weapon. He gets no benefit from Pounce without a Haste spell until level 7+ if he's using any style other then TWF.
More importantly, his opponents can attack him back and do tons of damage. Barb does damage, monster does damage, everyone is happy.
Crane Wing allows the player to control the battlefield. If he can limit a character to one attack, he's basically invulnerable.
On top of this, he gets an AC bonus equal to wielding a shield, except it's a dodge bonus and applies to touch AC.
He can do this while two-handing a weapon. Take the longsword or bastard sword and two hand on your turn, take your second hand off at the end of your turn to get the full defensive benefits.
On top of being able to totally neutralize a hit (not an attack, mind you, a HIT. Crane Wing is NEVER wasted), you get a free attack at your highest BAB when you do shut the enemy down.
So, all you have to do is shut down multiple attacks from your foes. This can be accomplished with Spring attacking, and simple positioning so that your enemy cannot charge if they happen to have Pounce.
You have now created an invulnerable character. At low levels, no humanoid enemy that is not dual wielding can hurt you, and since they actually have to hit you TWICE (while you have the equal of a Shield+3 for AC) to do any damage, the fact is they aren't going to do anything to you.
You are now melee invulnerable until at least level 7. At level 7, you're reliably now neutralizing the best attack of any creature that DOES get off a hit on you, and forcing it to rely on attacks that have less hit chance. Oh, and generating a free attack.
That is LOADS better then simple DR.
"But there's ways around it." No, that's not an argument. Those ways could be used against ANYONE. They are less effective, and can be influenced, even controlled by the positioning of the character.
Use Spells! -Melee monsters don't have spells. Casters would use spells ANYWAYS.
Use Ranged Attacks! - Many creatures don't have ranged attacks.
Grapple! - Many creatures don't have improved grab.
Crane Wing completely shuts down Vital Strike. If you get only one attack, it doesn't matter how big it is, it's neutralized. An entire feat chain, pff, useless.
The size of the enemy doesn't matter. Great Wyrm with Greater Vital Strike coming in with his colossal jaws for a 4-32 +50 x4 Vital Strike bite attack? Pff, bat it aside.
It discriminates hugely against humanoid enemies. Most humanoids simply don't get multiple attacks until level 7+, meaning you get an instant +5 AC bonus against them, since they have to hit you with their second iterative. And that's if you allow them a full attack.
-----
Let's compare it to Arrow Deflection.
Ranged missiles attacks are far, far less common then melee attacks.
Ranged attackers almost always get full attacks, and with Rapid Shot and Multishot, get this at very low levels.
You don't get to Riposte an arrow shot.
It's useless against non-missile ranged attacks, such as spells and acid spits.
Archers can concentrate fire on troublesome opponents. It's much harder to get ten melee guys to attack the same fighter at the same time.
--------------
Let's compare it to Pounce.
Pounce is useless unless you have multiple attacks.
Pounce requires a charge, which lowers your Defenses.
Pounce doesn't generate extra attacks.
Pounce leaves you next to a monster which can retaliate.
Pounce doesn't let you use 2hW until BAB 7+. Crane Chain lets you use it from the get go, AND generates another attack with it at full BAB.
-----------
Let's compare it to shield use.
Crane Deflection is basically the equal of using a Shield +3. The attack penalty is less then TWF.
Crane Riposte generates an attack at highest BAB.
Crane Wing absolutely neutralizes one attack per round...IF IT HITS. There's no shield feat which can come close to that level of protection.
Shield Bashing forces you to take a TH penalty, since it's basically TWF. Oh, sure, a Shield Master can take it with no penalty...except his primary weapon is still sucking it up. The Crane Chainer's primary weapon is just fine...it's the one being used.
It takes four feats - Shield Prof, Imp Shield Bash, Shield Master, and Shield Focus - to do what Crane Feat does in 3. Oh, and you need a Shield +3, probably a full attack, and TWF. And be a Ranger or have BAB+12.
=======
I would like to point out that the Riposte feat has been published in 3.5, both in d20 Modern and the fencing book. It allowed an AoO once a round if someone missed you in melee. That's basically what Crane Riposte should be, and it should work off Crane Wing.
The new Crane WIng's AC benefit is huge. You still have an excellent chance of neutralizing an opponent's attack...but it is no longer 100%. If You do, then you should get the chance to Riposte. THis also allows you to use strategy. If you think the primary attack is still going to hit, then you can Wing a secondary or an iterative, to get off the Riposte as you practically guarantee a miss.
In short, you are now fencing and using strategy, getting involved in the fight instead of smirking as a 40 point hit goes away, and all the other attacks whiff.
--------------------
The very vocal naysayers aside, the Crane Chain was too strong. The fact that MoMF could abuse it didn't make it less strong, it just made it faster.
It removed too much ability from the DM. Being unable to challenge such characters in melee is not a Good Thing. "I'm invulnerable, let's see if your ineffective other attacks might be able to do something to me" is not an argument.
Monsters didn't get the Crane Chain. I've a feeling that if they did, things would change. The paladin charges in with his mighty double damage first round charge attack for 2x level in bonus damage...and the boss swats it aside without a thought. Yeah, so very not fun.
----------------------
Summary:
The game comes down to melee in 80%+ of situations. Having characters nigh invulnerable in melee because of a mere three feats is not something to tolerate.
The tactics used to overcome Crane Wing are either a) tactics the opponents would use normally if Crane Wing wasn't there (normally magic) or b) tactics that are much, much less effective (such as grappling).
The feat chain allows unprecedented neutralization and control of melee threats that a DM generally cannot compensate for without actually removing melee combatants from the game...in short, changing the entire game to compensate for the feat chain.
It needed to be nerfed for the balance of the game, NOT because 'melee don't get good things'.
In a Crane WIng world, magic and ranged attacks become the only things that are truly reliable and effective. That's not a way the game was meant to be played.
Riposte should be altered to allowable if the attack Crane Wing designates misses. That is still far less powerful then Come and Get Me, and makes perfect sense from a fencing standpoint...but it is no longer a 100% guaranteed thing to happen.
==Aelryinth
Interesting, I just had a thought that might make this change more palatable, at least to my monk anyway. The new rule as per Errata:
"Benefit: Once per round, when fighting 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."Now the old wording required you TO BE IN CRANE STYLE to use. Can it be interpreted with this wording that the only requirement to get the benefit of the feat is to be fighting defensively that you don't have to be in Crane Style at the time to gain the benefit?
Nope.
The style feats all only apply when using the style. Originally when the style feats came out I was very happy about all these cool new passive bonuses. You will notice a lot of effects being describes in the style feats that don't mention needing to be in the style to apply, but they do. :P
|
|
Nope.The style feats all only apply when using the style. Originally when the style feats came out I was very happy about all these cool new passive bonuses. You will notice a lot of effects being describes in the style feats that don't mention needing to be in the style to apply, but they do. :P
Yeah after reading the Style feat rules again, I figured the same. Still, designating a +4 AC against the first(and highest AB)attack is workable. The -1/+4 to attack/AC is the main reason to still fight defensively with the entire Crane Style chain. I rarely had to use the deflection anyway.
Yeah after reading the Style feat rules again, I figured the same. Still, designating a +4 AC against the first(and highest AB)attack is workable. The -1/+4 to attack/AC is the main reason to still fight defensively with the entire Crane Style chain. I rarely had to use the deflection anyway.
Nope.The style feats all only apply when using the style. Originally when the style feats came out I was very happy about all these cool new passive bonuses. You will notice a lot of effects being describes in the style feats that don't mention needing to be in the style to apply, but they do. :P
Frequently at the table I would say "stop trying to hit me and hit me, but only once" :P
The Crane Wing is actually still viable. I for one will simply state the first melee attack against me is the one I will attempt to Crane Wing, Riposte however is now a feat that does nothing. If they somehow have the wording that if your attacker misses by 4 or less, you deflect the attack. Then I can live with this change.
That or have Crane Wing rather negate a critical hit once per combat :P
You don't get to Riposte an arrow shot.Snatch Arrows lets you shoot back arrows, bullets, and bombs, or keep them if you want.
Sort of... Snatch arrow lets you throw back thrown weapons upon catching them. Like a riposte. ammunition was just something to hold onto (monks don't get bow proficiency, unless you are a xen archer).
|
|
Frequently at the table I would say "stop trying to hit me and hit me, but only once" :PThe Crane Wing is actually still viable. I for one will simply state the first melee attack against me is the one I will attempt to Crane Wing, Riposte however is now a feat that does nothing. If they somehow have the wording that if your attacker misses by 4 or less, you deflect the attack. Then I can live with this change.
That or have Crane Wing rather negate a critical hit once per combat :P
Crane Riposte should still decrease the penalty for fighting defensively from -2 to -1, which is big for a class with 3/4 BAB. That's essentially like Weapon Focus with an added benefit if using total defense. I agree, they could add something more to a 3rd level style feat though.
Sort of... Snatch arrow lets you throw back thrown weapons upon catching them. Like a riposte. ammunition was just something to hold onto (monks don't get bow proficiency, unless you are a xen archer).You don't get to Riposte an arrow shot.Snatch Arrows lets you shoot back arrows, bullets, and bombs, or keep them if you want.
And thrown weapons are, what, 5% or less of ranged attacks? Everyone uses arrows and bolts.
It also doesn't work against magic or natural stuff.In short, it's very, very limited.
Compare snatch arrows to Crane Riposte.
Riposte - melee attack, generates AoO
Snatch Arrows - Missile attack - IF a thrown weapon, generates an attack for you. If an arrow, can salvage it for use on your turn. Doesn't deal with other ranged attacks.
meh. No comparison. Melee attacks are 10x+ more common then ranged attacks in the game...especially if you are a character moving into melee combat, and not sitting back plinking. The normal way to take out archers is to charge them or drop an AoE on them, not engage in a sniping contest.
==Aelryinth
Crane Riposte should still decrease the penalty for fighting defensively from -2 to -1, which is big for a class with 3/4 BAB. That's essentially like Weapon Focus with an added benefit if using total defense. I agree, they could add something more to a 3rd level style feat though.
Frequently at the table I would say "stop trying to hit me and hit me, but only once" :PThe Crane Wing is actually still viable. I for one will simply state the first melee attack against me is the one I will attempt to Crane Wing, Riposte however is now a feat that does nothing. If they somehow have the wording that if your attacker misses by 4 or less, you deflect the attack. Then I can live with this change.
That or have Crane Wing rather negate a critical hit once per combat :P
Id take Weapon Focus over Riposte. Fighting defensively is something I don't do a lot. Loosing all other AoO and any attack options for a round never really looked good. Unless I couldnt get to an enemy. Without blind-fight total defense doesn't even help vs those invisible attackers. We also ruled that even with blind-fight Crane Wing didnt work, as you dont see it coming. And loads of recent PFS games Ive been in has seen deeper darkness at will creatures.
On that note: Take away the silly deeper darkness at will creatures that can see in this deeper darkness and then we will allow you to pillage our crane wing :P lol
EDIT: I meant I nearly never use Total Defense!