Crane Wing nerf


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 365 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Aelryinth wrote:
Skull wrote:
Cao Phen wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
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).

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

TBH, I never take Snatch Arrows, all my monks take Deflect Arrows as a bonus feat however, but the keep the arrow or throw back a thrown weapon never really looked like it was worth a feat.

I did have one session where I threw a javalin back at a Yeti after deflecting it... and Crit him.

Served him right. hehehe


I really don't like this change. I think reduces the feat's effectiveness too much.

A better solution would be make it a reflex save vs a the DC equal to 10+HD of the monster.

So take example most used to show Crane Style is broken. The 2nd level MOMS vs a CR 9 T-REX. The T-Rex can't hurt the monk and the monk can slowly kill it. That is a APL 1/2 vs CR 9 and the monk always wins. Now apply my fix and that T-Rex is deadly again. Try a making a DC 28 reflex at 2nd level. It's possible with +3 base save and 5 dex and lightening reflexes. You'd need an 18 on D20 to make it. But you won't make that every round it take to slowly kill this T-Rex and 1 bite kills the monk.

Still this is problem for single hit dice encounters at low level. A DC 11 with a +9 reflex save you need a 2 or higher. Too good still. So my fix here is Crane Wing requires a BAB of 10 or monk level 10. The MOMS can take any 1st tier style feat at as bonus feat at 1st and 2nd level. At level 6 2nd tier style feats are available and at 10th level 3rd tier style feats are allowed. This way the earliest you would see CW is level 6 on MOMS archetype. It would show up in other monks and fighters at level 10. Other classes after that. By this level CW would not be over powered and you won't see level dipping to get CW easily as you need 6 level instead of 2.

I think this fixes most of the problem with crane wing.


Skull wrote:
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.

That's total defense, not fighting defensively...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
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.

What makes you believe that it is a minority, offended people are more vocal by default. I think the feat is too much and while there might be a problem with monks I do not think this feat is the way to fix them.

My problem with the feat is that PCs are much more versatile than their opoonents in general while there are ways to bypass a feat I do not want to mold encounters to take care of the PC with this particular feat.

What annoys me about the feat is that a big hulking creature with a single attack, no matter his AB or how powerful can never ever hit this character. That feat was badly designed and saw much more use than just poor monks.


Sniggevert wrote:
Skull wrote:
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.
That's total defense, not fighting defensively...

Ah oops! that is what I meant yes (fighting defensively is something my crane style monks do even when shooting a sling)

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I support the change to Crane Wing.

-Skeld


I was actually surprised that this particular feat got errata, and the nature of the errata. I am definitely in the dislike camp. I would have guessed before reading it, that the only need for a ruling would be to clarify if the deflection was a miss or not. Now I play pathfinder solely in PFS, and actually have never seen it used, and none of my characters have the feat. I know Rogue Eidolon who I game with occasionally has mentioned a couple characters of his that used it, but I have never seen it in the wild. This might be my bias as I play much more than I GM PFS.

Though I admit I find people in home games being unwilling to use a house rule perplexing. I have never seen a home game with any system that did not introduce house rules. Honestly if in a home game I would probably ask if I could run Crane Style with the original ruling. The worst the GM could say is no.

I think there were really two or three things that soured people on Crane Wing. First is an assumption in favor of offense over defense. This means if something runs contrary to this assumption it will irritate people, as it overturns an implicit if not explicit expectation they have. I do wonder what amount of overlap there is between “I think AC is a joke” and “I hate that broken Crane Wing”. Secondly Crane Wings ability to negate natural twenties, something that people tend to feel is a deep core of the game. Even that luckless commoner has a one in four hundred chance to drop a much higher level character. The third is that Crane Wing felt 'unrealistic', which is a matter of taste and hence unanswerable. Then again I find the point where peoples feeling of verisimilitude break curious.

Though I should point out that, while I prefer the old feat, the feat is not completely worthless. I worry that people that have an issue with the old version feat might still find reason to dislike the new. After all the people complaining that a gnome could dodge a giant are missing the fact that though reduced, the crane wing still lets the gnome do this. It also still lets you negate natural twenties, and people that depend on one big attack as well, though at a greater price. The full feat chain still lets you beat a T-Rex to death in hand to hand combat as a Halfling, assuming the T-Rex is stupid enough to just keep attacking. That same Halfling is going to have issues against the smaller and lower level tiger.

Also looking at Crane Wing's new version I find the return of the mechanic from 3.5 dodge in Crane Wing slightly awkward. While it is possible to just say "I add +4 dodge against the first attack" you could just as likely say "Roll the first one, and then let me decide if I want to apply my deflection to the next" repeated down however many attacks. Admittedly this is a matter of etiquette. Especially in PFS where it is not really the GMs fault the monster has eight reach fifteen attacks that all do something horrible to you.

In any case it was one feat that did not destroy the game. It just tilted things to the defensive. Its neutering while unfortunate is not the end of the world. I do hope the people at Paizo change their minds, but for the most part find their judgement fairly reasonable. Also given the vitriol directed against them at times I find their response quite even tempered.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Remco Sommeling wrote:


What makes you believe that it is a minority, offended people are more vocal by default. I think the feat is too much and while there might be a problem with monks I do not think this feat is the way to fix them.

I'm not saying not to nerf it. Was there some in the community who wanted it change. Yes. Did they have to make it no longer worth taking anymore imo no. When a change screws over a lot of existing characters well don't expect members of the community to be happy. That it came about because of PFS well it makes me less happy. I respect and have sometimes played in PFS. I don't want them dictating what can or can't be in the game.

Scarab Sages

For the snatch arrows, I was just giving some ideas in the spur of the moment. I have two characters that uses Crane Wing, and to be honest, I am a bit upset.

If it was a retroactive bonus to a possible hit, then I would think that there would be a bit less of a backlash to this "Cranegate". But then again, you can't please everyone.

Grand Lodge

Skull wrote:


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".

I asked that question here and good news.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qlt2?Crane-Wing-Errata-and-Effects-on-PFS

If you're always fighting defensively, then Riposte is slightly better than Weapon Focus. There are times I use total defense, and the change to Crane Wing won't affect it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh joy, a non-caster got something ;10-15% as good as a lvl 1 spell..destroy it destroy it NOW all people who do not play the almighty mage must SUFFER AND SUCK....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:


What makes you believe that it is a minority, offended people are more vocal by default. I think the feat is too much and while there might be a problem with monks I do not think this feat is the way to fix them.
I'm not saying not to nerf it. Was there some in the community who wanted it change. Yes. Did they have to make it no longer worth taking anymore imo no. When a change screws over a lot of existing characters well don't expect members of the community to be happy. That it came about because of PFS well it makes me less happy. I respect and have sometimes played in PFS. I don't want them dictating what can or can't be in the game.

I still think it is worth taking personally though I find the mechanics awkward, reminds me of the 3.5 dodge feat.

I don't like them making decisions based on PFS either unless they make it clear it is specifically for PFS, I do not care for the cheesy early entry exploits into PrCs for example.

I am not sure what could be done to make it worthwhile again, neither do I think many people that liked the first feat will be any less offended by any power trimming done. We in our home game simply banned the feat and went on to look at a few hundred other feats.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Oh joy, a non-caster got something ;10-15% as good as a lvl 1 spell..destroy it destroy it NOW all people who do not play the almighty mage must SUFFER AND SUCK....

A fair point though draped in sarcasm, though I imagine there will be a similar outrage when they choose to nerf charm person.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Oh joy, a non-caster got something ;10-15% as good as a lvl 1 spell..destroy it destroy it NOW all people who do not play the almighty mage must SUFFER AND SUCK....

Welcome to Wizardfinder. We have cookies.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Consolidating my thoughts from another thread here since we have several running at once:

Honestly, I am not a fan of anything that allows auto hit or auto negation. So in that sense, there are several feats/spells/ect. I'd like to see rewritten. But as I see it, it's an all or nothing proposition.

I just wish I could be a fly on the wall to overhear the conversation that happens regarding game balance with the devs, because I simply do not understand some of their decisions.

Crane Wing was definitely strong. But is it truly that much stronger than Deflect Arrows?

That much stronger than allowing Oracles to use their casting stat for their AC without Dex restriction from armor?

That much stronger than a halfling Aldori Swordlord gaining +10 to AC with no penalty to hit when fighting defensively?

That much stronger than a tanked Paladin using Divine Interference to make his opponent re-roll their attack roll (and likely need another 20)?

That much stronger than Mirror Image?

That much stronger than gunslingers targeting touch AC in 95% of game play?

That much stronger than signature deed with the crazy Up Close and Deadly?

That much stronger than a rage pouncing decked out barbarian or perfect charge cavalier one shoting someone?

I understand game balance is a very delicate and complicated issue. You may note I included both powerful defensive and offensive abilities in my examples above. That is because both of these elements equally factor into the game, and bear consideration both independently and as a whole.

What confuses me most is this: It seems to me that the game designers are mostly ok with incredibly strong offensive abilities and combinations, but powerful defensive abilities are often censored more sternly or generally less effective comparatively.

I personally don't mind a change to Crane Wing, I just think the one they made was incredibly subpar. I would have rather seen the entire feat line get a minor tweak along these lings:

Crane Style: Perfect as is.

Crane Wing: Increase the fighting defensively AC bonus by an additional +1, and once per round when struck you may attempt to make an opposed attack roll as an attack of opportunity to negate the hit.

Crane Riposte: Reduce the penalty to hit from fighting defensively by 1, and when you successfully employ Crane Wing deflection you may make an immediate attack roll against the character you blocked.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

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.

How is a barbarian even getting Pounce at low levels?

AFAIK, Pounce at low levels is mostly the domain of spellcasters, shapechangers, and pets. Beast Totem has to wait until 10th.

Some thoughts: It seems that if a nerf was necessary, it should have been a simple question of nerfing the ability to get the feat at very low levels rather than gutting it like this.

It seems like bumping up the BAB/monk level prerequisite slightly (maybe to 7th or 9th) and leaving the rest of the feat unchanged (maybe ditching the FAQ letting it block maneuvers, though) could have been a very simple* nerf with at least the potential to make both sides of this current debate happy.

*(and simple makes *me* happy in a way that opposed attack rolls, variable ACs, and whatever else does not :p )


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

To those contenting "you can still do it if you go total defense". I can can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've seen ANY character in Pathfinder go total defense.


SlimGauge wrote:
To those contenting "you can still do it if you go total defense". I can can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've seen ANY character in Pathfinder go total defense.

might be it is done more if it is more useful... like taking a feat to make it so.


Lormyr wrote:
That much stronger than allowing Oracles to use their casting stat for their AC without Dex restriction from armor?

Say what now? Can you link me to where the devs errataed the ignore Max Dex from armor part? I have two oracles that would be affected by this errata. If that's true, I should be in full plate or something instead of using Mage Armor (because I can't afford Celestial yet). But I've seen nothing to support that. What did I miss?


Honestly I think a far better errata would be to have just made crane wing ineffective versus incorporeal attacks and attacks by creatures two size categories larger or smaller than you.

Alternatively even basing it off a skill (make it identical to snake style but using perception or acrobatics) would have been a better approach.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Remco Sommeling wrote:
SlimGauge wrote:
To those contenting "you can still do it if you go total defense". I can can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've seen ANY character in Pathfinder go total defense.
might be it is done more if it is more useful... like taking a feat to make it so.

Unfortunately that's not gonna be how it's going to work. You know what that's gonna make enemies do? Ignore you. They will see that you are clearly taking a defensive position, then ignore you and focus on your buddies.

Then OOC your friends are calling that monk an idiot for spending whole turns doing nothing while they actually fight.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

15 people marked this as a favorite.

Dear third party publishers,

Would one of you please publish a book, and, by book, I mean a single page, and on that page, please print the original version of Crane Wing. You're our only hope to save Pathfinder from the tyranny of Jason Bulmahn. Plus, you'll make a lot of money!

Your friend,

Sebastian


3 people marked this as a favorite.

That would help, Petrus. But the problem here is that Paizo completely ignored the actual problem, which is not really Crane Wing. It's the Master Of Many Styles, which allows everyone to dip and take Crane Wing by 3rd level.

The real solution? Make Crane Wing only available at 6th level and above. Remove the Master of Many Styles archetype. Give the MoMS ability to blend styles to ALL monks. Allow all monks to take a style feat as a bonus feat as long as they meet the prerequisites.

End of problem.

Shadow Lodge

THEY DIDN'T TOUCH MY SNAKE STYLE DID THEY?!?!?!?!

*checks errata*

whew... its still there.

Dabbler wrote:

That would help, Petrus. But the problem here is that Paizo completely ignored the actual problem, which is not really Crane Wing. It's the Master Of Many Styles, which allows everyone to dip and take Crane Wing by 3rd level.

The real solution? Make Crane Wing only available at 6th level and above. Remove the Master of Many Styles archetype. Give the MoMS ability to blend styles to ALL monks. Allow all monks to take a style feat as a bonus feat as long as they meet the prerequisites.

End of problem.

its too much ink. they would never rewrite an entire archetype to prevent abuse of one feat combo, you need to think in terms of MONEY!

Liberty's Edge

Even with my dislike of what done to Crane Wing. Even I think it's going to it's going too far to accuse any dev of "tyranny". I think they need to get more feedback first before implementing errata. If 80% or more like the change keep it. If 80% don't like the change than just don't implement it. Going for 100% acceptance for either is not going to happen. Go with with the majority want.

Presenting the changes as a fait accompli without any fan say just imo sucks. Wotc does that not Paizo. Or at least I hope they don't go down that road. If a change makes a character less effective and it gets implemented without my say why would I be happy.

Lantern Lodge

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Lormyr wrote:
That much stronger than allowing Oracles to use their casting stat for their AC without Dex restriction from armor?
Say what now? Can you link me to where the devs errataed the ignore Max Dex from armor part? I have two oracles that would be affected by this errata. If that's true, I should be in full plate or something instead of using Mage Armor (because I can't afford Celestial yet). But I've seen nothing to support that. What did I miss?

Ok, so if I have not overlooked one of the new mystery options, Oracles have 3 options for getting Cha to AC from mysteries:

Lore (sidestep secret) and Lunar (prophetic armor). Both of these options state that your Cha bonus is still restricted by armor.

Nature (nature's whispers) not only functions differently such as regarding CMD/Reflex issues, but also does not state a cap for armor. As indicated in the FAQ under sidestep secret, if the revelation does not make specific mention of further changes (such as using Cha for CMD with sidestep secret), then there are no further changes.

In fairness, I am certain this is simply an oversight. But that is RAW as I read it at least.

Edit: Actually, disregard that certainty. If signature deed/up close and deadly, double-barreled firearm mechanics, and/or a host of other things are not an oversight, then who knows?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's a ridiculous idea Sebastian.


TheSideKick wrote:
Dabbler wrote:

That would help, Petrus. But the problem here is that Paizo completely ignored the actual problem, which is not really Crane Wing. It's the Master Of Many Styles, which allows everyone to dip and take Crane Wing by 3rd level.

The real solution? Make Crane Wing only available at 6th level and above. Remove the Master of Many Styles archetype. Give the MoMS ability to blend styles to ALL monks. Allow all monks to take a style feat as a bonus feat as long as they meet the prerequisites.

End of problem.

its too much ink. they would never rewrite an entire archetype to prevent abuse of one feat combo, you need to think in terms of MONEY!

Well in my defence they wouldn't be re-writing the archetype, they'd be deleting it and adding a note into Style feats that monks can merge and blend them, and take them instead of bonus feats if they have the prerequisites, but I take your point.


Lormyr wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Lormyr wrote:
That much stronger than allowing Oracles to use their casting stat for their AC without Dex restriction from armor?
Say what now? Can you link me to where the devs errataed the ignore Max Dex from armor part? I have two oracles that would be affected by this errata. If that's true, I should be in full plate or something instead of using Mage Armor (because I can't afford Celestial yet). But I've seen nothing to support that. What did I miss?

Ok, so if I have not overlooked one of the new mystery options, Oracles have 3 options for getting Cha to AC from mysteries:

Lore (sidestep secret) and Lunar (prophetic armor). Both of these options state that your Cha bonus is still restricted by armor.

Nature (nature's whispers) not only functions differently such as regarding CMD/Reflex issues, but also does not state a cap for armor. As indicated in the FAQ under sidestep secret, if the revelation does not make specific mention of further changes (such as using Cha for CMD with sidestep secret), then there are no further changes.

In fairness, I am certain this is simply an oversight. But that is RAW as I read it at least.

Edit: Actually, disregard that certainty. If signature deed/up close and deadly, double-barreled firearm mechanics, and/or a host of other things are not an oversight, then who knows?

Expect table variation! Your nature oracle will be restricted by max dex in my PFS table (as will my own).

Liberty's Edge

Vikingchris wrote:
That's a ridiculous idea Sebastian.

Actually while crudely put I think he has a point. They keep making errata mistakes. Not asking for feedback. So why not have 3pp do it right.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Vikingchris wrote:
That's a ridiculous idea Sebastian.
Actually while crudely put I think he has a point. They keep making errata mistakes. Not asking for feedback. So why not have 3pp do it right.

/facepalm

Clearly my sarcasm font is broken.

Liberty's Edge

memorax wrote:
Vikingchris wrote:
That's a ridiculous idea Sebastian.
Actually while crudely put I think he has a point. They keep making errata mistakes. Not asking for feedback. So why not have 3pp do it right.

I mentioned this in one of the other crane wing threads but yea ruling like this, incomplete rules released into the wild and the general dumping on martials has made 3pp so much cash and i would contend for a sizable chunk of them are what make up their products along with original content.

Maybe its part of paizo's strategy to release what they want to release and let the 3pp fix them at a later date. Who knows.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Lormyr wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Lormyr wrote:
That much stronger than allowing Oracles to use their casting stat for their AC without Dex restriction from armor?
Say what now? Can you link me to where the devs errataed the ignore Max Dex from armor part? I have two oracles that would be affected by this errata. If that's true, I should be in full plate or something instead of using Mage Armor (because I can't afford Celestial yet). But I've seen nothing to support that. What did I miss?

Ok, so if I have not overlooked one of the new mystery options, Oracles have 3 options for getting Cha to AC from mysteries:

Lore (sidestep secret) and Lunar (prophetic armor). Both of these options state that your Cha bonus is still restricted by armor.

Nature (nature's whispers) not only functions differently such as regarding CMD/Reflex issues, but also does not state a cap for armor. As indicated in the FAQ under sidestep secret, if the revelation does not make specific mention of further changes (such as using Cha for CMD with sidestep secret), then there are no further changes.

In fairness, I am certain this is simply an oversight. But that is RAW as I read it at least.

Edit: Actually, disregard that certainty. If signature deed/up close and deadly, double-barreled firearm mechanics, and/or a host of other things are not an oversight, then who knows?

Expect table variation! Your nature oracle will be restricted by max dex in my PFS table (as will my own).

Glad to see PFS GMs use house-rules, but still had problems with crane wing.

Lantern Lodge

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Lormyr wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Lormyr wrote:
That much stronger than allowing Oracles to use their casting stat for their AC without Dex restriction from armor?
Say what now? Can you link me to where the devs errataed the ignore Max Dex from armor part? I have two oracles that would be affected by this errata. If that's true, I should be in full plate or something instead of using Mage Armor (because I can't afford Celestial yet). But I've seen nothing to support that. What did I miss?

Ok, so if I have not overlooked one of the new mystery options, Oracles have 3 options for getting Cha to AC from mysteries:

Lore (sidestep secret) and Lunar (prophetic armor). Both of these options state that your Cha bonus is still restricted by armor.

Nature (nature's whispers) not only functions differently such as regarding CMD/Reflex issues, but also does not state a cap for armor. As indicated in the FAQ under sidestep secret, if the revelation does not make specific mention of further changes (such as using Cha for CMD with sidestep secret), then there are no further changes.

In fairness, I am certain this is simply an oversight. But that is RAW as I read it at least.

Edit: Actually, disregard that certainty. If signature deed/up close and deadly, double-barreled firearm mechanics, and/or a host of other things are not an oversight, then who knows?

Expect table variation! Your nature oracle will be restricted by max dex in my PFS table (as will my own).

I think you can make a strong argument either way on that, but you can see where my conclusion comes from based on comparisons, yes?

The Exchange

Terokai wrote:
memorax wrote:
Vikingchris wrote:
That's a ridiculous idea Sebastian.
Actually while crudely put I think he has a point. They keep making errata mistakes. Not asking for feedback. So why not have 3pp do it right.

I mentioned this in one of the other crane wing threads but yea ruling like this, incomplete rules released into the wild and the general dumping on martials has made 3pp so much cash and i would contend for a sizable chunk of them are what make up their products along with original content.

Maybe its part of paizo's strategy to release what they want to release and let the 3pp fix them at a later date. Who knows.

That worked out so well for them didnt it?


Marthkus wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Lormyr wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Lormyr wrote:
That much stronger than allowing Oracles to use their casting stat for their AC without Dex restriction from armor?
Say what now? Can you link me to where the devs errataed the ignore Max Dex from armor part? I have two oracles that would be affected by this errata. If that's true, I should be in full plate or something instead of using Mage Armor (because I can't afford Celestial yet). But I've seen nothing to support that. What did I miss?

Ok, so if I have not overlooked one of the new mystery options, Oracles have 3 options for getting Cha to AC from mysteries:

Lore (sidestep secret) and Lunar (prophetic armor). Both of these options state that your Cha bonus is still restricted by armor.

Nature (nature's whispers) not only functions differently such as regarding CMD/Reflex issues, but also does not state a cap for armor. As indicated in the FAQ under sidestep secret, if the revelation does not make specific mention of further changes (such as using Cha for CMD with sidestep secret), then there are no further changes.

In fairness, I am certain this is simply an oversight. But that is RAW as I read it at least.

Edit: Actually, disregard that certainty. If signature deed/up close and deadly, double-barreled firearm mechanics, and/or a host of other things are not an oversight, then who knows?

Expect table variation! Your nature oracle will be restricted by max dex in my PFS table (as will my own).
Glad to see PFS GMs use house-rules, but still had problems with crane wing.

It's not a house rule. It's RAW as best as I can read them. The other direction requires a tortuous interpretation to reach it, though I now see what that interpretation is and respect that it is possible to rules-lawyer that way. Lormyr showed me that it isn't unfounded.


MoMS problem,

Why not just change the bonus feats not to ignore bab or monk level requirements?

Just my 2 copper.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Glad to see PFS GMs use house-rules, but still had problems with crane wing.
It's not a house rule. It's RAW. The other direction requires a tortuous interpretation to reach it, though I now see what that interpretation is and respect that it is possible to rules-lawyer that way.

Might be easier to say anything that isn't perfectly clear is in reach for a PFS GM to self interpret.


MrSin wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Glad to see PFS GMs use house-rules, but still had problems with crane wing.
It's not a house rule. It's RAW. The other direction requires a tortuous interpretation to reach it, though I now see what that interpretation is and respect that it is possible to rules-lawyer that way.
Might be easier to say anything that isn't perfectly clear is in reach for a PFS GM to self interpret.

You're right, it's possible for a PFS GM to self interpret some weird reading like Nature Oracles getting their full Cha bonus in full plate. It's actually why PFS leads to so many threads asking for FAQ rulings from the devs, when one Nature Oracle walks to one of those weird, 1 in 100 tables with both another Nature Oracle who has always played a home game with that kind of GM and such a GM who makes that kind of weird ruling and has their jaw drop.


Rogue Eidolon wrote:
You're right, it's possible for a PFS GM to self interpret some weird reading like Nature Oracles getting their full Cha bonus in full plate. It's actually why PFS leads to so many threads asking for FAQ rulings from the devs, when one Nature Oracle walks to one of those weird, 1 in 100 tables with both another Nature Oracle who has always played a home game with that kind of GM and such a GM who makes that kind of weird ruling and has their jaw drop.

Well, that and its honestly not entirely clear and everyone's probably a little curious. PFS forums are slightly different than the other forums, but not that different, imo at least.


Darth Grall wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:
SlimGauge wrote:
To those contenting "you can still do it if you go total defense". I can can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've seen ANY character in Pathfinder go total defense.
might be it is done more if it is more useful... like taking a feat to make it so.

Unfortunately that's not gonna be how it's going to work. You know what that's gonna make enemies do? Ignore you. They will see that you are clearly taking a defensive position, then ignore you and focus on your buddies.

Then OOC your friends are calling that monk an idiot for spending whole turns doing nothing while they actually fight.

It's that easy damn.. I do know quite a few players willing to spend a feat on that.


Remco Sommeling wrote:
Darth Grall wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:
SlimGauge wrote:
To those contenting "you can still do it if you go total defense". I can can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've seen ANY character in Pathfinder go total defense.
might be it is done more if it is more useful... like taking a feat to make it so.

Unfortunately that's not gonna be how it's going to work. You know what that's gonna make enemies do? Ignore you. They will see that you are clearly taking a defensive position, then ignore you and focus on your buddies.

Then OOC your friends are calling that monk an idiot for spending whole turns doing nothing while they actually fight.

It's that easy damn.. I do know quite a few players willing to spend a feat on that.

You don't need to spend a feat to call someone who uses the total defense action an idiot. That's always been a free action even if you want to do so in character. Doing so out of character doesn't even take that.


Remco Sommeling wrote:
It's that easy damn.. I do know quite a few players willing to spend a feat on that.

Feat choices like this will only lead to party strife. Plain and simple. If your players wanna play the, I'm invincible game, go ahead. Hope you other players are ready to pick up the extra aggro out of character.


voska66 wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
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.

The Master of Many Styles in itself is not broken by any means, if anything it's a fairly balanced monk archetype (relative to the power level of the monk itself). The problem with MoMS is that it is incredibly attractive to multiclass into - one or two levels (depending on race and what level you dip) allows you to pick up IUS, +2 saves across the board, Crane Style, AND Crane Wing. You won't get Flurry of Blows but the average dipper won't care about flurries anyway.

A very quick fix to the MoMS crane wing problem would be to require the Master of Many Styles to pick up two different style feats on level 1 and 2, open "2nd tier" style feats (like Crane Wing or Djinni Spirit) at level 3, and "3rd tier" style feats (like Snake Fang) at level 5. He's still getting access to the style feats before the other classes, but he's not quite as dip-friendly.

Digital Products Assistant

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Flipped some things back around.

We understand that the changes are going to cause debate, and this has not been the easiest thing to sort out. Let's try to get things de-escalated here, please.

301 to 350 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