| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since the recent errata makes this feat (and by extension Crane Riposte) broke (as in underpowered or useless), I think it needs a change.
My proposed change is to revert it back to the way it was before, but with the bolded change:
This puts an amount of guesswork involved, and the designated attack can still hit if it results in a natural 20 (though it isn't a critical hit).
Players could very well designate the first attack in a round as their deflection, but if that attack roll results in a miss regardless of Crane Wing, it still counts against the use.
[Edit] Ultimate Combat errata. Scroll down to the errata (just below the description of the book) and download the First - Second printing 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 deflect one melee attack that would normally hit you. An attack so deflected 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 flat-footed.
Can someone please link me to said errata or tell me where I can find it?
Updated the initial post.
|
Previous version:
Crane Wing (Combat)
You move with the speed and finesse of an avian hunter, your sweeping blocks and graceful motions allowing you to deflect melee attacks with ease.
Prerequisites: Crane Style, Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +5 or monk level 5th.
Benefit: Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you. You expend no action to deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you.
|
|
SKR just closed out the thread on the general forums until the morning. Hopefully a bad copy got pushed and they're sorting out the mess that is the crane style chain right now. RAW this moment, Crane Riposte does not function - you can't take an AoO during total defense.
I'm going to swallow all the angry stuff I want to write about this change until we get some comment from Paizo staff.
I like the Errata'd errata you posted, but the only issue I take with this, is that now it kind of just makes Crane Riposte an automatic thing, where, before, the riposted attack actually had to hit, in order to be riposted. While that's not a huge deal, it's something to keep in consideration, when you propose this type of thing.
That's a good point. I fear my annoyed post in the other thread was one of the ones that inspired SKR to lock it. So, in the spirit of things, I will make my own constructive criticism. Here's an edit to Tel's suggested wording, that corrects the problem with the feat's interaction with Riposte:
It's longer than either the original feat or the errata, which makes it difficult. Maybe there's a shorter way to word it?
Edit: here's another possible addition to keep the way the new errata gives total defense a greater benefit: If you are using total defense, you may declare deflection after the roll is made but before the results are announced.
Edit the second: I also should express my apologies for the angry post in the previous thread, if SKR or any other paizo employee happens to read this thread.
My other suggestion is leaving the new Crane Wing as is, but changing Crane Riposte to have a purpose.
I can't say that I can think of a shorter way of saying it, but it's not terribly long. Compare it to something like Stunning Fist; it's easy to remember, even if the text is relatively long, and it's fairly straightforward.
My suggestion is to leave the original feat alone instead of falling into the ad temperantiam trap. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Fortunately, GMs are empowered to ignore errata they don't like. Hooray for free will!
But somebody jut mentioned SKR, so say goodbye to the thread. ; )
My suggestion is to leave the original feat alone instead of falling into the ad temperantiam trap. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Fortunately, GMs are empowered to ignore errata they don't like. Hooray for free will!
But somebody jut mentioned SKR, so say goodbye to the thread. ; )
Eh, the issue was that the feat was a bit too powerful, at least in my experience. It's not where I'd point to, were I to have to point out a feat or option that was OP, but it was pretty powerful (though, it was, like many things, much better in the hands of a non-monk; Swordlords and Magi tended to get the most out of it). The big issue was that the devs both over-corrected and refused to acknowledge even more broken options first.
Eh, the issue was that the feat was a bit too powerful, at least in my experience. It's not where I'd point to, were I to have to point out a feat or option that was OP, but it was pretty powerful (though, it was, like many things, much better in the hands of a non-monk; Swordlords and Magi tended to get the most out of it). The big issue was that the devs both over-corrected and refused to acknowledge even more broken options first.I think I've figured out their policy for errata/corrections.
Is this broken in terms of being worthless or useless? If yes, get to it eventually or release a fix which makes it mostly worthless and call it a day.
Is this broken in terms of being good? Is it for a spellcaster? Good for them they deserve it.
Is it for a Martial? If yes, is it for the Barbarian or Paladin? Good.Is this okay but probably not broken except situationally? Ok ... wait is it for the Monk or Rogue? If yes, nerf that sum'b+~*% right into the ground.
Yup, I see this as well. Oh well, it was fun while the monk had a pretty decent feat chain...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think one thing I'd like to see intelligently discussed is this. And legitimately discussed, not snarky and whiny comments like up above.
What is the primary difference between Deflect Arrows and Crane Wing? That is, what scenarios make Deflect Arrows acceptable but Crane Wing not? Ranged vs melee? I'm curious about it.
I think one thing I'd like to see intelligently discussed is this. And legitimately discussed, not snarky and whiny comments like up above.
What is the primary difference between Deflect Arrows and Crane Wing? That is, what scenarios make Deflect Arrows acceptable but Crane Wing not? Ranged vs melee? I'm curious about it.
The only real thing is that ranged tends to be less common than melee, but I don't think that's really a fair argument for the level of the nerf
The only real thing is that ranged tends to be less common than melee, but I don't think that's really a fair argument for the level of the nerfI think one thing I'd like to see intelligently discussed is this. And legitimately discussed, not snarky and whiny comments like up above.
What is the primary difference between Deflect Arrows and Crane Wing? That is, what scenarios make Deflect Arrows acceptable but Crane Wing not? Ranged vs melee? I'm curious about it.
That is a good point to bring up, though. Melee attackers are much more common. Consider that many of the animals, magical beasts, and undead do not have ranged attacks and they can make up a huge bulk of encounters. Of course, a counterpoint is that many of these creatures have multiple attacks, even at level one. So one attack gets deflected, but the secondary attacks can still come in.
Another thing to consider is the potency of ranged attacks. Since generally speaking, ranged attackers can get their iterative attacks off more often. This could be why it's alright for Deflect Arrows to be more potent.
The only real thing is that ranged tends to be less common than melee, but I don't think that's really a fair argument for the level of the nerfI think one thing I'd like to see intelligently discussed is this. And legitimately discussed, not snarky and whiny comments like up above.
What is the primary difference between Deflect Arrows and Crane Wing? That is, what scenarios make Deflect Arrows acceptable but Crane Wing not? Ranged vs melee? I'm curious about it.
That is a good point to bring up, though. Melee attackers are much more common. Consider that many of the animals, magical beasts, and undead do not have ranged attacks and they can make up a huge bulk of encounters. Of course, a counterpoint is that many of these creatures have multiple attacks, even at level one. So one attack gets deflected, but the secondary attacks can still come in.
Another thing to consider is the potency of ranged attacks. Since generally speaking, ranged attackers can get their iterative attacks off more often. This could be why it's alright for Deflect Arrows to be more potent.
That is possibly the explanation, but as another counterpoint to that, consider that Deflect Arrows requires one feat prerequisite, where Crane Wing requires three and a BAB (or Monk Level) requirement. So while the old crane wing was a bit more powerful (in general), it requires a greater investment.
I'm guessing it's because someone decided it was silly for a non-magical character to deflect a dragon's bite or giant's club with one hand. Never mind deflect arrows lets you do the same thing with bullets of course. If this really was the issue, a better errata would've been to just put a size restriction on the thing such as *you cannot deflect an attack made by a creature two size categories than you or larger*.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deflect arrows also has a size difference limitation baked in - your monk isn't going to be deflecting ballista bolts. I'd be ok with a size limitation clause being put into crane wing if it needs a nerf. 'you may only deflect attacks from creatures no more than one size larger than yourself' would ease the hateboner that a lot of people seem to have about Crane Style while still leaving it useful.
Until crane riposte at least gets an errata as well I will be leaving the feat chain as is. It was a good option but still not so good as to be basically mandatory like some feats. I still fin it odd that crane wing is considered more problematic than say simulacrum.
Deflect arrows also has a size difference limitation baked in - your monk isn't going to be deflecting ballista bolts. I'd be ok with a size limitation clause being put into crane wing if it needs a nerf. 'you may only deflect attacks from creatures no more than one size larger than yourself' would ease the hateboner that a lot of people seem to have about Crane Style while still leaving it useful.
Ah, I forgot about the size limitation. I think that is a large thing to consider when comparing the two, especially since as you get higher in levels, you deal with larger foes. In higher levels, you can deflect the primary attack, then use your AC to dodge the secondary/tetriary/etc attacks. Remember, as the levels go higher, the first attack is usually a sure hit, with AC helping against the iterative attacks. Being able to block that sure hit from a creature of any size is a big deal.
Until crane riposte at least gets an errata as well I will be leaving the feat chain as is. It was a good option but still not so good as to be basically mandatory like some feats. I still fin it odd that crane wing is considered more problematic than say simulacrum.
For Crane Riposte, I consider it a specific rule over-riding a general rule. I think a quote to apply it to misses and deflections would be appropriate, but it's fine for me atm.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Until crane riposte at least gets an errata as well I will be leaving the feat chain as is. It was a good option but still not so good as to be basically mandatory like some feats. I still fin it odd that crane wing is considered more problematic than say simulacrum.
Ah, you see, but simulacrum is a spell, so it's immune to the nerf-bat.
Couldn't help the useless snark, could you?
If a creatures attacks are all natural attacks the difference isn't going to be that great. An adult red dragon has a difference of +2 to hit between primary and secondary attacks. With 6 attacks total and about 7 damage difference between it's best attack and it's next best. If it means the difference between one attack hitting or not the feat still reduces the damage you take by a good margin, however before it was a sure thing and now it's quite variable in it's usefulness.
The main difference is the effect it has against single creature encounters where the creature is limited to one attack. The old version was great against a single creature like a tyrannosaurus because it was basically incapable of hurting you, the new version is only useful if you have already invested in a high AC.
|
Crane Riposte (Combat)
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 are using the total defense action instead, you can deflect one melee attack that would normally hit you. An attack so deflected 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 flat-footed.
Crane Wing (Combat)
Benefit: Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you. You expend no action to deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you.
It seems they just really wanted to break the chain of Crane/Snake style users. What an odd thing to focus on.
If a creatures attacks are all natural attacks the difference isn't going to be that great. An adult red dragon has a difference of +2 to hit between primary and secondary attacks. With 6 attacks total and about 7 damage difference between it's best attack and it's next best.
I don't think anyone was trying to say that the feat was too powerful when multiple attacks are a given. But when single attacks are a style some characters build around, the old way the crane feat worked was too powerful.
If a character is designed around spring attack and vital strike, a monk with the old crane style could essentially be immune to that character's attacks. A couple of people are saying "so what, use a bow instead," but I don't think they'd feel the same if another combat style was completely shut down by a feat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a creatures attacks are all natural attacks the difference isn't going to be that great. An adult red dragon has a difference of +2 to hit between primary and secondary attacks. With 6 attacks total and about 7 damage difference between it's best attack and it's next best.I don't think anyone was trying to say that the feat was too powerful when multiple attacks are a given. But when single attacks are a style some characters build around, the old way the crane feat worked was too powerful.
If a character is designed around spring attack and vital strike, a monk with the old crane style could essentially be immune to that character's attacks. A couple of people are saying "so what, use a bow instead," but I don't think they'd feel the same if another combat style was completely shut down by a feat.
Forgive me if this comes off as in any way snarky but, in a world with level 9 magic, how is this a bad thing? If Crane Wing is used by an enemy NPC, good, the PCs have to work a little harder to hurt them. If it's taken by a PC, good, the PC has dedicated at least 3 feats into getting a decent defensive posture going rather than going full offense. Either way, it encourages a degree of diversity in party thinking many people wouldn't normally have without it. Paizo didn't create balance with this change, they simply destroyed something creative and useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They could have added a size restriction (ala Deflect Arrows). Something like, "You can only deflect an attack from a creature no more than one" (or two, perhaps) "size categories larger than you. For example, a medium-size Fighter may use Crane Wing to deflect a single attack from a creature of Large-size or smaller; he may not deflect an attack from a Huge, Gargantuan, or Colossal creature."
Or something like that, perhaps.
MA
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a creatures attacks are all natural attacks the difference isn't going to be that great. An adult red dragon has a difference of +2 to hit between primary and secondary attacks. With 6 attacks total and about 7 damage difference between it's best attack and it's next best.I don't think anyone was trying to say that the feat was too powerful when multiple attacks are a given. But when single attacks are a style some characters build around, the old way the crane feat worked was too powerful.
If a character is designed around spring attack and vital strike, a monk with the old crane style could essentially be immune to that character's attacks. A couple of people are saying "so what, use a bow instead," but I don't think they'd feel the same if another combat style was completely shut down by a feat.
Spring attack and vital strike aren't usable together. Apparently they thought it would be overpowered.
They could have added a size restriction (ala Deflect Arrows). Something like, "You can only deflect an attack from a creature no more than one" (or two, perhaps) "size categories larger than you. For example, a medium-size Fighter may use Crane Wing to deflect a single attack from a creature of Large-size or smaller; he may not deflect an attack from a Huge, Gargantuan, or Colossal creature."
Or something like that, perhaps.
MA
Yep, it'd make sense if it was just restricted to something no more than one size category larger than you. Even with Enlarge Person, you still couldn't deflect a gargantuan T-rex's bite. Which, if I remember some prior threads on this feat chain correctly, was a major gripe people seemed to have with it.
Another thing to consider is the potency of ranged attacks. Since generally speaking, ranged attackers can get their iterative attacks off more often. This could be why it's alright for Deflect Arrows to be more potent.
Firing into a melee and various types of cover are a huge issue with ranged attack accuracy. Without proper feat investment, these two factors can and usually do favor the defender against the ranged attacks. And yet despite this, deflect Arrows still only has the one prereq feat and is auto-deflect.
|
|
Having used it through the PFS career on my level 12, I definitely saw situations where it was very very strong. A fighter fighting a spectre or a ghost or a rust monster immediately freaks out because his high AC is useless but with crane wing he is immune to that one attack around.
I think snake style is more along the line where it is a roll not an automatic effect. I imagine because of snake style they didn't want to copy its mechanic so they added a different one. I think snake style will indeed become more popular now, but in that case it will be a roll vs. an attack roll which is guaranteed success, and to be honest more fun as a player because those nasty things with one evil attack just got scarier.
I think a workable change (which I think was alluded to in one of the other threads) would be to allow the AoO from Riposte to function if the attack designated by Crane Wing (whether fighting defensively or total defense) misses (or maybe misses because of the added dodge bonus if fighting defensively?). So, you'd generally automatically get one if you're going total defense but you'd only get one when fighting defensively if the designated attack failed to surpass the heightened AC.
You'd still get a solid benefit from Crane Wing/Riposte at that point, but obviously it wouldn't be the same auto-AoO every single round like it was before.
|
|
The Errata actually makes Crane Wing more powerful then it was in the Full Defense mode.
It used to be that when an attack was deflected with Crane Wing it was NOT treated as a Miss, it just did no damage. (Though many wrongly interpreted it as being treated as a miss anyway.)
Why is this distinction Important? Go Look at Snapping Turtle Clutch and see what you do when someone "Misses" you.
Normally, this isn't a problem because you can't be in both styles at once, but a Master of Many Styles Monk CAN.
|
I thought Crane Wing worked as it was. It was a once per round gimic, so fighting lots of mooks, it was essentially good for taking a little less damage. Bosses usually had multiple attacks.
I really think the only thing Crane Wing needed was a size limitation, you could not deflect the attack of a creature 1 or 2 size categories higher. That was all it needed.
As it is now, the feat chain does not work.
Riposte is worthless as the rules in riposte are not specific on this AoO. It also forces the Monk into either using Crane Style tree, and only ever getting one attack MAYBE per round (the enemy has to be deflected, if they do not even hit the AC no deflection), and if the monk is built even sub optimally, with FULL defense, their AC is probably going to be upper 20's and getting hit very few times.
The change to this feat made it incredibly worthless and really took the flavor away, and I have GMed for Crane monks. Annoying at level 1-5, levels 6+ there are just too many attacks to deflect.
The Errata actually makes Crane Wing more powerful then it was in the Full Defense mode.
It used to be that when an attack was deflected with Crane Wing it was NOT treated as a Miss, it just did no damage. (Though many wrongly interpreted it as being treated as a miss anyway.)
Why is this distinction Important? Go Look at Snapping Turtle Clutch and see what you do when someone "Misses" you.
Normally, this isn't a problem because you can't be in both styles at once, but a Master of Many Styles Monk CAN.
So, it's now a small buff for one archetype of one class when using a very specific combination of two different styles...and that's it? No love for rogues or ninjas or non-MoMS monks or anyone else? I'm not sure I'd call that 'more powerful', but I guess to each his own.
The change to this feat made it incredibly worthless and really took the flavor away, and I have GMed for Crane monks. Annoying at level 1-5, levels 6+ there are just too many attacks to deflect.
I thought monks normally couldn't get this feat until level 5 anyways?
MoMS allows you to ignore the prereqs. Could get the whole chain at level 2 (and normally that would be the end of ones career as a monk)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The change to this feat made it incredibly worthless and really took the flavor away, and I have GMed for Crane monks. Annoying at level 1-5, levels 6+ there are just too many attacks to deflect.I thought monks normally couldn't get this feat until level 5 anyways?
If you take a level of Unarmed Fighter followed by two levels of MoMS Monk, you can take any complete Style feat chain that doesn't involve Elemental Fist, just from the bonus feats of those three levels.
MoMS allows you to ignore the prereqs. Could get the whole chain at level 2 (and normally that would be the end of ones career as a monk)
So, I was correct, most monks CAN'T get this until level 5, MoMS being the lone, notable exception. Well, considering they give up Flurry of Blows for the archetype, I still don't see how that's too bad.
The fact that a feat may be styled or most optimal in a very narrow circumstance shouldn't be all that shocking especially among the style feats.
I have to say i liked crane style as it was, before this errata, very much, since it offered a good and valid option to trade a heavy feat investment for a good AC. I mostly used it without the monk crossclass, but on light armored melee types.
In my eyes it expecially lent itself to halflings, totally fitting my concept of a halfling, swiftly avoiding blows somehow. Actually i planned to have a halfling swashbuckler using that feat line later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say i liked crane style as it was, before this errata, very much, since it offered a good and valid option to trade a heavy feat investment for a good AC. I mostly used it without the monk crossclass, but on light armored melee types.
In my eyes it expecially lent itself to halflings, totally fitting my concept of a halfling, swiftly avoiding blows somehow. Actually i planned to have a halfling swashbuckler using that feat line later.
I'd bet dollars to pesos that it was nerfed because it made the Swashbuckler Parry-Riposte look bad.
I have used this line of feats quit a bit as both a player and a DM. It is no more broken than Deflect Arrows, which is to say it was not broken. There is an easy work around and that is to hit with multiple blows.
If there was anything that seemed out of line, it was the Monk archetype that allowed early entry in to the feat tree. Even that was not overpowered, because Monks usually are on the far bottom of the power curve.
If anyone asked my opinion, I would not change it and I would probably ignore the errata except for the fact that the PRD and the D20PFSRD and HeroLab will all make the change.
I'd bet dollars to pesos that it was nerfed because it made the Swashbuckler Parry-Riposte look bad.I have to say i liked crane style as it was, before this errata, very much, since it offered a good and valid option to trade a heavy feat investment for a good AC. I mostly used it without the monk crossclass, but on light armored melee types.
In my eyes it expecially lent itself to halflings, totally fitting my concept of a halfling, swiftly avoiding blows somehow. Actually i planned to have a halfling swashbuckler using that feat line later.
I've heard this a couple times now, but I can't find my playtest doc to see why. How does it look bad? What does the Swashbuckler thing do?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm running a RotRL game (currently on Book 3), and one of my players - a monk - has the feat. Since most encounters have been mostly melee monsters, it means that any monster that tries to move in to attack has its first attack blocked, and follow-up full attacks could be partially blocked. Since the user of the feat doesn't need to declare which attack they're blocking (for example, "the first attack" or "the bite"), they get to ignore the first attack that would otherwise hit them, not necessarily simply ignore a single attack. That's...pretty strong, especially in games where monsters are largely melee, and the group size of enemies are relatively small.
If monsters attacked with more ranged attacks and spells, this feat would have been more balanced. As it stood, I think it was a bit over-powerful. As it is now, I think it is under-powered, and I do hope that gets fixed, but I feel like the feat needed a nerf.
Yes, it's a nerf that affects monks, but it is one that I think needed to happen. Allowing a PC or NPC to ignore one attack that hits them every combat round with no way to get through ("Oh, you rolled a 20? BLOCK.") seems a bit much. Meanwhile, the monk can still attack with very small penalties (-2 with Crane Style, only a -1 with Crane Riposte).
The errata proposed by the OP seems much more balanced without being a complete nerf to the feat. I haven't thought about it enough to decide if it would cause other problems, though.