I was wrong.I commend you for admitting that, especially on a message board. Hopefully we can let this go now and cut down on the sniping.
You guys are acting like he hasn't done this before heh. He did in the Rogue thread too. He's just acting like a sensible human being when presented with fair arguments. Which is a difficult feat when you have the mask of anonymity on the internet! Though I wish it hadn't come down to "We need Word of God to tell us otherwise!" because that path leads to some really silly FAQ requests.
No one knows you're a banana on the internet...
No one knows you're a banana on the internet...
I was wrong.I commend you for admitting that, especially on a message board. Hopefully we can let this go now and cut down on the sniping.You guys are acting like he hasn't done this before heh. He did in the Rogue thread too. He's just acting like a sensible human being when presented with fair arguments. Which is a difficult feat when you have the mask of anonymity on the internet! Though I wish it hadn't come down to "We need Word of God to tell us otherwise!" because that path leads to some really silly FAQ requests.
No one knows you're a banana on the internet...
I do remember that, I was one of the people who debated with him in the rogue thread actually - I just make a point of expressing gratitude for shows of humility, common sense and keeping an open mind on message boards. It doesn't happen nearly as often as I wish it did.
That's weird. The dead condition specifically says that the soul leaves the body. AKA You are no longer in the body. So go ahead and full-attack. Not that it would do much since you are no longer in your body or necessarily a ghost.You know, if Markthus is really this serious about his interpretation that denied dex = flat-footed, I bet he's also the kind of guy who argues he can still attack when he's dead because dead isn't defined in the rules.Oh god, not that again. I still remember that one thread from the rules forum, with people arguing over what is and isn't an object in reference to recently dead bodies.
I believe it started as part of a discussion on things like Breath of Life. Needless to say, the thread got fairly silly towards the end. Not as silly as the 'Does purify food/drink let me get nourishment out of human waste' thread, but still fairly silly.
I believe it started as part of a discussion on things like Breath of Life. Needless to say, the thread got fairly silly towards the end. Not as silly as the 'Does purify food/drink let me get nourishment out of human waste' thread, but still fairly silly.That's weird. The dead condition specifically says that the soul leaves the body. AKA You are no longer in the body. So go ahead and full-attack. Not that it would do much since you are no longer in your body or necessarily a ghost.You know, if Markthus is really this serious about his interpretation that denied dex = flat-footed, I bet he's also the kind of guy who argues he can still attack when he's dead because dead isn't defined in the rules.Oh god, not that again. I still remember that one thread from the rules forum, with people arguing over what is and isn't an object in reference to recently dead bodies.
Well yeah that is pretty dumb. You don't need a spell to drink your own pee.
Uhm, it wasn't about #1...
Not as silly as the 'Does purify food/drink let me get nourishment out of human waste' thread, but still fairly silly.
Hey! Uncalled for! That was a serious discussion by a number of curious intellectuals.
Dude, just be glad I only called it silly. 'Curious intellectual', indeed. =P
Not as silly as the 'Does purify food/drink let me get nourishment out of human waste' thread, but still fairly silly.Hey! Uncalled for! That was a serious discussion by a number of curious intellectuals.
And if you cast Prestigidation it even tastes great.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because an optimized monk build using this feat chain is a headache for a GM. I speak from experience here. I have one in my game right now.
I now have to generate encounters with creatures that have insanely high attack bonuses and multiple attacks per round just to challenge the monk in the group, at the expense of everyone else playing who can't--like in last night's session--deflect a 4d8+22 damage bite attack from a Gargantuan creature (and thus the subsequent grab/swallow checks).
I have to routinely break the thematic content of the campaign I am running to incorporate monsters that don't fit in just to give the monk a taste of fear for his life.
That's not fun. That's facerolling. It's playing on Easy mode. When there is no challenge, there is no reason to play.
I disagree vehemently.
I recall there being an old DMing axiom: "Don't punish your players for what their good at." Just because a party has terribly low Touch AC but really high AC, doesn't mean every NPC now has Advanced Firearms. Just cause on character has great Will saves doesn't mean you just throw Reflexes at them. And just because there's a paladin in the party, doesn't mean you stop throwing evil creatures at the party to deny him his bonus to hit.
People build their PCs to be good at something, invalidating it is not the right thing to do. If said monk was so durable, let him be durable. Those few moments he has to sweat will be all the more memorable, when he comes up against a well equipped Archer, or interesting monster. That monk's taken penalties to get there, including sacrificing AB and paid several feats Taxes to qualify.
Plus, all you have to do is ignore him for his choice of feats to become useless, you need not throw monstrosities just to counter a single monk. That's just excessive.
This. SO HARD.
What is the rest of the party doing when the solo monster with one attack feels the need to "challenge" the guy with crane wing?
How is the encounter any worse off than if the monster had decided to attack one of the other three targets in sight? The guy with crane wing still doesn't get hit...
So if we can accept that encounters which involve a solo enemy, and that enemy only has melee attack options, and can only use those options once per round happen less than 50% of the time (and I personally think that is high, even in low levels that number should be closer to 20-25%) and the enemy decides to focus that attack on no one in particular then the guy with crane wing would see his ability to completely negate all damage he takes in a round 12.5% (1 fight in 8) of the time.
Now, the crane wing build usually has a high AC so it should be safe to say that the solo enemy with one attack that focuses on Mr. Wing will miss greater than 50% (probably closer to 80-85%) of the time which reduces the ability for crane wingers to negate all damage in a round down to about 6.25% (1 fight in 16). I see no problem with letting a character get complete and full use from a feat 1/16 encounters. Also, if you accept my parenthetical numbers it is much closer to 1% of the time.
In all honesty if you find this feat troubling as a GM more than 10% of the time you are either (A) building your encounter poorly (B) not taking advantage of the options available to your monsters/NPC's, or (C) picking on the character who has crane wing.
Totally surprised by the direction the thread took there. Thought people were all up in arms about crane again, instead flatfooted vs denied dex. Strange but funny.
I still do think that if Fienting did actually make them flatfooted to the fienter crane would have been perfectly fine and no on in particular would mind a buff to an often ignored subsystem. Get on that Paizo, even if you guys change Wing.
Just checking back to see those polling numbers.
Wow. Just wow.
Those numbers are really damning.
That's what I mean. The polling numbers are damning to the developers who made the change. Among people who participated in the poll, the vast majority of them feel the change was handled wrong, or unnecessary.
I really hope the devs take another crack at this (or just recind the errata all together. That would be good too)
I have no hope left that this nerf gets addressed again.
The errata getting recinded would involve the devs admitting they were wrong, on the internet. Do we really expect someone doing that to happen more than once in a single thread? =P
So you're saying Marthkus ruined any chance of an erratum to the crane wing erratum? Quick, Marthkus, go back to saying flat-footed and denied Dex are the same! It's the only way we can have a not terrible crane wing!
Yeah, I saw 77 new posts and figured there must have been another Crane Wing change. If they made it so you can use the +4 AC after you've been hit I think that would be pretty cool.
In somewhat related news, I recently adjusted the long term build plans for a 1st level PC of mine to include the Crane feats. He's a Feral Gnasher who will be able to grapple without counting as grappled, so with Rapid Grappler and Crane Wing I figure he should be able to grapple an enemy twice per round while still using a standard action for Total Defense. I'll probably start a thread in rules questions to make sure this is all legal though if Crane Wing isn't finalized yet I guess what's legal today might not be legal by 7th level.
I'm not worried about the power level, just the specifics of how the feat gets used. I'd be relying on a pretty specific combination of action types, so any changes could throw things into disarray.
Jason Bulmahn posted HERE that the issue with Crane Wing is still under review. I have not been following the Crane Wing discussions but has there been any more from the design team?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jason Bulmahn posted HERE that the issue with Crane Wing is still under review. I have not been following the Crane Wing discussions but has there been any more from the design team?
Call me crazy, but I took the "is still under review" to read "we're letting the outrage die down, to the point where it just gets lumped in with the Brass knuckles FAQ, and stuff like that, whenever people gripe about the poor decisions Paizo makes, but not actually intent on changing anything."
Not since the end of last month, at least not from Jason. Don't have anything on it from SKR or the Design Team's official ID either. Best case scenario: they've taken into account the polled data here and the (better reasoned) impassioned rationales in the other thread and are unnerfing it somewhat to make it still an attractive option...in another 3-6 months.
Not since the end of last month, at least not from Jason. Don't have anything on it from SKR or the Design Team's official ID either. Best case scenario: they've taken into account the polled data here and the (better reasoned) impassioned rationales in the other thread and are unnerfing it somewhat to make it still an attractive option...in another 3-6 months.
I think this is exactly what's going to happen. Superstar is still going on, and then comes prep for Con Season. Once Con season gets here, any FAQs or Erratas are going to come to a screeching halt. I wouldn't expect this to be revisited till the fall.
...in another 3-6 months.
I wouldn't expect this to be revisited till the fall.
That makes me sad
:(
With the success of the Hero Forge kickstarter, I wonder if I can get a Monk character in a crane stance?
Just a note: 145 (no change) to 120 (change), is not what I would consider "damning". It is in the favor of no change but not a landslide by any stretch. With that said, the "too weak" vs "just right" votes are 81 to 39 which is a significant majority.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you... cheated to make it useful?
Well, the way I see it is, the GM kept missing attacks because he assumed the AC was that of the Crane Winged attack, meaning he had a permanent +4 bonus to his AC.
If he knowingly allowed this to continue, it's cheating. If he didn't know about it until afterward, it was a mistake.
Either way, the feat isn't good.
It removes a fat chunk of the bestiary from consideration when designing encounters. That's no bueno in my book.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flight, in its various forms, must remove at least some monsters from consideration. I'd venture a guess that it shuts down more enemies more thoroughly than Crane Wing did.
It removes a fat chunk of the bestiary from consideration when designing encounters. That's no bueno in my book.How?
The pre-errata Crane Wing blocked one attack each round, and some creature, such as the T-Rex, only have one attack each round. This means a person with pre-errata Crane Wing was functionally invincible against T-Rexi.
The other big problem is these 'one-hit-wonder' monsters in the bestiary are popular choices for PFS designers, so a person with Crane Wing was extremely difficult to hit, let a lone kill, in a PFS scenario.
The final big issue, is that taking a 2-level dip into MoMS allowed a character to have access to Crane Wing at second level, when nearly every creature in that level range only has 1 attack. This makes him a defensive God at these levels.
Combine those problems together, and the outcry of the PFS claiming Crane Wing was the #1 problem in PFS, and you have the Dev team nerfing the feat into near uselessness.
This means a person with pre-errata Crane Wing was functionally invincible against T-Rex.
Hang on, I was pretty sure I figured out a while into the thread that that was only the case if you had been running the fighting defensively rules wrong all along.
I recall noticing a thread where someone went and double checked it with the devs, even (though I didn't participate in that one), and Crane Wing definitely can't block AoOs from movement (which a T rex can create due to its reach) since you don't start fighting defensively till you get to it and make an attack.
This means a person with pre-errata Crane Wing was functionally invincible against T-Rex.Hang on, I was pretty sure I figured out a while into the thread that that was only the case if you had been running the fighting defensively rules wrong all along.
I recall noticing a thread where someone went and double checked it with the devs, even (though I didn't participate in that one), and Crane Wing definitely can't block AoOs from movement (which a T rex can create due to its reach) since you don't start fighting defensively till you get to it and make an attack.
You could also ready an action to hit him before he can defensive fight.
I recall noticing a thread where someone went and double checked it with the devs, even (though I didn't participate in that one), and Crane Wing definitely can't block AoOs from movement (which a T rex can create due to its reach) since you don't start fighting defensively till you get to it and make an attack.
Someone was claiming that you could start Fighting Defensively before moving (and subsequently making an attack), so I started a thread on the rules questions forum, which can be found here. After a little back and forth Stephen MacFarland dropped in and confirmed that you can indeed only start fighting defensively when you're either using a standard action to make an attack or using a full attack action. Readied attacks (against the Crane Wing User) and AoOs from movement are both valid counters to the old Crane Wing's Deflect.
Crane Wing by itself does not make you immune to a T-rex.
You could also ready an action to hit him before he can defensive fight.This means a person with pre-errata Crane Wing was functionally invincible against T-Rex.Hang on, I was pretty sure I figured out a while into the thread that that was only the case if you had been running the fighting defensively rules wrong all along.
I recall noticing a thread where someone went and double checked it with the devs, even (though I didn't participate in that one), and Crane Wing definitely can't block AoOs from movement (which a T rex can create due to its reach) since you don't start fighting defensively till you get to it and make an attack.
Heck, a T-Rex can just get multiple unarmed strikes (provoking, but bypass Crane Wing's immunity), they have +13 BAB so they should have 3 unarmed strikes dealing 1d8 + Str nonlethal (also they should have power attack instead of run or skill focus too, I mean seriously?).
I'd picture it as kicks or tail slap something. They aren't focused well so they provoke, but they get by Crane Wingers.
Flight, in its various forms, must remove at least some monsters from consideration. I'd venture a guess that it shuts down more enemies more thoroughly than Crane Wing did.
I keep thinking of a PFS party who get TPK'ed by 2 Stryx with crossbows... After all, if CW is that much of a problem for PCs, can you imagine what flight does? It denies ALL melee attacks, unless the PCs have... (You guessed it!) Flight.
It removes a fat chunk of the bestiary from consideration when designing encounters. That's no bueno in my book.How?The pre-errata Crane Wing blocked one attack each round, and some creature, such as the T-Rex, only have one attack each round. This means a person with pre-errata Crane Wing was functionally invincible against T-Rexi.
The other big problem is these 'one-hit-wonder' monsters in the bestiary are popular choices for PFS designers, so a person with Crane Wing was extremely difficult to hit, let a lone kill, in a PFS scenario.
The final big issue, is that taking a 2-level dip into MoMS allowed a character to have access to Crane Wing at second level, when nearly every creature in that level range only has 1 attack. This makes him a defensive God at these levels.
Combine those problems together, and the outcry of the PFS claiming Crane Wing was the #1 problem in PFS, and you have the Dev team nerfing the feat into near uselessness.
If only it was possible to use more than one enemy a a time...
Really, of the problem was with PFS, then why not JUST ban it from PFS instead of turning one of the very few useful feats into complete garbage?
The CW errata didn't just nerf the feat. It crippled CW into uselessness. Both as a player and as a GM, I never had any trouble dealing with players with CW.
Honestly, all I gotta say to those who claim CW was OP is that if ignoring one melee hit a round makes a character invincible, their GM is really freaking bad at designing encounters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, that's been the general consensus of this thread. We've also asked on several occasions why it wasn't just banned for PFS because it wasn't really a problem outside of PFS. Largely due to the fact that PFS GMs have almost no power and in fact, are arguably less influential to the game than the players are.