| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
-Change was needed, it's now balanced and acceptable
I pointed it out a long time ago but I'll say it again.
I went through a lot of posts and users and found that the vast majority of people who believed the change was needed and that is was balanced now were PFS GMs.
These people were looking for a ban not rebalancing. In Defensive builds, Crane Wing was the iceberg tip of the build. It allowed one to eliminate the threat of critical hits still smashing their character. The +4 to AC is irrelevant to these builds. So the feat was nerfed to uselessness. The Total Defense option is an option for people who wish to not contribute to their team. It also slows down the game. You have to announce the use of the feat before the GM rolls and have to inform the GM of which attack you want to Crane Wing before he rolls.
I still hold the belief that Paizo overreacted to a perceived problem in PFS where a ban would've been far more productive instead of changing the base rules of the game for everyone. As this thread shows, a vast majority of people believe they messed up. Only mostly PFS GMs who are happy with seeing the feat no longer function as it used to are pleased with the change. They just wanted it gone.
I am a three (almost 4 now) star GM and I didn't see anything wrong with it, and I had two players at FLGS who built around this feat, and have seen it used a lot in online play. I agree, its more powerful in PFS than regular play because we have NO say over encounter design. I can overcome nearly any class feature when I can control the game, even a little. I think they should at least let you add the +4 after the attack is rolled and you know the results though.
I am ok With Pc having strong defenses agaisnt a particular attack, but when you can not use a encounter anymore because it woudl just be a trivial cave walk then something went wrong.I guess weapons, shields, BAB and class feature should be removed, then. Because of those things, I can't use my "single unarmed commoner encounter" anymore.
A encounter you never ever planned to use, so it is pretty irrelevant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why were you planning on using an encounter that relies entirely on one attack? If the GM gets stomped by a party who has one feat that entirely counters that strategy that should just serve as a lesson to the GM that that is probably not a good encounter and their design needs improvement. Same way that a party getting TPK'd by a charmed fighter teaches that fighter to invest in Iron Will.
The problem here is that the kind of encounter the 'iconic T-rex' encounter is simply a bad encounter.
Alongside the problem that there are still people claiming that Crane Wing provided T rex immunity long after that was shown to be the result of erroneous rules application.
I get that there were complaints alleging such in the time leading up to the errata (and repeated during the errata discussions), and so people absorbed it, but it's not true.
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."
Sadly, months later, this still looks to be the case. The whole thing has still left a bad taste in my mouth about how it was handled, and their reaction to the fan outcry of the change.
And for the record I've run a few NPCs with the new version. I almost instantly switched them to Snake Style or good old Combat Expertise, which is largely a better return for the investment imo. Sadly crane is just another false option for PCs it seems. RIP Crane.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A encounter you never ever planned to use, so it is pretty irrelevant.I am ok With Pc having strong defenses agaisnt a particular attack, but when you can not use a encounter anymore because it woudl just be a trivial cave walk then something went wrong.I guess weapons, shields, BAB and class feature should be removed, then. Because of those things, I can't use my "single unarmed commoner encounter" anymore.
I also never planned to use encounters composed of a single enemy with a single melee strike. So the "single T-Rex encounter" is irrelevant too.
I also never planned to use encounters composed of a single enemy with a single melee strike. So the "single T-Rex encounter" is irrelevant too.A encounter you never ever planned to use, so it is pretty irrelevant.I am ok With Pc having strong defenses agaisnt a particular attack, but when you can not use a encounter anymore because it woudl just be a trivial cave walk then something went wrong.I guess weapons, shields, BAB and class feature should be removed, then. Because of those things, I can't use my "single unarmed commoner encounter" anymore.
You do not plan to use those because they do not work in PF. If single BBEg worked people would use more of those.
But that is beside the pointEven if there are 4 T-Rex, it would be unlikely that they all attack one character. I still find the automatic nature of the old crane wing to be just wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do not plan to use those because they do not work in PF. If single BBEg worked people would use more of those.
Exactly. It's not a problem with CW. It's just an aspect of PF. CW didn't make those encounters trivial. They were trivial already.
But that is beside the point. Even if there are 4 T-Rex, it would be unlikely that they all attack one character. I still find the automatic nature of the old crane wing to be just wrong.
Is it? I dunno, I don't have such insight on T-Rex psychology. If just two of them decide to attack the guy with CW, the eat becomes pointless. If instead, they decide to attack other characters, the feat is even more pointless.
It was just "automatic" against one specific threat. i.e.: one melee attack. It could still be completely bypassed by ranged attacks, spells, surprise attacks, area of effects, multiple attacks, most combat maneuvers, etc.
It was just "automatic" against one specific threat. i.e.: one melee attack. It could still be completely bypassed by ranged attacks, spells, surprise attacks, area of effects, multiple attacks, most combat maneuvers, etc.
Lets agree to diagree then, I just find the old crane to be bad (pretty much prefer the snake style style). But at least people take it and it opened the fencing style for non-magus. The new one will just sit in and dark corner never to be see againg.
So it's been three months since the debacle. I don't think the Devs are revisiting it like they mentioned.Maybe eventually they will realize that you can't just wait out internet hate.
Internet hate means nothing unless backed by other actions. Like voting with your wallet.
Internet hate means nothing unless backed by other actions. Like voting with your wallet.So it's been three months since the debacle. I don't think the Devs are revisiting it like they mentioned.Maybe eventually they will realize that you can't just wait out internet hate.
Yeah, strong arming Paizo through financial blackmail is totally the best option.
I'd much rather them listen to feedback and make further adjustments. They said that this occurred due to PFS feedback and "other feedback" as well, but true balance doesn't end after just one iteration.
The vast majority of the poll is displeased with the measures taken.
-Change wasn't needed, it was balanced and acceptable
I'm mostly a GM, although at this moment I also can play a character in another round. I've seen Crane Wing in action from both sides of the screen. It was totally okay in its original form.
Yeah, strong arming Paizo through financial blackmail is totally the best option.Internet hate means nothing unless backed by other actions. Like voting with your wallet.So it's been three months since the debacle. I don't think the Devs are revisiting it like they mentioned.Maybe eventually they will realize that you can't just wait out internet hate.
Not buying stuff and blackmail are two vastly different things.
Not buying stuff and blackmail are two vastly different things.Yeah, strong arming Paizo through financial blackmail is totally the best option.Internet hate means nothing unless backed by other actions. Like voting with your wallet.So it's been three months since the debacle. I don't think the Devs are revisiting it like they mentioned.Maybe eventually they will realize that you can't just wait out internet hate.
"I'm going to get a bunch of people to not buy your product instead of talking it over thus causing you to greatly lose revenue and endanger your company."
That is what voting with your wallet does. Only large organizations can survive folks voting with their wallets.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I'm going to get a bunch of people to not buy your product instead of talking it over thus causing you to greatly lose revenue and endanger your company."
That is what voting with your wallet does. Only large organizations can survive folks voting with their wallets.
It's not that it is either or. And our talking and complaining doesn't seem to have any effect. Not even the polls showing how many are unhappy have any effect. But you are free to just keep talking. And besides: Smaller organisations can survive it, too. By reacting to customer frustration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except voting with your wallet is going to have almost no good effect unless you only choose to not buy the newly printed errata.
Not buying any other product only tells Paizo, "They don't like this product, let's never go there again" which does more harm than good to the industry.
I've opted out of buying the Technology Guide when it comes out because I don't support their decision to not include some sort of energy blade weapon. That's not going to stop me from getting the Advanced Class Guide, or Inner Sea Gods, or other things like that. I'm just opting out of the Technology Guide, though that may not be necessary as my complaints have been well noted (and possibly irritated James Jacobs).
So, if the MoMS archetype is the real problem, fix it. How? Simple really: apply the same unlocking of bonus feats as the normal monk for style feats. What this means is at 1st and 2nd level, a MoMS monk can choose any of the first level of style feats without meeting prerequisites. At 6th level they can choose from the second level of style feats without meeting prerequisites. At 10th level they can choose from the third level of style feats without meeting prerequisites. They can still choose any style feats they meet prereqs for as normal feats, so a Monk is still able to get Crane Wing at level 5, or any class at BaB of +5. Also, any class can dip a single level of MoMS monk to get Crane Style but they still need to have enough BaB to grab Crane Wing. Also, because a Monk can't get the feat until 5th, it won't break low level encounters (big single hit encounters are a bad example anyways). This change also promotes the style-fusion aspect of the MoMS because you need to take two different first level style feats with your first two bonus feats, and then can further specialize in other styles as you progress.
That's a pretty simple and good fix, and may require a few rebuilds for PFS, but it also stops the problem for MoMS.
By the other hand, besides monks, who woudl really wait to take the style feats?
I have a samurai 3/ Master of many styles 2, and I went for light skirmisher with the snake and dragon style, not umbalanced at all. If I have to wait until level 10 to have the styles feats then I woudl be playing something else.
Any one handed weapon character (Magus', Bards with Dervish Dance, Duelists, Swashbucklers etc) would love to take the pre-errata Crane Wing.
Brawlers, Unarmed Fighters, even unarmed Fist Punching Barbarians would love to have Dragon Style.
The Investigator class in the Advanced Class Guide will probably want to take Kirin Style, so to would someone like a Magus or Eldritch Knight.
Any Skirmishing class would probably want to pick up Panther Style, a feat chain that is great for hit and run characters (especially NPC enemies).
A lot of the Style feats can be used on other classes to great effect, not just Monks, though they were designed with Monks in mind.
So, if the MoMS archetype is the real problem, fix it. How? Simple really: apply the same unlocking of bonus feats as the normal monk for style feats. What this means is at 1st and 2nd level, a MoMS monk can choose any of the first level of style feats without meeting prerequisites. At 6th level they can choose from the second level of style feats without meeting prerequisites. At 10th level they can choose from the third level of style feats without meeting prerequisites. They can still choose any style feats they meet prereqs for as normal feats, so a Monk is still able to get Crane Wing at level 5, or any class at BaB of +5. Also, any class can dip a single level of MoMS monk to get Crane Style but they still need to have enough BaB to grab Crane Wing. Also, because a Monk can't get the feat until 5th, it won't break low level encounters (big single hit encounters are a bad example anyways). This change also promotes the style-fusion aspect of the MoMS because you need to take two different first level style feats with your first two bonus feats, and then can further specialize in other styles as you progress.
Sounds like a good idea to me. I'd likely adjust the MoMS so that they're getting a style feat every even level because as is you just don't get the feats fast enough to appreciate the possibilities. 4 levels of Monk for 3 level 1 style feats isn't going to do a dipper any good so there's no problem there.
1. Change was not needed, it was balanced and acceptable
I honestly don't think MoMS is that problematic, it's such a cool archetype. Neutering it would create more problems than solutions, IMHO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't think MoMS is that problematic, it's such a cool archetype. Neutering it would create more problems than solutions, IMHO.
While cool, bypassing the restrictions on those feats via a class dip, was problematic. Besides, mixing the different styles is it's shtick, not cheating into them early.
I've seen so many Masters of "Many" Styles focus on a single style and then leave the class. They should have been allowed to bypass the requisites on the actual style feat, then build into the others in the line(like Crane Wing) with their regular feats/higher tier bonus feats like regular monks. Would get a lot more MoMS PCs with multiple styles instead of rushing for the one they plan to exploit.
I honestly don't think MoMS is that problematic, it's such a cool archetype. Neutering it would create more problems than solutions, IMHO.While cool, bypassing the restrictions on those feats via a class dip, was problematic. Mixing the different styles is it's shtick, not cheating into them early.
I've seen so many Masters of "Many" Styles focus on a single style and then leave the class. They should have been allowed to bypass the requisites on the actual style feat, then build into the others in the line(like Crane Wing) with their regular feats/higher tier bonus feats like regular monks. Would get a lot more MoMS PCs with multiple styles instead of rushing for the one they plan to exploit.
It's so easy to deal with CW, that I never found it to be a problem, even at low levels (attacking twice is not exactly an advanced tactic). While I never played a character with CW (since I wasn't impressed by it), I GMed for 3 different players who used the feat, including one who just dipped 2 levels of MoMS Monk then went Unarmed Fighter.
If nerfing MoMS seems that necessary, I'd just make it so the character needs to reach 4th level before gaining access to 2nd and 3rd tier style feats.
If nerfing MoMS seems that necessary, I'd just make it so the character needs to reach 4th level before gaining access to 2nd and 3rd tier style feats.
That's all I was suggesting also. I mean, all the other Monk Bonus feats are tiered, why aren't the MoMS's?
And I too never had problems with CW for the record, loads of ways to counter it. I even think I erroneously raged on the forums for a month after they nerfed it. However for those perceived issues against CW, it would be a decent fix, compared to a widely regarded excessive nerf.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another idea is to simply make CW scale with level...
Same as the pre-errata version, but instead of automatically deflecting attack, it would be something like this...
BAB/Monk level 1~6: Add +4 to AC.
BAB/Monk level 7~11: Add +8 to AC.
BAB/Monk level 12+: Automatically deflect 1 melee attack (but no touch attacks or natural 20s).
TA-DAAAA!!!
We get a new scaling Combat feat (something PF desperately needs!) and CW only gets the automatic deflection when everything is already making 3+ attacks and PFS modules are mostly over anyway (so those whiny GM crybabies don't cry foul).
Another idea is to simply make CW scale with level...
Same as the pre-errata version, but instead of automatically deflecting attack, it would be something like this...
BAB/Monk level 1~6: Add +4 to AC.
BAB/Monk level 7~11: Add +8 to AC.
BAB/Monk level 12+: Automatically deflect 1 melee attack (but no touch attacks or natural 20s).TA-DAAAA!!!
We get a new scaling Combat feat (something PF desperately needs!) and CW only gets the automatic deflection when everything is already making 3+ attacks and PFS modules are mostly over anyway (so those whiny GM crybabies don't cry foul).
Also acceptable imo.
Also acceptable imo.Another idea is to simply make CW scale with level...
Same as the pre-errata version, but instead of automatically deflecting attack, it would be something like this...
BAB/Monk level 1~6: Add +4 to AC.
BAB/Monk level 7~11: Add +8 to AC.
BAB/Monk level 12+: Automatically deflect 1 melee attack (but no touch attacks or natural 20s).TA-DAAAA!!!
We get a new scaling Combat feat (something PF desperately needs!) and CW only gets the automatic deflection when everything is already making 3+ attacks and PFS modules are mostly over anyway (so those whiny GM crybabies don't cry foul).
*Claps*
That's eloquent. Maintains Crane Wing as a useful feat and makes it a desirable scaling feat. Imo, we really need more scaling feats.
|
***
I've seen so many Masters of "Many" Styles focus on a single style and then leave the class. They should have been allowed to bypass the requisites on the actual style feat, then build into the others in the line(like Crane Wing) with their regular feats/higher tier bonus feats like regular monks. Would get a lot more MoMS PCs with multiple styles instead of rushing for the one they plan to exploit.
Gotta agree. Almost every MoMS I've ever seen has been MoMS 2 / anything else. Master of Many Styles by itself is fine, but it's a one to two level dip with great saves and potential mastery of an entire combat style. The benefits probably should have been spread a little more evenly throughout the archetype.
Also acceptable imo.Another idea is to simply make CW scale with level...
Same as the pre-errata version, but instead of automatically deflecting attack, it would be something like this...
BAB/Monk level 1~6: Add +4 to AC.
BAB/Monk level 7~11: Add +8 to AC.
BAB/Monk level 12+: Automatically deflect 1 melee attack (but no touch attacks or natural 20s).TA-DAAAA!!!
We get a new scaling Combat feat (something PF desperately needs!) and CW only gets the automatic deflection when everything is already making 3+ attacks and PFS modules are mostly over anyway (so those whiny GM crybabies don't cry foul).
*Claps*
That's eloquent. Maintains Crane Wing as a useful feat and makes it a desirable scaling feat. Imo, we really need more scaling feats.
Glad you like it. Hopefully, Paizo does something similar, but I doubt it. I'm pretty sure they will simply wait it out and hope everyone forgets or stops caring, like they did with nearly every other awful errata they published.
For all the people who say Crane Wing was broken, look at the comparison to its closest relative: Deflect Arrows. They are were functionally the same; one affected melee attacks and the other ranged.
Deflect Arrows...............................Crane Wing
Improved Unarmed Strike................Improved Unarmed Strike
Deflect Arrows.................................Crane Wing
One hand free.................................One hand free
Dex 13+...........................................Dex 13+
........................................................Dodge
........................................................Crane Style
........................................................Fighting defensively
........................................................Using Crane Style
........................................................BAB +5/Monk level 5
So, you are spending 2 additional feats, must be using a specific combat style, and be fighting defensively to be able to deflect a melee attack as opposed to a ranged attack. Hardly seems unreasonable to me.
*Claps*Imo, we really need more scaling feats.
Total aside, but I agree here. I don't know why more feats weren't given a scaling bonus when PF first came out. They did it with Skill Focus, but not Weapon Focus or several other rather mediocre/poor feats.
For all the people who say Crane Wing was broken, look at the comparison to its closest relative: Deflect Arrows. They
arewere functionally the same; one affected melee attacks and the other ranged.Deflect Arrows...............................Crane Wing
Improved Unarmed Strike................Improved Unarmed Strike
Deflect Arrows.................................Crane Wing
One hand free.................................One hand free
Dex 13+...........................................Dex 13+
........................................................Dodge
........................................................Crane Style
........................................................Fighting defensively
........................................................Using Crane Style
........................................................BAB +5/Monk level 5So, you are spending 2 additional feats, must be using a specific combat style, and be fighting defensively to be able to deflect a melee attack as opposed to a ranged attack. Hardly seems unreasonable to me.
This is because Deflect Arrows is a throw away feat, comparable to Dodge and Mobility.
Crane Wing is/was considered one of the very best feats a character could have. Characters were built entirely around the Crane Wing chain just to reach that one feat. In terms of importance, it's probably in the top 5 of martial feats, and probably top 3 if you are building a finesse fighter build (behind only weapon finesse and power attack).
That should tell you something of the difference in relative power.
Fact: You can gain 100% impervious to missile fire by numerous methods, the simplest of which is walking behind a corner.
You can't DO that with melee attacks.
Fact: You are going to be in melee many, many more times over your career as a melee character then you are going to be subjected to missile fire.
Fact: You are a melee character. You can FORCE characters out of ranged combat by running up to them and daring them to try that again.
Fact: Melee attacks tend to do MUCh more damage then ranged attacks, and often cater to a monster's highest stat (str) to drive the point home.
Missile attacks from your enemies are often simply secondary harassment attacks only useful if you can't shoot back and can't find cover.
Summary: Equating the importance of the two feats so as to be EQUAL is very unwise.
==Aelryinth
thorin001, you are comparing apples to oranges.
At levels 1-3 it is probable that you will face more arrows per round per attacker than just one (rapid shot). It is not probable that you will face more melee attacks per round per attacker than just one because TWF is, in general, a less effective build than THF.
Additionally, the BAB+5/Monk5 requirement is not really a requirement when you can get both Crane Wing and Crane Style by level 2 all while ignoring the pre-requisites.
Finally, and the biggest issue, Melee is going to be the vast majority of encounters. Ranged attackers are going to be relatively rare. Taking Deflect Arrows will *sometimes* change an encounter. Taking pre-errata Crane Style will almost always have an impact on the encounter.
That impact is disproportionate to the power of a feat or even a feat tree.
Set aside the knowledge and history of Crane Wing for a moment and ask yourself what if your player came up to you and said:
I want to raise my AC via Fighting Defensively but suffer a half the penalty, gain an increased AC bonus totalling -2 for +4, and THEN I want to negate one hit per round even if the enemy rolls a 20.
What would many GM's responses be?
Ill tell you mine: Hell no. On the face of it that just screams cheese.
I can deal with the -2 for a +4 AC boost (although really it would be -1 for +4 with a trait)...but the auto-negation on top of it?
This feat should have never existed in it's pre-errata form. I am not saying its new form is good, it needs work. But the old form? I banned outright.
I'd go for Option Two, I guess. I think it would have been better to style the feat more after the Parry ability.
An alternative nerf: The ability only gets to be used if your attacker is making two or more attacks.
Being literally immune to a fifth level two-handed fighter (or a charge/Vital Strike/touch spell/7th level or lower on a D8 Hit Dice class) is just kind of unreasonable at such a low level. It doesn't seem so bad, since the next level fighters start getting full attacks, but it seems like the attacker should at least have a chance.
But this issue's been raging for a long time and a newcomer like me probably ain't gonna have much sway. ;D
Being literally immune to a fifth level two-handed fighter (or a charge/Vital Strike/touch spell is just kind of unreasonable at such a low level.
"Literally immune" was always a hyperbolic description even in case of said fighter, and the other stuff has the same rules misinterpretation problems that the mountain of T rex posts made.
(If someone is charging your Crane Styler, it's fairly likely that your Crane Styler is not fighting defensively yet, since you weren't in reach of each other before.)
Which brings up the 'I swat the wall to start combat so I can fight defensively' shenanigans, because the defensive fighting rules make no sense (You can't fight defensively coming up on someone, you only get the bonus after you swing at your first target, so everyone has an easy time hitting you on the approach, but after you swing, it gets harder! Duuuumb)
==Aelryinth
Coriat, that is easily taken care of with: I ready an action to hit the first guy that comes within reach of me, he charged? Great, now I am Fighting Defensively. Or: I go attack his little buddy, now I am fighting defensively. Or: I attack (insert cheese thing here such as a wall, ally, whatever), now I am fighting defensively.
Coriat, that is easily taken care of with: I ready an action to hit the first guy that comes within reach of me.
Now he is Fighting Defensively.
This has no basis in any actual rules text and has been specifically confirmed to be wrong.
Fighting Defensively doesn't apply till you make the attack. It does not begin when you ready the action.
I think their argument, Coriat, is that you would Defensively strike (readied) before the charge is completed. As such, you'd be Fighting Defensively before they get the chance to hurt you.
Being literally immune to a fifth level two-handed fighter (or a charge/Vital Strike/touch spell is just kind of unreasonable at such a low level."Literally immune" was always a hyperbolic description even in case of said fighter, and the other stuff has the same rules misinterpretation problems that the mountain of T rex posts made.
(If someone is charging your Crane Styler, it's fairly likely that your Crane Styler is not fighting defensively yet, since you weren't in reach of each other before.)
I was actually assuming Total Defense here. Badass as it is to imagine a guy just being a total wall, it sounds like it'd work better scaled up and put around levels 10-15.
Also, I followed that link.
Only if you ready an attack action, and not until you take that attack action, which will be in response to the conditions you specify and and just before the triggering action.
Readying an action, even readying an attack action is not an attack action, it is a special initiative action. The act of taking the attack action just before the trigger is, and that's when you can choose to use Combat Expertise or fight defensively with a standard action.
This doesn't sound like he's shooting it down. It sounds like he's confirming it.
Also, with regards to Fighting Defensively making no sense—I can kind of picture it. Fighting defensively is all about studying your foe and reacting speedily to his strikes. If you aren't already fighting him, you aren't going to be as "in synch".
Coriat, that is easily taken care of with: I ready an action to hit the first guy that comes within reach of me, he charged? Great, now I am Fighting Defensively. Or: I go attack his little buddy, now I am fighting defensively. Or: I attack (insert cheese thing here such as a wall, ally, whatever), now I am fighting defensively.
Doing so gives up the entirety of your turn. If the target of the readied action doesn't charge you, your whole turn is wasted. I mean really? Whose the guy gonna charge? The dude getting ready to deflect him or the wizard with the pointy hat at the back eh?
You can ready an action to hit him before he gets into his stance for fighting defensively at the start of his turn.
Which brings up the 'I swat the wall to start combat so I can fight defensively' shenanigans, because the defensive fighting rules make no sense (You can't fight defensively coming up on someone, you only get the bonus after you swing at your first target, so everyone has an easy time hitting you on the approach, but after you swing, it gets harder! Duuuumb)
==Aelryinth
At fifth level, if you're spending your turns in combat walking up to the nearest wall and punching it in order to try to induce enemies to charge you, then you've already nerfed yourself sufficiently that you could make the old Crane Wing at will instead of 1/round and it likely still would not be overpowered for you.
With that standard actions you wasted, you could have used a potion of enlarge person and moved into a controlling position, or something else actually useful in combat.
Also, I followed that link.
This doesn't sound like he's shooting it down. It sounds like he's confirming it.Only if you ready an attack action, and not until you take that attack action, which will be in response to the conditions you specify and and just before the triggering action.
Readying an action, even readying an attack action is not an attack action, it is a special initiative action. The act of taking the attack action just before the trigger is, and that's when you can choose to use Combat Expertise or fight defensively with a standard action.
The post I was responding to is different and correct now :P