Change was needed, but is now too weak and needs revision.
Compared to snake style, the original was too strong. Compared to snake style now its hopelessly outclassed. It needs a proper re-write to functionality.
It was a bit too piwerfull, now it is way under powered and near useless.
As I said on the othe rboard. Crane wing should allow you to take AoO when in total defense with your fighting defensive penalty.
This way it has a use. If you are sitting in the middle of the room in full defense you are not a threat or target.
This way a flowing monk can still redirect for an ally, and punish enemies for walking around him.
Balance is the key word and it goes both ways you can under balance and over balance.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Change NOT needed.
At least not to the feats. MoMS on the other hand...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
100% agree with Ravingdork. MoMS was the problem. No class should give so much that it is only a 1-2 lvl dip at most (some prestige class not counting).
I think that the change was needed but maybe not quite like this. Maybe give it some wording like deflect arrows so you don't have characters blocking natural weapons or attacks from creatures 2+ size categories larger.
Dropping one or two people who didn't seem to give a clear indication either way, make one very logical deduction based on comments at the start of another thread about this, and erring on the side of caution, the results from posts thus far are as follows:
-Change wasn't needed, it was balanced and acceptable: 20 votes
-Change was needed, but the feat is now too weak and needs revision: 11 votes
-Change was needed, it's now balanced and acceptable: 5 votes
The ration of results approximately matches up with the favoriting options from Alexander at 49, 29, and 12 respectively. Granted, there's no way to tell someone isn't favoriting both options 1 and 2, but the rough alignment here suggests that isn't the case. In any case, I'll update again sometime around mid-morning tomorrow.
|
Change not needed.
Dropping one or two people who didn't seem to give a clear indication either way, make one very logical deduction based on comments at the start of another thread about this, and erring on the side of caution, the results from posts thus far are as follows:
-Change wasn't needed, it was balanced and acceptable: 20 votes
-Change was needed, but the feat is now too weak and needs revision: 11 votes
-Change was needed, it's now balanced and acceptable: 5 votesThe ration of results approximately matches up with the favoriting options from Alexander at 49, 29, and 12 respectively. Granted, there's no way to tell someone isn't favoriting both options 1 and 2, but the rough alignment here suggests that isn't the case. In any case, I'll update again sometime around mid-morning tomorrow.
You can look at who marked posts as a favorite, if you want to check to see if people are favoriting more than one of Alexander's posts.
And this is going to tell you what?
Of course the people who are most unhappy are going to post the most. The previous version of Crane Wing was over the top by the fact that it was such a top drawer feat for the munchkin crowd. That it became a feat that was literally too good for any sensible gamer to pass up. Which is a dead ringer for a feat that's too powerful for it's own good.
The changes bring it down to a a more reasonable level. Some people will continue to pick or use it and others will walk away from it... which is the sign of a decently balanced feat.
A) It's feedback meant for Paizo. It can't hurt.
B) You don't really give any reasoning behind your second paragraph. It might also be begging the question, I'm not sure.C) The feat has three prereqs and a level requirement that places it, for full-BAB classes, right before iteratives generally become commonplace. Not what I'd call 'top drawer for munchkins', but then I argue out of ignorance concerning munchkin behavior and such.
Don't worry, you vote has already been counted.
Change not needed.
You can look at who marked posts as a favorite, if you want to check to see if people are favoriting more than one of Alexander's posts.Dropping one or two people who didn't seem to give a clear indication either way, make one very logical deduction based on comments at the start of another thread about this, and erring on the side of caution, the results from posts thus far are as follows:
-Change wasn't needed, it was balanced and acceptable: 20 votes
-Change was needed, but the feat is now too weak and needs revision: 11 votes
-Change was needed, it's now balanced and acceptable: 5 votesThe ration of results approximately matches up with the favoriting options from Alexander at 49, 29, and 12 respectively. Granted, there's no way to tell someone isn't favoriting both options 1 and 2, but the rough alignment here suggests that isn't the case. In any case, I'll update again sometime around mid-morning tomorrow.
Oh yeah, good point. I'll do some random checks on my lunch break tomorrow to verify that. Thanks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
-Change wasn't needed, it was balanced and acceptable
I think the change was probably a good idea. Allowing the +4 AC bonus to be used as an immediate action when somebody hits your AC would be a nice boost.
I think the change was probably a good idea. Allowing the +4 AC bonus to be used as an immediate action when somebody hits your AC would be a nice boost.
That (though I'll keep it as a no action ability) and specifying that Crane Riposte works if you use Crane's Wing to force the opponent to miss are probably going to be my house rules for the feat. It's a shame that the designers couldn't recognize that there's some space between 'a bit overpowered in certain circumstances' and 'ridiculously unplayable*' that they could have left the feat.
*yes, I admit a bit of an overstatement, as there are worse feats, and if you have to have a free hand, because you're a magus, monk or swordlord, it's not like it's competing with a shield, but beyond those cases it is pretty much unplayable
Sorry I haven't found this. Link please?So, after Jason Buhlmans comment i changed my mind.
The feat is perfectly fine after the errata.
Quoting Mr. Bulmahn:
2. The Crane Riposte feat still works just fine. It ALLOWS you to take an AoO in that specific circumstance (even though you normally could not). It could perhaps use a callout specifically to that effect, but the wording is pretty plain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Change wasn't needed imo. Defense is a sub-optimal route in Pathfinder as is, nerfing one of the more viable methods of maintaining defense is not something I can agree with.
Even if you believe it needed a nerf, it didn't need to be worthless. Riposte is now worthless too since you don't know when you'll actually get hit.
I'm really flipping mad about this.
Change was needed. It was to easy to make a creature (NPC or PC) almost invunarable to melee attacks.One attack, singular. Very far from being overpowered. Once again Paizo shows that martials are not allowed nice things. Wizardfinder indeed.
That's not fair. Also Clericfinder, Druidfinder, Oraclefinder, Sorcererfinder, and Witchfinder
Still, it's better than 3.5 in many aspects, even if they never seem to get around to actually fix the classes at the low end of the spectrum.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And this is going to tell you what?
Of course the people who are most unhappy are going to post the most. The previous version of Crane Wing was over the top by the fact that it was such a top drawer feat for the munchkin crowd. That it became a feat that was literally too good for any sensible gamer to pass up. Which is a dead ringer for a feat that's too powerful for it's own good.
The changes bring it down to a a more reasonable level. Some people will continue to pick or use it and others will walk away from it... which is the sign of a decently balanced feat.
There's that word again, munchkin. You say it like you can take an entire group's play style and dismiss it because you don't like it, and that's disrespectful of your fellow players.
It wasn't too good, it was good at all, something other monk feats should aspire to. Now it's not "some will take it, others won't." It's "no one will take it because it's terrible." Tell me another 4 feat chain that does so little that people would willingly take. What next, Whirlwind Attack is unbalanced because it lets you hit more than one person?
Most people only took it if they had a free hand, and anything involving objectivity will tell you that one handed characters do a great deal less damage than their 2 handed siblings. So it was pretty honestly being used to make a sub par combat style better, as well as a defensive combat style. But it seems we're all good with being two handed hyper offensive characters since this was "too good" of a feat.
I think the change is fine. I'll still take Crane Style frequently. -1 to attack for +4 to AC (with enough ranks in Acrobatics). That is good stuff.
However, as Dabbler also pointed out, MoMS is the real culprit here. It should simply be nerfed slightly by only allowing the first Style feats to be chosen at levels 1 and 2. From level 6 onwards the bonus feats grant unrestricted access to all style feats and feats in their path.
As a side thought: the players' opinions on Crane Wing is one thing. But keep in mind that this errata is spawned by PFS GM feedback. Crane Wing is quite a thorn in the side of both GMs and encounter designers, and rightly so.
Honestly, when making voting options, don't make it biased towards one outcome.
Having 1 No, and 2 Yes categories, naturally favors the "No change was needed" as the dominant answer.
Given that one of the options, is a discussion point (how should a fix be implemented?), it becomes even more irrelevant to determine by voting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a side thought: the players' opinions on Crane Wing is one thing. But keep in mind that this errata is spawned by PFS GM feedback. Crane Wing is quite a thorn in the side of both GMs and encounter designers, and rightly so.
Only if they lack any imagination and creativity. Many simple tactics completely bypass CW. I GM'ed for 3 different players with this feat and not even once I felt it was a problem... At worst, the player would shine in a single encounter that wasn't meant to be a real threat anyway.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
And this is going to tell you what?
Of course the people who are most unhappy are going to post the most. The previous version of Crane Wing was over the top by the fact that it was such a top drawer feat for the munchkin crowd. That it became a feat that was literally too good for any sensible gamer to pass up. Which is a dead ringer for a feat that's too powerful for it's own good.
The changes bring it down to a a more reasonable level. Some people will continue to pick or use it and others will walk away from it... which is the sign of a decently balanced feat.
By that same logic, Power Attack is far too powerful as nearly everyone takes it, munchkin or not.
By using your own logic, Power Attack needs a nerf. Period. There can be no argument for this as everyone takes Power Attack, so it is too good, and too powerful.
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "munchkin" accusations, dev bashing, and other stupid tribal warfare crap really need to stop.
Not everyone unhappy about this fits into a single label for the sake of being dismissed.
The devs didn't commit any war crimes.
We can discuss this without flaming or gloating.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a side thought: the players' opinions on Crane Wing is one thing. But keep in mind that this errata is spawned by PFS GM feedback. Crane Wing is quite a thorn in the side of both GMs and encounter designers, and rightly so.Only if they lack any imagination and creativity. Many simple tactics completely bypass CW. I GM'ed for 3 different players with this feat and not even once I felt it was a problem... At worst, the player would shine in a single encounter that wasn't meant to be a real threat anyway.
The way I'm reading into this is, "Everyone has to suffer this nerf because Paizo writers can't come up with encounters that feature spells, ranged attacks, combat maneuvers, or natural attacks regularly enough."
Seriously, if this was a PFS problem, then it's because the encounters aren't varied enough.
And it must be a PFS problem, because it's not a problem for home games.
tl;dr - It's not my fault that PFS GMs aren't allowed to add a freakin' bow to their npc enemies, so why am I paying for that mistake?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, it's not that it is a PFS problem specifically; it is that the PFS feedback is the most reliable and consistent feedback of its nature that the developers have - and it covers a large sample space. The feedback from several hundred thousand scenarios is nothing to be sneezed at. If a balance issue is brought to light in such a statistically mature sample space, then it is right for developers to adjust the game appropriately.
Crane Wing was very good, now it is only good. But it is still good. It is not a crappy feat to take. Crane Riposte was very good, now it is only above average. The Crane Style feat chain as a whole is still a very viable choice for characters. Just because it went from very good to good doesn't break the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are arguments to be made about the reliability of PFS data if the majority of PFS monster data is based on humanoid and/or iterative attacking opponents. Which it seems is the case.
But more to the point, your opinion on the validity of the feats post-nerf is seemingly in the minority.
Crane Style was, and continues to be good.
Crane Wing was very good in specific instances, and useless in others. Now, it continues to provide a bonus, but it's hardly one worth wasting a feat over.
Crane Riposte is now almost useless, as the game itself pushes characters toward an offense-heavy playstyle and tends to punish a defense-heavy one. Simply put, no one is spending their time taking full defense actions when it means they can only hope to get a single, pathetic attack off. Maybe.
Simply put, the feat wasn't broken. Power Attack is a MUCH more troublesome feat, and it remains. Deflect Arrows works almost identically to Crane Wing, and it remains.
This was an exceedingly bad call, plain and simple.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LoreKeeper, I disagree. PFS is a sub-game of Pathfinder full of 'house-rules'. By it's very nature, is the data from PFS of a different quality than that of actual Pathfinder play.
PFS is full of single attack enemies and enemies with low attack bonuses. In these situations, nearly any defensive feat is 'great'. In real gameplay, against dragons and hydras and hordes of goblins with alchemist fire or other of the widely varied scenarios that are possible (even in just Adventure Paths), Crane Style is a 'strong' option, but not an Over Powered option.
It may be a little bit on the 'too strong' side, but a slight tweak should have been made, instead of a total re-write of Crane Wing which fundamentally changes how 2 of the 3 feats in the full chain work.
Crane Style itself, the first feat in the chain, remains a strong option for one-handed characters, but the entire feat chain? No, that's a waste. I expect to see many characters re-training out of Crane Wing because of it's near uselessness, and by extension, Crane Riposte as well.
Fortunately, I refuse to play PFS anymore because it's just too easy and too limiting for myself as a player in the scenario and as a GM. Our group has already decided to keep the original version of the feat, so it won't affect me much.
I will still argue against the change as many others aren't as fortunate as myself (especially all the PFS players).
I'm having a hard time believing that single-classed non-Master of Many Styles monks with Crane Wing were overpowered. PFS games must be quite strange if that is so.
If the problem is with MoMS getting it early the nerf should have been aimed there.
If the problem is with spellcasters like the magus a nerf should have been aimed at them specifically, perhaps by specifying that the free hand couldn't have been used to cast spells in the caster's last action.
If the problem's somewhere else I'd like to be enlightened.
Edit : my vote is that the nerf was too much & left Crane Wing weak.
Re: - It's only a PFS problem.
I've been GMing a non-PFS campaign using Kingmaker and Crane Wing was a problem. So yes, it is affecting Home games as well. I had a Tank player with Crane Wing. When I did get lucky and get an attack through he would Crane Wing it. Unless I tricked him into not defensively fighting I couldn't hit him in melee. And No, upping the to hit until I hit him on 10's doesn't work because then everyone else gets hit on 2's.
PS. In my world I give Dragons 2 levels in Monk and MOMS and Crane Wing unless the Dragon is a bit stupid. Wait till you fight a Dragon using Crane Wing and tell me how it's no problem.
How much damage is your tank doing in combat? What level? What class? These are all factors of your problem.
Also, Kingmaker is an AP that is known to have many issues. 5-minute work days being the primary one.
If you have one character who has gone defense at the expense of offense, while a secondary nova character (such as a Magus or Alchemist) supplying the damage, it works very well in Kingmaker. The 5-minute work day means the Tank can absorb the damage, while the Nova kills everything, and then the day is over. This is all conjecture, however, as there is probably more to the problem than just Crane Wing/Riposte.
Re: - It's only a PFS problem.
I've been GMing a non-PFS campaign using Kingmaker and Crane Wing was a problem. So yes, it is affecting Home games as well. I had a Tank player with Crane Wing. When I did get lucky and get an attack through he would Crane Wing it. Unless I tricked him into not defensively fighting I couldn't hit him in melee. And No, upping the to hit until I hit him on 10's doesn't work because then everyone else gets hit on 2's.
PS. In my world I give Dragons 2 levels in Monk and MOMS and Crane Wing unless the Dragon is a bit stupid. Wait till you fight a Dragon using Crane Wing and tell me how it's no problem.
Do your dragons then figth defensively instead of using all the cool special powers and spells? If yes. Then i dont think they will need gunslingers to make them extinct.
And for the tank example, remember a tank is only a tank if he can keep the baddies from his friends. If he cannot keep the baddies from his friends then he is last man standing or falling but it wont matter.
Re: - It's only a PFS problem.
I've been GMing a non-PFS campaign using Kingmaker and Crane Wing was a problem. So yes, it is affecting Home games as well. I had a Tank player with Crane Wing. When I did get lucky and get an attack through he would Crane Wing it. Unless I tricked him into not defensively fighting I couldn't hit him in melee. And No, upping the to hit until I hit him on 10's doesn't work because then everyone else gets hit on 2's.
PS. In my world I give Dragons 2 levels in Monk and MOMS and Crane Wing unless the Dragon is a bit stupid. Wait till you fight a Dragon using Crane Wing and tell me how it's no problem.
Do your dragons then figth defensively instead of using all the cool special powers and spells? If yes. Then i dont think they will need gunslingers to make them extinct.
And for the tank example, remember a tank is only a tank if he can keep the baddies from his friends. If he cannot keep the baddies from his friends then he is last man standing or falling but it wont matter.
Moreover, if he can't keep baddies from his friends, and his AC is really high, then he could easily become an anti-tank. Granted, it depends on how you run NPCs, but the way I generally run them is that they know what a PC would know. They don't know the target's AC, but if they roll a 16 and it doesn't hit, they at least can know that it's probably a waste of effort. Once they realize that, then that's more attacks spread across the rest of the party, filling the opposite role of a tank.
-Change wasn't needed, it was balanced and acceptable.
I am having difficulty understanding why it is acceptable to negate a ranged attack with deflect arrows, but not a melee attack with crane wing.
Melee characters tend to be more common, so it blocks a greater number of attacks. However, not only can this largely be accounted for by the greater prereqs, but also this is (with the exception of PFS) entirely in the DM's control. The DM can throw archers into encounters no problem, or casters or what have you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stephen I think everything you listed applies to melee and spell options too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Crane Wing was very good, now it is only good. But it is still good. It is not a crappy feat to take. Crane Riposte was very good, now it is only above average. The Crane Style feat chain as a whole is still a very viable choice for characters. Just because it went from very good to good doesn't break the game.
I think this is where we disagree. I agree that crane wing was very good, but now it's below average and crane riposte went from very good to awful.
Getting a +4 to AC prior to the roll is just bad. A good majority of the time it will either be useless because they would have missed anyway, or they rolled high enough to actually hit you with it. Still, I won't say it's the worst feat out there, but it's definitely now a below average feat.
Riposte on the other hand is just now worth taking. Full defense is almost never worth it, and being in full defense to maybe draw a single attack (if you're lucky) is just bad.
If it went from very good to good, people wouldn't be upset. It's the fact that the chain went from very good, to being a waste of space that's the problem.