| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It negated several basic concepts of low level play and was obnoxious for dms to deal with (particularly for those using published material). If you have to adapt basic concepts of your game to challenge a player (such as using single humanoid enemies who fight with a single weapon) then there is something wrong. I think some clarifications and possibly an update to crane repost is necessary, but a change was clearly needed. It might have done too much, but to say the feat was 'perfectly balanced' when it negated more then half the npc codex bellow like level 10 is an absurd thing to say.
And trust me I think martials should have nice things. Being impossible to hit by an enemy who makes 1 attack a round should not be one of them (again a huge portion of low and mid level foes).
-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.
I had a feeling this change would piss you off.
It negated several basic concepts of low level play and was obnoxious for dms to deal with (particularly for those using published material). If you have to adapt basic concepts of your game to challenge a player (such as using single humanoid enemies who fight with a single weapon) then there is something wrong. I think some clarifications and possibly an update to crane repost is necessary, but a change was clearly needed. It might have done too much, but to say the feat was 'perfectly balanced' when it negated more then half the npc codex bellow like level 10 is an absurd thing to say.
And trust me I think martials should have nice things. Being impossible to hit by an enemy who makes 1 attack a round should not be one of them (again a huge portion of low and mid level foes).
So, by the bolded part, there is something wrong with barbarians, bards, druids, monks, rangers, rogues, alchemists, cavaliers, inquisitors, oracles, summoners, witches, maguses, gunslingers, ninjas, samurais, any races outside of the core races, magic items, and any spell over 3rd level.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had a feeling this change would piss you off.-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.
Not piss off exactly. Honestly, I am not a fan of anything that allows auto hit or auto negation. So in that sense, there are several feats/spells/ect. I'd like to see rewritten. But as I see it, it's an all or nothing proposition.
I just wish I could be a fly on the wall to overhear the conversation that happens regarding game balance with the devs, because I simply do not understand some of their decisions.
Crane Wing was definitely strong. But is it truly that much stronger than Deflect Arrows?
That much stronger than allowing Oracles to use their casting stat for their AC without Dex restriction from armor?
That much stronger than a halfling Aldori Swordlord gaining +10 to AC with no penalty to hit when fighting defensively?
That much stronger than a tanked Paladin using Divine Interference to make his opponent re-roll their attack roll (and likely need another 20)?
That much stronger than Mirror Image?
That much stronger than gunslingers targeting touch AC in 95% of game play?
That much stronger than signature deed with the crazy Up Close and Deadly?
That much stronger than a rage pouncing decked out barbarian or perfect charge cavalier one shoting someone?
I understand game balance is a very delicate and complicated issue. You may note I included both powerful defensive and offensive abilities in my examples above. That is because both of these elements equally factor into the game, and bear consideration both independently and as a whole.
What confuses me most is this: It seems to me that the game designers are mostly ok with incredibly strong offensive abilities and combinations, but powerful defensive abilities are often censored more sternly or generally less effective comparatively.
I personally don't mind a change to Crane Wing, I just think the one they made was incredibly subpar. I would have rather seen the entire feat line get a minor tweak along these lings:
Crane Style: Perfect as is.
Crane Wing: Increase the fighting defensively AC bonus by an additional +1, and once per round when struck you may attempt to make an opposed attack roll as an attack of opportunity to negate the hit.
Crane Riposte: Reduce the penalty to hit from fighting defensively by 1, and when you successfully employ Crane Wing deflection you may make an immediate attack roll against the character you blocked.
Power Attack is a MUCH more troublesome feat, and it remains.
I agree 100%. Power Attack is far too good a feat. The problem is that statistically it doesn't really change DPR in an even setting; the penalty to attack and bonus to damage roughly balance out.
The problem becomes enormous as levels progress though, as the full-BAB classes don't take that long to reach a point where they can successfully hit all the time even with the penalty to attack. This is exasperated in situations where more and more bonuses come into play (prone enemy, flanking, various buffs, and so forth). And getting 8 or more bonus damage from Power Attack alone on each hit is skewing fights a lot.
Power Attack is balanced in the same way Wrath of God (MtG) is balanced. It affects both sides of the equation in an even manner (-attk, +dmg) but the user stacks the situation in his favor before using Power Attack.
So, by the bolded part, there is something wrong with barbarians, bards, druids, monks, rangers, rogues, alchemists, cavaliers, inquisitors, oracles, summoners, witches, maguses, gunslingers, ninjas, samurais, any races outside of the core races, magic items, and any spell over 3rd level.It negated several basic concepts of low level play and was obnoxious for dms to deal with (particularly for those using published material). If you have to adapt basic concepts of your game to challenge a player (such as using single humanoid enemies who fight with a single weapon) then there is something wrong. I think some clarifications and possibly an update to crane repost is necessary, but a change was clearly needed. It might have done too much, but to say the feat was 'perfectly balanced' when it negated more then half the npc codex bellow like level 10 is an absurd thing to say.
And trust me I think martials should have nice things. Being impossible to hit by an enemy who makes 1 attack a round should not be one of them (again a huge portion of low and mid level foes).
None of those classes completely negate the use of humanoid opponents with single weapon attacks. A barbarian, druid, ranger, rogue, alchemist, cavalier etc are all still threatened by a human fighter with a longsword. The amount of threat varies, but there is SOME threat depending on the various numbers involved. A character with crane wing is UNTHREATENED completely, by a single enemy that makes a single attack.
A wizard with mirror image up is still threatened, the chance might be low, but the single enemy can wear down that defense.
The only other option i know that mitigates such a fundamanetal concept is paizo's gun rules (touch ac for a normal attack) and I would agree that its a problem, and i dont use it in my games. Are there things more powerful then crane wing? Yes, but that isnt the issue. The issue is that an extremely common foe is completely unable to threaten a character using it. Not that their ability to threaten them is reduced.
Crane Wing was definitely strong. But is it truly that much stronger than Deflect Arrows? Yes.
That much stronger than allowing Oracles to use their casting stat for their AC without Dex restriction from armor? Yes.
That much stronger than a halfling Aldori Swordlord gaining +10 to AC with no penalty to hit when fighting defensively? Yes.
That much stronger than a tanked Paladin using Divine Interference to make his opponent re-roll their attack roll (and likely need another 20)? Stronger, yes. "That much", maybe not.
That much stronger than Mirror Image? Yes.
That much stronger than gunslingers targeting touch AC in 95% of game play? A bit.
That much stronger than signature deed with the crazy Up Close and Deadly? Yes.
That much stronger than a rage pouncing decked out barbarian or perfect charge cavalier one shoting someone? No.
Just IMHO of course. Most of the above "Yes"'s are at least partially because Crane Wing *STACKED* with them, and other options, to make it hard to be hit.
Change wasn't needed, it was balanced and acceptable
We need all martial feats to be gunning at that level, or all spells to be hammered down hard(for example Blur and Mirror image to be removed)
Blur and mirror image both create a miss chance, not a guaranteed miss, which is most of the problem here. It was the automatic nature of crane wing that was the problem, not the fact that it is good or effective.
Was the errata perfect? Probably not, but that doesnt mean a change wasnt necessary.
Again I agree martials should get lots more nice things, but making them invulnerable to lower level humanoid enemies making melee attacks is not an answer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Change wasn't needed, it was balanced and acceptable
We need all martial feats to be gunning at that level, or all spells to be hammered down hard(for example Blur and Mirror image to be removed)
Blur and mirror image both create a miss chance, not a guaranteed miss, which is most of the problem here. It was the automatic nature of crane wing that was the problem, not the fact that it is good or effective.
Was the errata perfect? Probably not, but that doesnt mean a change wasnt necessary.
Again I agree martials should get lots more nice things, but making them invulnerable to lower level humanoid enemies making melee attacks is not an answer.
Then just make it variable. Make them make a WIS/DEX Check or something. As it is, no one will use this now.
Cause you know what DMs already did with Crane? Ignored the Crane user in the short term. You know what's gonna happen now?
PC Monk: I use a swift to go into crane and full defense.
DM: That tactic only works if I attack you, and this enemy is smart enough to realize that. Instead the mooks/BBEG will go around you and attack the Wizard.
PC Monk: They move past me to get to the Wizard right? I take an AoO!
DM: No you don't, you can't AoO when Full Defensing outside of your Riposte.
PC Monk: ...
PC Wizard: I hate you Monk.
Loads of dead monk turns.
"PC Wizard: I hate you Monk." har!
"PC Wizard: I hate you Monk." har!
When I wrote it I did so in the voice of the Police Captain from the old TV show Monk.
"PC Wizard: I hate you Monk." har!When I wrote it I did so in the voice of the Police Captain from the old TV show Monk.
Even better!
Cause you know what DMs already did with Crane? Ignored the Crane user in the short term.
I don't see how. A monk using Crane Wing is nearly as much a threat as one without. Some of the crane wing trip builds I've seen are pretty crazy--granting you two attacks of opportunity PLUS grants AoO's to party members whenever you trip someone up. Who needs iterative attacks?
|
Cause you know what DMs already did with Crane? Ignored the Crane user in the short term. You know what's gonna happen now?
PC Monk: I use a swift to go into crane and full defense.
DM: That tactic only works if I attack you, and this enemy is smart enough to realize that. Instead the mooks/BBEG will go around you and attack the Wizard.
PC Monk: They move past me to get to the Wizard right? I take an AoO!
DM: No you don't, you can't AoO when Full Defensing outside of your Riposte.
PC Monk: ...
PC Wizard: I hate you Monk.Loads of dead monk turns.
Bah, when I still run up to the BBEG, go fighting defensive crane style and say his first attack at full AB is against a 44 AC instead of a 40 AC, I think GMs will still go say hi to the Wizard.
|
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.
I just had to respond to this one. I'mma be perfectly blunt here. I do GM PFS pretty frequently, as do quite a few people I know. We're all in agreement (some of these are even venture officers) that the change was both over the top and not needed. Besides that? Crane wing was so easy to counter that people that rely on it regularly find their characters winding up dead. It was too circumstantial to be overpowered.
Bah, when I still run up to the BBEG, go fighting defensive crane style and say his first attack at full AB is against a 44 AC instead of a 40 AC, I think GMs will still say hi to the Wizard.
If you choose to fight defensively, what's the difference between that and combat expertise? MOAR AC is just that, more AC. If the baddie needs a crit to hit you, it doesn't matter if your AC is 44 or 200. Chances are they aren't gonna double crit and you take regular damage.
I'm also not gonna say +4 AC is bad though, I actually think that application has potential value if they reworked it. But the problem is in it's current form, you don't know which attack is going to actually need it. Especially when fighting Monsters whose attacks are all primaries, and there is virtually no difference in which attack you choose.
And Riposte, the whole next feat in the chain, is worthless if you choose to keep any offensive power like is being suggested.
I don't see how. A monk using Crane Wing is nearly as much a threat as one without. Some of the crane wing trip builds I've seen are pretty crazy--granting you two attacks of opportunity PLUS grants AoO's to party members whenever you trip someone up. Who needs iterative attacks?
But you couldn't take those AoOs if you took a trip. Remember you can't make an AoO in Full Defense, the Riposte being a clear exception. If you choose to fight defensively, well you're just grating yourself an AB penalty for an AC bonus. That's called combat expertise. I never thought that was a particularly bad feat, but considering Wing has 2 other feat as requisites it's something of a dead option.
Change was needed, but this was an overcorrection--and a somewhat clumsily worded one at that.
I do agree with Jason Bulmahn that the feat as originally written made it way too easy for optimized Crane Style monk builds to lock down foes at low levels of play. I've had ongoing issues with this feat in my current home game.
|
|
Bah, when I still run up to the BBEG, go fighting defensive crane style and say his first attack at full AB is against a 44 AC instead of a 40 AC, I think GMs will still say hi to the Wizard.If you choose to fight defensively, what's the difference between that and combat expertise? MOAR AC is just that, more AC. If the baddie needs a crit to hit you, it doesn't matter if your AC is 44 or 200. Chances are they aren't gonna double crit and you take regular damage.
I'm also not gonna say +4 AC is bad though, I actually think that application has potential value if they reworked it. But the problem is in it's current form, you don't know which attack is going to actually need it. Especially when fighting Monsters whose attacks are all primaries, and there is virtually no difference in which attack you choose.
And Riposte, the whole next feat in the chain, is worthless if you choose to keep any offensive power like is being suggested.
I guess I was basing my post on monsters with iterative attacks similar to PCs. i.e +20/+15/+10. You're going to put that +4 AC on the first attack always. In other cases you'll do it on the attack which can do the most damage, like a dragon bite, which usually still has a similar highest attack bonus.
I agree Riposte should be buffed in light of the change to Crane Wing. It's basically Weapon Focus for defensive fighters with a slight benefit in the rare cases one goes total defense, which is almost never.
Crane Riposte still allows you to make an AoO when you normally wouldn't be able to make one against an opponent who wouldn't normally draw one. Simply because of the requirements to get it, maybe it could use a slight boost, but taken as just a feat, it's quite good.
Crane Riposte still allows you to make an AoO when you normally wouldn't be able to make one against an opponent who wouldn't normally draw one. Simply because of the requirements to get it, maybe it could use a slight boost, but taken as just a feat, it's quite good.
Why would you attack an individual who poses no threat to you this turn if you have intelligence?
Crane Riposte requires you to contribute nothing to your party for the turn you Total Defense.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Change was needed, but this was an overcorrection--and a somewhat clumsily worded one at that.
I do agree with Jason Bulmahn that the feat as originally written made it way too easy for optimized Crane Style monk builds to lock down foes at low levels of play. I've had ongoing issues with this feat in my current home game.
Wait, low level monks can actually defend themselves?
Nerf it! Nerf it now!
But seriously, monks already catch enough flack for their alleged suckage. Why cripple one of the few things they are genuinely good at?
Crane Riposte still allows you to make an AoO when you normally wouldn't be able to make one against an opponent who wouldn't normally draw one. Simply because of the requirements to get it, maybe it could use a slight boost, but taken as just a feat, it's quite good.Why would you attack an individual who poses no threat to you this turn if you have intelligence?
Crane Riposte requires you to contribute nothing to your party for the turn you Total Defense.
Why am I a tactically-minded monster who has a choice of opponents and doesn't care what the Crane Wing guy will do next round?
Change was needed, but this was an overcorrection--and a somewhat clumsily worded one at that.
I do agree with Jason Bulmahn that the feat as originally written made it way too easy for optimized Crane Style monk builds to lock down foes at low levels of play. I've had ongoing issues with this feat in my current home game.
Wait, low level monks can actually defend themselves?
Nerf it! Nerf it now!
But seriously, monks already catch enough flack for their alleged suckage. Why cripple one of the few things they are genuinely good at?
Okay, let's talk about those low-level monks. Ignore Crane Riposte. Crane Wing remains a more reasonable version of the the thing it was before.
Okay, let's talk about those low-level monks. Ignore Crane Riposte. Crane Wing remains a more reasonable version of the the thing it was before.Change was needed, but this was an overcorrection--and a somewhat clumsily worded one at that.
I do agree with Jason Bulmahn that the feat as originally written made it way too easy for optimized Crane Style monk builds to lock down foes at low levels of play. I've had ongoing issues with this feat in my current home game.
Wait, low level monks can actually defend themselves?
Nerf it! Nerf it now!
But seriously, monks already catch enough flack for their alleged suckage. Why cripple one of the few things they are genuinely good at?
Not really. It suffers from stunning fist problems.
It's basically like saying that the first attack made against you each round must be rolled twice, taking the lowest result.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A barbarian, druid, ranger, rogue, alchemist, cavalier etc are all still threatened by a human fighter with a longsword. The amount of threat varies, but there is SOME threat depending on the various numbers involved. A character with crane wing is UNTHREATENED completely, by a single enemy that makes a single attack.
A wizard with mirror image up is still threatened, the chance might be low, but the single enemy can wear down that defense.
The only other option i know that mitigates such a fundamanetal concept is paizo's gun rules (touch ac for a normal attack) and I would agree that its a problem, and i dont use it in my games. Are there things more powerful then crane wing? Yes, but that isnt the issue. The issue is that an extremely common foe is completely...
Actually many barbarians, druids, rangers, alchemists, and cavaliers all completely can completely shut opponents down with far greater ease than someone using crane wing. And a wizard? There are at least ten different ways to make arcane casters in general completely immune to any and all harmful effects simultaneously. Mind affecting? Immune. Damage? Immune. Magic? Immune. It's a lot easier than people think.
Do you know how much of this is accomplished? All of these classes can outright kill almost anything that isn't at least five CR above their current station. A barbarian could also opt to grapple/pin an opponent with such high modifiers (especially at low level) that the target creature has no chance of getting loose. And spell casters don't even need to take this approach. They can literally just choose to be immune to everything--in one round, no less, assuming they've got access to quicken.
Crane wing was only really effective against humanoid creatures that lacked multiple attacks. Toss in a dragon or the spawn of Yog-Sathoth and you'd see a very different outcome. "Oh hey, you blocked a tentacle! ... Here come six more. You are now grappled, pinned and suffering extreme damage. Have nice day."
Change was needed, but this was an overcorrection--and a somewhat clumsily worded one at that.
I do agree with Jason Bulmahn that the feat as originally written made it way too easy for optimized Crane Style monk builds to lock down foes at low levels of play. I've had ongoing issues with this feat in my current home game.
Wait, low level monks can actually defend themselves?
Nerf it! Nerf it now!
But seriously, monks already catch enough flack for their alleged suckage. Why cripple one of the few things they are genuinely good at?
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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Until deflect arrows is changed, I will not be utilizing this change. The fact that they can be stacked is not at issue, unless both feats are being changed in tandem. Let's not forget that with the 2 feat dip to get deflect arrows, flying targets pretty much negate any martial chance of hurting them. Someone resistant to melee could be hit from 5 feet away to hundreds of feet away by a ranged attack.
Saying that one is balanced and the other is not is tantamount to admitting that one type of fighting is superior to the other. The fact that melee is used more frequently is handled by the extra feat requirement, and the requirement to be fighting defensively, while having a spare hand.
A ranged attack is a 2 feat dip to negate once per round. To get crane wing is 3 more feats. So if you spend 5 feats, you can enjoy negating one ranged and one melee per round if you are aware of it. So the option then is to play a fighter with maybe a single feat left to work with? And sure, one could always take power attack as the obvious choice, but enjoy eating a -4 combined penalty at level 4-5.
The feat dip is so large that it is highly unlikely a character will have that combination by the time a second iterative attack is reached.
And even if they do, the damage they deal is definitely not going to be on par with a character who sank even half that feat dip into offensive power.
So in the meantime, if an enemy is a 1 trick pony, they deserve to feel that vulnerability. Even level 1 minion NPCs can have slings. They're free for crying out loud. Javelins are all of a gold piece? Heck, both options even allow for strength bonus to damage. At worst those mooks lose power attack, a smidge of accuracy shifting from strength to dexterity for accuracy, and use a lower base die of damage.
No worthwhile force in classical combat or warfare lacked a combination of melee and ranged weapons, especially on small-scale skirmisher levels. A GM crying about being unable to challenge a character immune to a single melee attack per round while aware is just laziness or not being even remotely imaginative.
And if the type of creatures or enemies facing the PCs are dim-witted or lacking in resources, and show up ill-prepared for diverse tactics, then it only makes sense that they would fall prey to a nimble specialist.
As for monsters who often lack ranged options at low level, they also tend to have multiple natural attacks.
So if I am to take this seriously for use, I would want to see deflect arrows changed to reflect a similar concept.
|
|
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.
That sounds more like you have an issue with optimizers than the feat, quite frankly. The feat is put to far better use by non-monk classes. After all, their inability to hit anything that isn't equal to or lower than them in CR is kind of a problem. As for me, I have GMed for a monk with crane wing before in both high and low level content. I found no difficulty whatsoever in bypassing his defenses. I guess it's meaningless now anyway; monks just sink deeper into the well of unwanted toys. I suppose being able to deflect a single melee attack per round is asking too much. But that's okay, swashbucklers can still do it. And spell casters can still fly.
I think Deflect Arrows would actually benefit from a nearly identical change. It's never sat well with me that a Monk could grab "immunity to the orc party's archer" as a bonus feat.
| 4 people 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.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone likes to whine about one trick ponies in character design, but I think the crane wing and deflect arrows feats highlight a way to exploit the same flaws in monsters and NPCs. Enemies shouldn't have a protected right to succeed at the same trick in every situation any more than a character should.
If someone dumps 3 feats into crane wing, good for them. They can dodge a T-Rex with a brain the size of a grapefruit. If an archer is trying to pepper a monk with deflect arrows and can't outdo the output, then he had better draw his backup sword and get close, or toss an alchemist fire.
If it is acceptable for spider climb or fly of equal level spell-casters to entirely invalidate particular enemies, then martial builds should have similar options.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Crane Style, the first feat in the chain, is better than both following feats in the chain combined now. That is mostly due to the amount of times Crane style will be use full compared to the other two. So correct me if I'm wrong but aren't feats that are further along in a chain supposed to be at least as meaningful as the first in the chain?
So my vote will be in favor of Crane Wing 1.0.
If it is acceptable for spider climb or fly of equal level spell-casters to entirely invalidate particular enemies, then martial builds should have similar options.
BLASPHAMY!
Design Manager
|
***
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.
This is wrong. It is not good. It is bad. In fact, considering the investment of feats, levels, skills, etc. required to make it anything resembling useful, it is terrible. It now has roughly the same value as a tower shield that only works once per round. That is bad.
There were some arguments made that this was unbalancing at low leves of the game, but Crane Wing is a 5th level feat with multiple requirements. The problem is that there was one poorly thought out and executed archetype famous as a 2 level dip for every build under the sun and most below that allowed early access. MoMS should have been fixed, not Crane Wing, and what happened to Crane Wing isn't a "fix" it's a curb-stomping.
I don't feel that this errata is punishing the monk at what he's good at.
The monk in my game is very good at delivering consistent damage via Flurry of Blows and overcoming DR, which is pretty crucial to this campaign (there are lots of lycanthropes in the ongoing story arc, and no small number of outsiders as well). He's got good saving throws--a hallmark of the monk--and can survive being poisoned or diseased much more easily than other PCs. He can get around environmental obstacles and survive significant fall damage when other PCs can't.
But even the full plate-armored and tower-shielded fighter in the party takes damage when I score a crit against him (even if he does make his fortification roll). This ability allows a monk to effectively negate crits, which, with a monkeyed-up AC in th elow 30s thanks to feat choices and equipment, is often the only thing that CAN hit him in a given round.
I'm not saying that the issued errata is the best way to do it, or even the way we're going to handle it. But I do think the feat as it was originally written was overpowered.
For the record, here's how I'll be handling Crane Wing in my home game going forward:
1. You only get the automatic deflection described in Crane Wing if you use Total Defense.
2. If you fight defensively, you may attempt to deflect one incoming attack per round as before--but to do so, you have to roll a CMB check and get a higher result than that of the attacker's original attack roll. Using Crane Wing in this way cannot deflect damage from a critical hit, unless you roll a natural 20 on your CMB check.
3. Crane Riposte works as usual on an automatic deflection when using total defense, as well as on a successful CMB check to deflect an attack when fighting defensively. If you fail the check, you don't get to riposte.
2. If you fight defensively, you may attempt to deflect one incoming attack per round as before--but to do so, you have to roll a CMB check and get a higher result than that of the attacker's original attack roll. Using Crane Wing in this way cannot deflect damage from a critical hit, unless you roll a natural 20 on your CMB check..
Bet the spellcaster can negate it with mirror image as usual, though.
|
|
Crane Style, the first feat in the chain, is better than both following feats in the chain combined now. That is mostly due to the amount of times Crane style will be use full compared to the other two. So correct me if I'm wrong but aren't feats that are further along in a chain supposed to be at least as meaningful as the first in the chain?
So my vote will be in favor of Crane Wing 1.0.
I can live with Crane Wing 2.0, but Crane Riposte is basically Weapon Focus with a quite rare situational bonus; for a top feat of a style chain.
So, by the bolded part, there is something wrong with barbarians, bards, druids, monks, rangers, rogues, alchemists, cavaliers, inquisitors, oracles, summoners, witches, maguses, gunslingers, ninjas, samurais, any races outside of the core races, magic items, and any spell over 3rd level.It negated several basic concepts of low level play and was obnoxious for dms to deal with (particularly for those using published material). If you have to adapt basic concepts of your game to challenge a player (such as using single humanoid enemies who fight with a single weapon) then there is something wrong. I think some clarifications and possibly an update to crane repost is necessary, but a change was clearly needed. It might have done too much, but to say the feat was 'perfectly balanced' when it negated more then half the npc codex bellow like level 10 is an absurd thing to say.
And trust me I think martials should have nice things. Being impossible to hit by an enemy who makes 1 attack a round should not be one of them (again a huge portion of low and mid level foes).
None of those classes completely negate the use of humanoid opponents with single weapon attacks. A barbarian, druid, ranger, rogue, alchemist, cavalier etc are all still threatened by a human fighter with a longsword. The amount of threat varies, but there is SOME threat depending on the various numbers involved. A character with crane wing is UNTHREATENED completely, by a single enemy that makes a single attack.
A wizard with mirror image up is still threatened, the chance might be low, but the single enemy can wear down that defense.
The only other option i know that mitigates such a fundamanetal concept is paizo's gun rules (touch ac for a normal attack) and I would agree that its a problem, and i dont use it in my games. Are there things more powerful then crane wing? Yes, but that isnt the issue. The issue is that an extremely common foe is completely...
This feat didn't negate using humanoid opponents with single weapon attacks either. It just required you to use some actual tactics. Like use ranged weapons or have more than one focus on the character negating the attacks.
You know... the same basic tactics you should be using to counter the barbarian anyway.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
It negated several basic concepts of low level play and was obnoxious for dms to deal with (particularly for those using published material). If you have to adapt basic concepts of your game to challenge a player (such as using single humanoid enemies who fight with a single weapon) then there is something wrong. I think some clarifications and possibly an update to crane repost is necessary, but a change was clearly needed. It might have done too much, but to say the feat was 'perfectly balanced' when it negated more then half the npc codex bellow like level 10 is an absurd thing to say.
And trust me I think martials should have nice things. Being impossible to hit by an enemy who makes 1 attack a round should not be one of them (again a huge portion of low and mid level foes).
If a PARTY is up against A SINGLE FREAKING ENEMY that can only MAKE A SINGLE FREAKING ATTACK, then the GM needs to think about his skills as a GM...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
S'like I said before: A mediocre caster will wind up having higher AC, almost equal HP, borderline immunity to almost frickin' everything, and more than twice the damage output of the next highest up person in the party; all with little to no personal risk unless every single enemy can A.) teleport as a free action and B.) fly. There are even ways to continue casting while standing inside an antimagic field.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, by the bolded part, there is something wrong with barbarians, bards, druids, monks, rangers, rogues, alchemists, cavaliers, inquisitors, oracles, summoners, witches, maguses, gunslingers, ninjas, samurais, any races outside of the core races, magic items, and any spell over 3rd level.It negated several basic concepts of low level play and was obnoxious for dms to deal with (particularly for those using published material). If you have to adapt basic concepts of your game to challenge a player (such as using single humanoid enemies who fight with a single weapon) then there is something wrong. I think some clarifications and possibly an update to crane repost is necessary, but a change was clearly needed. It might have done too much, but to say the feat was 'perfectly balanced' when it negated more then half the npc codex bellow like level 10 is an absurd thing to say.
And trust me I think martials should have nice things. Being impossible to hit by an enemy who makes 1 attack a round should not be one of them (again a huge portion of low and mid level foes).
None of those classes completely negate the use of humanoid opponents with single weapon attacks. A barbarian, druid, ranger, rogue, alchemist, cavalier etc are all still threatened by a human fighter with a longsword. The amount of threat varies, but there is SOME threat depending on the various numbers involved. A character with crane wing is UNTHREATENED completely, by a single enemy that makes a single attack.
A wizard with mirror image up is still threatened, the chance might be low, but the single enemy can wear down that defense.
The only other option i know that mitigates such a fundamanetal concept is paizo's gun rules (touch ac for a normal attack) and I would agree that its a problem, and i dont use it in my games. Are there things more powerful then crane wing? Yes, but that isnt the issue. The issue is that an extremely common foe is completely...
Sleep: Check...
Color Spray: Check...Cause Fear: Check...
Daze: Check...
Charm Person: Check...
Burning Disarm: Check...
Command: Check...
All are level 0/1 spells that can effectively invalidate a low level combat all on its own... So you were saying?
Again, Martials can never have nice things when anyone who can cast spells can invalidate even a low level combat...