| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?They all need a roll. So, they COULD invalidate the encounter, but is not a certain thing.
The lack of chances of failure of crane wing was bad, even if it only a 5% the chance of failure should be there.
Sleep: Requires will save. The thing is, at low levels, not many things have very good will saves... Additionally, this straight ENDS THE ENCOUNTER unlike crane Wing whihc did nothing but prolong it...
Cause Fear: See Sleep
Daze: While not as game breaking, this spell can easily shut down a martial opponent (the primary opponent that Crane Wing would be up against)
Charm Person: See Sleep
Color Spray: See sleep (when out on a Heaven's Oracle, this spell gets EXTREMELY rediculous and can be used WELL beyond any offensive first level spell should be used.)
Burning Disarm: Against a martial opponent, this can break them. They get a save to DISARM THEMSELVES. Otherwise they take damage. That pretty much is a lose-lose scenerio for the martial.
Command: See Sleep
The funny thing about these? NONE OF THESE REQUIRE SUPER SPECIFIC BUILDS. Any caster with a 18 or higher in their casting stat can make VERY effective use of these spells, unlike Crane Style which requires very specific builds to max out AC. And if you DO build with these in mind, then they get even more rediculous (Gnome Oracle with Color Spray).
even if it only a 5% the chance of failure should be there.
Why?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eating chicken wings right now.
Reading the rage in this thread makes it taste that much better :)
Eating chicken wings right now.
Reading the rage in this thread makes it taste that much better :)
Seen the Paizo Facebook post? They're eating pizza and crane wings. Mocking us like the flibbertigibbets they are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seen the Paizo Facebook post? They're eating pizza and crane wings. Mocking us like the flibbertigibbets they are.Eating chicken wings right now.
Reading the rage in this thread makes it taste that much better :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jason's Facebook Page.Seen the Paizo Facebook post? They're eating pizza and crane wings. Mocking us like the flibbertigibbets they are.Eating chicken wings right now.
Reading the rage in this thread makes it taste that much better :)
I hope he enjoys the money I'm not sending them.
Seen the Paizo Facebook post? They're eating pizza and crane wings. Mocking us like the flibbertigibbets they are.Eating chicken wings right now.
Reading the rage in this thread makes it taste that much better :)
Huh.
Well, on the one hand some people have threatened to boycott Paizo or whatever. That DOES deserve some degree of mild mockery.On the other hand, not a classy move towards the rest of us who just want to know why and would like the nerf lessened so it's not a worthless feat anymore.
Jason's Facebook Page.Seen the Paizo Facebook post? They're eating pizza and crane wings. Mocking us like the flibbertigibbets they are.Eating chicken wings right now.
Reading the rage in this thread makes it taste that much better :)
I hope all the people in this and the other threads on the subject praising Paizo for responding to fans are aware of how Buhlman was at around the same time mocking fans who disagree with him on his personal facebook.
It's rather unsporting. *sigh*
LOL nice
You know, while it probably wasn't the wisest thing Jason has ever posted, I really can't fault him for this. I could be offended if I wanted to, but when I saw the post, I couldn't help but smile and took it as the joke it's supposed to be.
Jason's Facebook Page.Seen the Paizo Facebook post? They're eating pizza and crane wings. Mocking us like the flibbertigibbets they are.Eating chicken wings right now.
Reading the rage in this thread makes it taste that much better :)
I hope all the people in this and the other threads on the subject praising Paizo for responding to fans are aware of how Buhlman was at around the same time mocking fans who disagree with him on his personal facebook.
It's rather unsporting.
We all have our bad days. For example, today, not been great for me. Sometimes we make bad decisions and act like jerks on those days. it happens.
As far as this whole Facebook thing goes, I'll forgive it. Forget, no, but I will forgive.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jason's Facebook Page.Seen the Paizo Facebook post? They're eating pizza and crane wings. Mocking us like the flibbertigibbets they are.Eating chicken wings right now.
Reading the rage in this thread makes it taste that much better :)
I hope all the people in this and the other threads on the subject praising Paizo for responding to fans are aware of how Buhlman was at around the same time mocking fans who disagree with him on his personal facebook.
It's rather unsporting.
No, but, really, tell us how you REALLY feel.
Lead Designer
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, so folks should investigate a bit more before they fly off the handle.
Some fans sent that to us some Pizza and Chicken Wings as a thanks for interacting with the community and being good sports on the boards.
It was a thanks.. and a light hearted joke.
I am not mocking anyone by eating lunch. I thought it was funny and posted up a pick on my fan page to share the joke and offer my thanks.
That is all...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
(and they even had the pizza place print out the "Crane Wings" bit and stick them on the boxes)
Oh, I was referring more to the other post gloating about the negative reaction to the errata. The crane wings and pizza thing was kinda funny.
Yea, it wasn't Paizo purchasing those crane wings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, the chicken wings thing is hilarious! And now I'm hungry for chicken.
I'm half tempted to suggest that you add crane wings as a tavern food in an upcoming book...
|
i feel like this feat was only useful against a very select group of npcs. it didnt stop casters, touch based npc's, ranged npc's, or even high initiative npc's. it required a swift ation on your turn to activate, which ment you got molywhopped on surprise and until your initiative, required you to use an attack action to activate the feat, which meant if you couldnt reach the target you couldnt repost until you attacked him.
as a gm ive had zero issues dealing with a crane style monk or fighter. was it balanced for level 1-6, no, but thats why it required level 3 to get it first, and level 7 or bab 8 to complete the chain.
smite evil is awesome against evil targets, so lets nerf it so people wont want to use it. this is the logic im seeing from paizo in this decision. its super awesome against melee targets with 1 or 2 attacks per round, but sucks against 4+ attacks per round, touch attacks, ranged attacks, spells of all kinds, and ambush/high initiative npcs.
my vote: change was unnecessary and will not be enforced in my games. in PFS i will make sure to play the most broken characters i can think of to show how badly this game needs to be balanced and changing one feat will not be enough. paizo i expect every aspect of this game to be "balanced" in this fashion until no characters can be "powerful".
the list of things that needs to be corrected next are:
spell strike
spells in the conjuration school
clerics
smite evil
fey foundling
treasure hunter trait
guns
gunslinger damage
hamatula strike
stealth
combat maneuvers (all of them)
CMB/CMD system
spell sundering barbarians builds.
more to come.
|
i feel like this feat was only useful against a very select group of npcs. it didnt stop casters, touch based npc's, ranged npc's, or even high initiative npc's. it required a swift ation on your turn to activate, which ment you got molywhopped on surprise and until your initiative, required you to use an attack action to activate the feat, which meant if you couldnt reach the target you couldnt repost until you attacked him.
as a gm ive had zero issues dealing with a crane style monk or fighter. was it balanced for level 1-6, no, but thats why it required level 3 to get it first, and level 7 or bab 8 to complete the chain.
smite evil is awesome against evil targets, so lets nerf it so people wont want to use it. this is the logic im seeing from paizo in this decision. its super awesome against melee targets with 1 or 2 attacks per round, but sucks against 4+ attacks per round, touch attacks, ranged attacks, spells of all kinds, and ambush/high initiative npcs.
my vote: change was unnecessary and will not be enforced in my games. in PFS i will make sure to play the most broken characters i can think of to show how badly this game needs to be balanced and changing one feat will not be enough. paizo i expect every aspect of this game to be "balanced" in this fashion until no characters can be "powerful".
the list of things that needs to be corrected next are:
spell strike
spells in the conjuration school
clerics
smite evil
fey foundling
treasure hunter trait
guns
gunslinger damage
hamatula strike
stealth
combat maneuvers (all of them)
CMB/CMD system
spell sundering barbarians builds.more to come.
You forgot summoners. >_>
|
i feel like this feat was only useful against a very select group of npcs. it didnt stop casters, touch based npc's, ranged npc's, or even high initiative npc's. it required a swift ation on your turn to activate, which ment you got molywhopped on surprise and until your initiative, required you to use an attack action to activate the feat, which meant if you couldnt reach the target you couldnt repost until you attacked him.
Getting attacked and potentially hit once should not be a problem for a martial character.
My wings!
You villains!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i feel like this feat was only useful against a very select group of npcs. it didnt stop casters, touch based npc's, ranged npc's, or even high initiative npc's. it required a swift ation on your turn to activate, which ment you got molywhopped on surprise and until your initiative, required you to use an attack action to activate the feat, which meant if you couldnt reach the target you couldnt repost until you attacked him.Getting attacked and potentially hit once should not be a problem for a martial character.
until you realize it was a SA character who just pounced you for 100 hp at tenth level, a magus who slapped the teeth out of your mouth with an intensified shocking grasp, or any number of pouncing beasts, monstrous beasts, or <insert bestiary creature here> and you were taken out on turn one. monks have that issue unfortunately. all that amazing AC goes bye bye on surprise against an ambush.
but this is my point. as a gm you can still scare players with things other then treants and orges, natural attackers makes crane wingers cry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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...
I didnt say defeat a combat, I said negate a fundamental concept of the game. Spells that disable people are a fundamental concept of the game. Sleep, color spray, or enough damage to kill the enemy donnot negate the ability for that enemy to threaten the character, the wizard is still threatened by the goblin until he puts it to sleep and thus defeats it. Crane wing makes the goblin unable to threaten him before it is defeated, this is the problem.
And yes, tactics, alternate encounter construction and several other things can defeat or at least mitigate the effect of crane wing. But that isnt the point. The point is that 1 character making a melee attack against another character is a fundamental aspect of the game. Often encounters (particularly in published materials) have only a few enemies in an encounter. Their attention is generally divided between the party, thus a monk, who often has other front line characters in the party with him doesnt face more then one opponent at a time often.
Its not that the feat is too powerful, there are lots of options that are more likely to end an encounter (and thus be more powerful). I would agree that sleep, color spray, invisibility, and a bunch of spells are superior to crane wing. Heck wildshape, and probably smite evil are more powerful the crane wing. But all of those things work inside the basic assumptions of the game.
The wizard casts a spell and it hampers, hurts, disables the enemy if they fail a save or he makes a touch attack. The barbarian rages and smashes things for lots of damage. None of these things make a guy with a sword non-threatening. They might kill or otherwise incapacitate the guy with the sword, but thats down to initiative, hit points and everything else normally involved in encounter design. Crane wing in its original form doesnt do that. It doesnt move the enemy towards defeat (the general scale whether concious or unconcious of 'power'). It simply makes the enemies primary offensive ability irrelevant to the character while that enemy is still up and involved in the encounter, and its continuous, unlike things like invisibility, or mirror image that have a condition that wears down or ends the effect, crane wing is essentially always on, always negating that enemy. Hence the problem.
Giving a monk an ability to knock an enemey out (ala sleep spell) love it. I am a big fan of stuff like that, I loved tome of battle and am happy for martials to be able to do cool and powerful things. But that really isnt what crane wing did. Its not an attack roll, its not a bonus, its not an effect that requires a save. Its was an automatic negation of a basic ability, a melee attack. No save, no defense, you just dont hit him because.
Again, I agree that the errata needs work, but this isnt a case of martials cant have nice thing. This is a case of something that messes with the fundamentals.
|
Lead Designer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This again brings up the topic of deflect arrows. If crane wing went against a "fundamental of the game" then so too does deflect arrows based on the reasons given.
Nope. Deflect arrows is far more limited in terms of scope and use. Almost everything makes melee attacks. Few opponents rely upon attacks that can be defeated by that feat.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please, let's stop pretending that ranged attacks are as valuable as melee attacks.
Moving is frustrating for melee characters (as they have to sacrifice extra attacks to move beyond 5 ft.).
Ranged characters don't have to move as much and can attack from safety.
And most dedicated archers have rapid shot. So Deflect Arrows isn't really a gamebreaker. Also, you can't make an AoO when someone shoots at you.
That said, I don't really like the way Deflect Arrows is designed. It seems awfully absolute for something based on a trained ability. The old save vs. arrow thing was cumbersome, but a dodge bonus to AC wouldn't be out of place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besides, people are overreacting pretty hard. Pathfinder is just a game at the end of the day. Do I hate the change? I most definitely do, but that doesn't mean I'm going to let it make me angry. It's just being tossed in the ever-growing pile of crappy feats.
Yes. Yes, they are.
I'm mostly upset because my players are going nuts over the whole affair. At least one tore up his character sheet over it because Crane Wing was such an integral part of not just his trip build, but his entire character concept. It didn't help that, up until this errata, it was tied with one other (a wizard) for his favorite character of all time.
Besides, people are overreacting pretty hard. Pathfinder is just a game at the end of the day. Do I hate the change? I most definitely do, but that doesn't mean I'm going to let it make me angry. It's just being tossed in the ever-growing pile of crappy feats.Yes. Yes, they are.
I'm mostly upset because my players are going nuts over the whole affair. At least one tore up his character sheet over it because Crane Wing was such an integral part of not just his trip build, but his entire character concept. It didn't help that, up until this errata, it was tied with one other (a wizard) for his favorite character of all time.
I thought you said you weren't going to implement the errata in your game. What changed your mind?
I've read pretty much everything there is to read about this change and I have come to one conclusion: This ruling is chock full of hypocrisy.
I've also decided that I will not be implementing it in my games as is. We will be using the old version until such a time that they can fix it PROPERLY.
I would guess Ravingdork's player tore up his sheet before the group talked about it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Soooo... is there a possibility that we'll see a slight adjustment on either Crane Wing or Crane Riposte? Something as simple as:
"You receive a +4 dodge bonus to AC against that attack; if the attack misses, it is considered deflected."
That would be enough to make Crane Riposte relevant as a follow-up feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All that said. I would also like to voice the opinion that Crane Wing is not the problem: Master of Many Styles is.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Soooo... is there a possibility that we'll see a slight adjustment on either Crane Wing or Crane Riposte? Something as simple as:
"You receive a +4 dodge bonus to AC against that attack; if the attack misses, it is considered deflected."
That would be enough to make Crane Riposte relevant as a follow-up feat.
This is like, the bare minimum that needs to happen.
Soooo... is there a possibility that we'll see a slight adjustment on either Crane Wing or Crane Riposte? Something as simple as:
"You receive a +4 dodge bonus to AC against that attack; if the attack misses, it is considered deflected."
That would be enough to make Crane Riposte relevant as a follow-up feat.
Yes. Players may take snake style instead.
I would guess Ravingdork's player tore up his sheet before the group talked about it.
I guess that's his deal but I thought RD was being entirely reasonable in not implementing the errata. No reason this should affect any GM that doesn't want to implement the change unless he or she is running PFS.
I would guess Ravingdork's player tore up his sheet before the group talked about it.
Yep.
I want to make a Good Guy Ravingdork meme now.
SEES THIS ERRATA RUINS YOUR CHARACTER.
IGNORES THE ERRATA.
I'd approve.
I want to make a Good Guy Ravingdork meme now.
SEES THIS ERRATA RUINS YOUR CHARACTER.
IGNORES THE ERRATA.
I laughed waaay too hard at this.