Crane Wing errata poll


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 830 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Scavion wrote:
knightnday wrote:

Change was needed, it's now balanced and acceptable

Adam B 125 wrote:
Ban this feat in PFS play if it feels unbalanced there. I want to have fun in the games I play in.
You still can. You can totally ignore this in your games if you want.
Little bit more difficult than that. Folks want to play what is Official. Whether we like it or not, Paizo has declared that Crane Wing was too powerful and it got the nerf hammer in return. Also when you sit down to play, you want to know all the houserules in advance so you know whats going on. Ultimately it comes down to, "If I'm houseruling all this crap anyways, Why play Pathfinder?"

I'm not sure I've ever played in a game that hasn't been house ruled in some way, so I'm less sure that is a problem overall. I can understand that people are unhappy with the change, but given the myriad of threads we have here with people changing stuff for their games, it's just one more on the pile. I imagine that there were a good deal more "I'll ignore THAT" long before this errata came along.


Ashiel wrote:
(I'll stop playing before I sit at a table with Antagonize)

I know Antagonize was pretty ridiculous before its errata, but it seems pretty reasonable now. Why don't you like it?


Lyra Amary wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
(I'll stop playing before I sit at a table with Antagonize)
I know Antagonize was pretty ridiculous before its errata, but it seems pretty reasonable now. Why don't you like it?

I'll read Ashiel's mind and answer...

"Because it role plays your character for you."


Even if Antagonize have a reasonable mechanics (it does not, IMHO), it is just an awful feat for conceptual reasons.

"oh, the barbarian said somethign about my mommy. That means I have to attack him and it does not matter if the ninja behind me will kill me next round"


Ashiel wrote:

I learned a long time ago the mantra that it takes to be a good GM.

"It's okay for the PCs to be powerful".

LMAO. I'm GMing two groups.

1) 2 Silver Dragon Wyrmlings (Monk/Sorcerer/Cleric) (Sorcerer), a Blodeuwedd Druid, a 1/2 Celestail Nonja and a Tiefling With.

2) A Sphinx/Wizard, 1/2 celestial Human Paladin, Spriggan Fighter, Shadow Inquistor, Gnome Sorcerer.

I have no problem with PC's been powerful.

The problem is that players don't like to feel that they are under no threat/challenge and they don't like been beaten with magic when they are Melee specalists. Crane Wing on a high AC build makes it extremely difficult to create a physical combat challenge. And Crane Wing is only really good at countering Melee attacks, which it is awesome at in the right build.

And no, a high AC Crane Wing build didn't take all their resources to build. It takes only moderate resources from offensive activities. Because it can be done easily with a 2 lev Monk Dip and by appropriate equipment/skills and party magic.

Crane Wing needed a nerf so that it didn't synergize with high AC builds to make Melee invunerable builds. Just because you or your players didn't use these builds didn't change the fact that a number of players and GMs ran or ran into such builds. Unless you want to claim that all the Players and GMs reporting back on this are liars or bad GM's (everyones a bad GM but you and I).

So yes, the feat really did need changing so that the synergy no longer existed. Unfortunately what they did was a general feat nerf.

Simply saying Crane Wing can't be used on an attack of a natural 19 or 20 would've done fine. All those builds that weren't high AC would've gone "shrug, not quite as good but still frickin good" and the high AC builds would've retrained, sometimes with much whining which I would be totally unsynpathetic to.

PS. Can people can the rubbish about monsters taking 1 round of swipes and then ignoring the Crane Wing Tank and going for other targets. This isn't intelligent monster play it's metagaming. People don't react that quickly in a fight to analyse and adjust their combat tactics. Claiming that any but the most exceptional do is rubbish. Hell even the most exceptional have no reason to think they have been anything but unlucky on the 1st round of misses if the enemy is still attacking back (note total defense is slightly different).


I'd be okay with Antagonize if...

A- It offered a saving throw.
B- It was a Compulsion effect.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I've seen Antagonize in action and no longer have a problem with it.


Antagonize's text you can make people fly into a rage. What it actually does it cause you to become momentarily insane.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Lyra Amary wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
(I'll stop playing before I sit at a table with Antagonize)
I know Antagonize was pretty ridiculous before its errata, but it seems pretty reasonable now. Why don't you like it?

I'll read Ashiel's mind and answer...

"Because it role plays your character for you."

This. It is a nonmagical effect that forces your character to do something by their own choice. It breaks the cardinal rule of not making decisions about someone else's characters, which is not the same as mind-control. The difference is that someone who commands you using charm person forces a decision, someone using Antagonize makes the character make a decision of their own will.


My vote is for it needed change but this went to far

I think part of the reason this feat got the hate and nerfing that it did comes from the fact it was a feat that was good for the PCs to take but not good to take against them..

Power attack for example is one of those Every martial takes it sort of things. Its just to good when its good to not take but NPC martials have it too.

Same thing with teleporting, flying, and many other busted spells. Are they busted ? Yeah... Maybe, but your NPCs can make use of them too and turn the screw in the other direction. This feat on the other hand nas been mentioned to not be so effective against things that PCs have that NPC groups for whatever reason be it Adventure path and PFS guidelines or GM whoops might not such as bows, the ability to make multiple attacks, or the ability to just outright lie about what spells the Wizard/Sorcerer/Whatever has pointed at your face. It seems to GMs to be more busted when they try to use it and its not the shut down it is when used against them because classed characters function a bit different different then monsters do and PCs tend to have better stats and gear then the NPCs do.

On the GM side that sort of thing is not always something you can account for. If I want to run a low level game where the PCs are up against a humanoid culture with taboos about touching outsiders for feat of contamination that train T-rexes <or whatever appropriate one mean attack critter> and consider anyone who doesn't wade into a melee combat to be a coward and kill the offending NPC themselves and this feat curbstomps the whole idea I had I am not a bad GM because I 'Didn't just give them bows or spells.' to overcome this one feat. Dont assume its problems are all the result of incompatence.

If you don't like the Errata don't use it.. Chances are if your DM didn't already think the feat was overpowered they hopefully wont have an issue with you using the older version instead
.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Lyra Amary wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
(I'll stop playing before I sit at a table with Antagonize)
I know Antagonize was pretty ridiculous before its errata, but it seems pretty reasonable now. Why don't you like it?

I'll read Ashiel's mind and answer...

"Because it role plays your character for you."

This. It is a nonmagical effect that forces your character to do something by their own choice. It breaks the cardinal rule of not making decisions about someone else's characters, which is not the same as mind-control. The difference is that someone who commands you using charm person forces a decision, someone using Antagonize makes the character make a decision of their own will.

My psychic powers are as sharp as ever...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Ede wrote:

LMAO. I'm GMing two groups.

1) 2 Silver Dragon Wyrmlings (Monk/Sorcerer/Cleric) (Sorcerer), a Blodeuwedd Druid, a 1/2 Celestail Nonja and a Tiefling With.

2) A Sphinx/Wizard, 1/2 celestial Human Paladin, Spriggan Fighter, Shadow Inquistor, Gnome Sorcerer.

I have no problem with PC's been powerful.

Those things don't really tell me much about their relative power, other than you're open to unusual races. The most powerful thing on that list that I see is the shadow and they have their own issues (magic items being their big one).

But there are different kinds of power. I'm one of those people who is very unimpressed with big numbers and very unimpressed with exotic races or special builds as a means of power. I find them more of a crutch. Instead, how you play is more impressive to me.

Quote:
The problem is that players don't like to feel that they are under no threat/challenge and they don't like been beaten with magic when they are Melee specalists. Crane Wing on a high AC build makes it extremely difficult to create a physical combat challenge. And Crane Wing is only really good at countering Melee attacks, which it is awesome at in the right build.

No, it's not. I've had PCs that have crane wing. It's pretty useless against NPCs who use tactics. Nets, alchemical items, invisible foes, ranged attacks, tag-teaming, the works.

Quote:
And no, a high AC Crane Wing build didn't take all their resources to build. It takes only moderate resources from offensive activities.

Because being a punching bag is a bad idea in any game.

Quote:
Because it can be done easily with a 2 lev Monk Dip and by appropriate equipment/skills and party magic.

Well buffed individuals generally are pretty good, yes. A 2 level monk dip is indeed a great dip for most martials.

Still, I can't see it being such a superior tactic in any combat that wasn't already a snorefest...

Quote:
Crane Wing needed a nerf so that it didn't synergize with high AC builds to make Melee invunerable builds.

Fortunately it didn't do that.

Quote:
Just because you or your players didn't use these builds didn't change the fact that a number of players and GMs ran or ran into such builds.

Oh no, don't get it twisted. I've had players that did just this. It's pretty much assumed that if you're going the crane-wing route you are going to be pushing AC and melee survivability. I even had a friend/player who fought with a shield in one hand an the other hand he used for crane-wing, interchanging unarmed strikes and/or shield bashes while fighting defensively.

Still not invulnerable even in melee, but he was darn good against melee. But then, that's what he was going for. He also went with the MoMS dip (also for the +3 saves) because why not? It didn't make him unstoppable, it just made him good at what he was designed to do.

Quote:
Simply saying Crane Wing can't be used on an attack of a natural 19 or 20 would've done fine.

Amazingly arbitrary.

Once again, if you are upping the stats of monsters to hit defense specialized players at rates similar to non-defensive specialized players you are doing it (GMing) wrong.


Want to re-roll Dragon Disciple please...

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have a very strong feeling that many people around here, both posters here and others (such as RD's players), are very upset about this errata because they feel that their opinion is not taken into account by Paizo.

Which can obviously be very frustrating coming from a company that is quite well-known for heavily involving its customers in its choices (ie, playtest)

That it comes through an errata (ie, instantly official) with little or no previous warning increases this feeling of helplessness and frustration.

I wonder however if it is only a hiccup in the usually pretty good relations between Paizo and its customer base or if it is akin to the last straw. Which makes me a bit worried because I feel that recent months have seen an increase in the topics where some posters feel that Paizo is not listening to its customers anymore.

I might be quite mistaken, and Paizo likely takes care not to stray from the virtuous path of listening to its customers, but still I feel some nagging doubt here and I am likely not the only one.

Obviously, all the posters who vituperate against those who "dare" criticize the errata (or even worse, criticize Paizo) are definitely NOT helping with the frustration.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
The Beard wrote:
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

Mr Bulmahn, I am afraid that your specific wording here seems to imply that you only worry about the power of the feat in the hands of PCs and not in the hands of any creature in the game (ie, monsters, NPCs). Which make it sound a bit like the errata was aimed at reducing the effectiveness of PCs.

I am pretty sure that such is not your intention at all, but I wanted to tell you that this post can give this impression ;-)


Whether or not the change was needed is still debatable, but I do think they went too far. A penalty to the character's attack rolls until the end of his next turn might have helped, and Crane Riposte could have removed or reduced that penalty.

My 30 second proposal. You get a +4 to AC if you use the feat. If you use it to auto-deflect you get a -X penalty to your attack rolls until the end of your next turn.

Crane Riposte-You get to counter attack without the penalty, and the rest of your attacks still suffer a penalty of (X-2, intent is to a smaller penalty)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

After having read (too) many posts in the threads about this errata, there's one thing I think almost every poster forgets to mention when stating their opinion: perspective.

Of course a person who believes PF has no major caster/mundane class disparity problems is much more likely to approve of the errata than a person who does. Or a person who only rarely play in levels beyond 10 in comparison to one who often does. Or someone who believes non-magic abilities, in general, simply should be less effective than magic ones (for reasons of "verisimilitude" or whatever), in comparison to someone who wishes for increased class balance. Or someone who often sees highly optimized melee PCs but has never seen an equally highly optimized caster in play, compared to someone who has. Or someone who mostly plays PFS in comparison to someone who mostly plays home games.

For example:

Cheapy wrote:
I can't speak to the masses out there, but as far as professional game designers for Pathfinder go, I've seen only very few who find the old version to be anything even approaching balanced. And I've talked about the feat with a lot of professional game designers.

Yes, of course most professional PF designers will say this, because they tend to have a similar perspective (being PF designers). That means they're highly likely to take certain parameters for granted, for example that potentially game breaking caster combos aren't as problematic as potentially game breaking mundane combos and that the imbalances between different types of player options are simply a part of the game. In short, what I believe most developers actually say is that Crane Wing is unbalanced in comparison to other melee related player options in PF, especially at early levels. If we were to ask specifically for their opinion on how balanced mundane PC's with Crane Wing are to, say, conjuration wizards at level 10, I guess the answer would be quite different.

Also, I'd bet that the developers that actually have a different perspective to begin with (such as most people working with DSP) would call this nerf both unnecessary and way too extreme.

Personally, I'd probably vote for option #5 (6?):

5. Crane Wing was OK, but perhaps not at level 2. They should've changed MoMS or the prerequisites to prevent early level access instead.

And my perspective is that martial classes (especially the monk) need more options on the power level of Crane Wing in order to help with party balance problems. And especially that martial classes need strong options not directly related to DPR, but rather options for making martial combat roles other than striker viable and effective throughout all levels. How about some true tank/defender mechanics to make their typically high durability mean something for their party, for example?


I thought it was fine before.

The 2 level dip to MoMS was actually fine since the trade offs were significant to most classes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
zagnabbit wrote:

I thought it was fine before.

The 2 level dip to MoMS was actually fine since the trade offs were significant to most classes.

This point is too often ignored in this debate. I have a magus that I originally considered the 2 level MoMS dip with. But he lost so much, I eventually went straight magus. I'd be willing to bet a lot of these "power builds" with the dip were not played from level one. The dip seems much better when you don't have six gaming sessions of suck before you actually get to play your character...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
upho wrote:

After having read (too) many posts in the threads about this errata, there's one thing I think almost every poster forgets to mention when stating their opinion: perspective.

Of course a person who believes PF has no major caster/mundane class disparity problems is much more likely to approve of the errata than a person who does. Or a person who only rarely play in levels beyond 10 in comparison to one who often does. Or someone who believes non-magic abilities, in general, simply should be less effective than magic ones (for reasons of "verisimilitude" or whatever), in comparison to someone who wishes for increased class balance. Or someone who often sees highly optimized melee PCs but has never seen an equally highly optimized caster in play, compared to someone who has. Or someone who mostly plays PFS in comparison to someone who mostly plays home games.

For example:

Cheapy wrote:
I can't speak to the masses out there, but as far as professional game designers for Pathfinder go, I've seen only very few who find the old version to be anything even approaching balanced. And I've talked about the feat with a lot of professional game designers.

Yes, of course most professional PF designers will say this, because they tend to have a similar perspective (being PF designers). That means they're highly likely to take certain parameters for granted, for example that potentially game breaking caster combos aren't as problematic as potentially game breaking mundane combos and that the imbalances between different types of player options are simply a part of the game. In short, what I believe most developers actually say is that Crane Wing is unbalanced in comparison to other melee related player options in PF, especially at early levels. If we were to ask specifically for their opinion on how balanced mundane PC's with Crane Wing are to, say, conjuration wizards at level 10, I guess the answer would be quite different.

Also, I'd bet that the developers that actually have a...

You bring up a good point. It's called "confirmation bias" and it's a big deal in organizational decision making. It's like the apocryphal story about Pauline Kael of The New Yorker, who supposedly was shocked when Nixon won the presidency, saying, "How could Nixon win? I don't know anyone who voted for him!"

Confirmation bias is the biggest danger to most organizations, despite the fact that it doesn't seem all that dangerous when compared to the day-to-day dangers a business faces. But look at the fall of any major (and many minor) corporations, and they always seem to be going full steam ahead in the wrong direction until their collapse. These people aren't stupid; they just all see things from the same shared viewpoint, and that's what does them in. I'm sure no one at Microsoft had anything bad to say about Windows 8...

That's why PFS is so dangerous for Paizo. It greatly grows the market, and so it is a big-time business asset. But there's no greater source of confirmation bias imaginable, as well....


VargrBoartusk wrote:
If I want to run a low level game where the PCs are up against a humanoid culture with taboos about touching outsiders for feat of contamination that train T-rexes <or whatever appropriate one mean attack critter> and consider anyone who doesn't wade into a melee combat to be a coward and kill the offending NPC themselves and this feat curbstomps the whole idea I had I am not a bad GM because I 'Didn't just give them bows or spells.' to overcome this one feat. Dont assume its problems are all the result of incompatence.

That sounds like the exact kind of culture that would've invented "Crane Wing" hahah.

Where's the poll option of "Power up every other combat feat to match Crane Wing in quality" That takes work though, I don't think any PF designers really have the time for that.


Ashiel wrote:

Once again, if you are upping the stats of monsters to hit defense specialized players at rates similar to non-defensive specialized players you are doing it (GMing) wrong.

That's tge 2nd time you've said that apparently as an attack on my GMing failure been the reason I found Crane Wing a problem in High AC builds.

Despite my original post saying specifically that simply upping the opponents to hit isn't a satisfactory response to Crane Wing.
If you are going to throw up Straw men to support your argument at least try not to accuse someone of doing something that they've specifically said they thought was a bad idea.

At this point many examples have been given where Crane Wing mixed with High AC becomes a problem for GM's. We've even repeatedly pointed out why we don't consider all the anti-Crane Wing suggestions you put up don't really work so far as we are concerned. If posters who thought it was great are still defending with [b]"you guys are all bad GM's"[/] then I guess you have to live with the concept that the game is designed to be played by all us bad GM's as well as you awesome GM's. And been awesome GM's you can handle house ruling Crane Wing to run as before the erata. Indeed been awesome GM's you can ignore the Erata and FAQs because you can handle all the problems with out help from the Game Designers, and leave us bad GM's to get the erata's and FAQ's we find useful (even if this wasn't really what I wanted).

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Eirikrautha wrote:
That's why PFS is so dangerous for Paizo. It greatly grows the market, and so it is a big-time business asset. But there's no greater source of confirmation bias imaginable, as well....

PFS is so far removed from normal Pathfinder as to be almost totally different games. The fact that PFS complaints (and I've GM'd\Played PFS a lot) have affected Pathfinder as a whole is....just inconceivable. The PFS Coordinators should of nipped this in the bud with Paizo, or if a change really was needed then fix the root of the problem, the 2 level MoMS dip. Make CW only available to Monk's, say MoMS at 4 and a normal Monk at 5 or 6. Something like that, happy medium. Not this, this was just misguided and heavy-handed. I am sure the intention was good, but (imho) it was a mistake and it's unfortunate that they waited till the new edition is getting released to notify everyone. It doesn't take a precog to know that this wasn't going to go over well. :-/

Liberty's Edge

Felix Gaunt wrote:
[It doesn't take a precog to know that this wasn't going to go over well. :-/

I guess this is what bothers me with how the devs design errata. Sometimes it's impossible to gauge the reaction on a ruling change or errats. In this case it should have been obvious from the start. For them to act surprised and shocked at the negative reaction to Crane Wing is to me at least unbeleivable.


memorax wrote:
Felix Gaunt wrote:
[It doesn't take a precog to know that this wasn't going to go over well. :-/
I guess this is what bothers me with how the devs design errata. Sometimes it's impossible to gauge the reaction on a ruling change or errats. In this case it should have been obvious from the start. For them to act surprised and shocked at the negative reaction to Crane Wing is to me at least unbeleivable.

I think Jason said they were expecting an outcry, just not as much or (more so in the immediate aftermath than now with a few nights to sleep on it) as bitter.

Liberty's Edge

Coriat wrote:


I think Jason said they were expecting an outcry, just not as much or (more so in the immediate aftermath than now with a few nights to sleep on it) as bitter.

I have to say considering how bad the nerf was I could have seen how angry and unhappy those who liked Crane Wing could be from a mile away. As I said it's not always easy to gauge. Yet in this case it should have imo been obvious.

Shadow Lodge

Coriat wrote:
memorax wrote:
Felix Gaunt wrote:
[It doesn't take a precog to know that this wasn't going to go over well. :-/
I guess this is what bothers me with how the devs design errata. Sometimes it's impossible to gauge the reaction on a ruling change or errats. In this case it should have been obvious from the start. For them to act surprised and shocked at the negative reaction to Crane Wing is to me at least unbeleivable.
I think Jason said they were expecting an outcry, just not as much or (more so in the immediate aftermath than now with a few nights to sleep on it) as bitter.

I saw that the original Crane Wing thread had a lot of posts, so I was curious to see how it rated against past threads. So I did a sort, and guess what? I think it's 13th, that's pretty friggin high given this is only a few days old. If you include this thread in it then it's easily in the Top 10, I think about 6th. Then I noticed the top thread titles, 6 of which are about Martial hate and 2 of those are Monk-centric. So yeah, the data is there that this was going to explode. Anyone who plays the game with any frequency would of said "Yeah, you're going to do what? The fit is so going to hit the shan!" lol


Stephen Ede wrote:


That's the 2nd time you've said that apparently as an attack on my GMing failure been the reason I found Crane Wing a problem in High AC builds.

Despite my original post saying specifically that simply upping the opponents to hit isn't a satisfactory response to Crane Wing.
If you are going to throw up Straw men to support your argument at least try not to accuse someone of doing something that they've specifically said they thought was a bad idea.

At this point many examples have been given where Crane Wing mixed with High AC becomes a problem for GM's. We've even repeatedly pointed out why we don't consider all the anti-Crane Wing suggestions you put up don't really work so far as we are concerned. If posters who thought it was great are still defending with [b]"you guys are all bad GM's"[/] then I guess you have to live with the concept that the game is designed to be played by all us bad GM's as well as you awesome GM's. And been awesome GM's you can handle house ruling Crane Wing to run as before the erata. Indeed been awesome GM's you can ignore the Erata and FAQs because you can handle all the problems with out help from the Game Designers, and leave us bad GM's to get the erata's and FAQ's we find useful (even if this wasn't really what I wanted).

It's also been pointed out that melee combat isn't exactly a challenge to begin with unless you throw in spells, ranged attacks, terrain, supernatural abilities and etc(stuff that also happens to avoid Crane Wing). Crane Wing or not, a Player whose in a fight that comes down to AC and damage will win that fight every time if it's something CR appropriate. Fights begin with the party trying to get their damage dealer into position to kill the enemy. Fights end when he does. So the big deal in encounters is how tricky is it to get into position to end the fight. Melee combat is the least effective and least interesting way of making that tricky.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Coriat wrote:


I think Jason said they were expecting an outcry, just not as much or (more so in the immediate aftermath than now with a few nights to sleep on it) as bitter.
I have to say considering how bad the nerf was I could have seen how angry and unhappy those who liked Crane Wing could be from a mile away. As I said it's not always easy to gauge. Yet in this case it should have imo been obvious.

Yeah, confirmation bias at its best. When everyone around you says "Thank god you fixed that exploit; it was so popular!" And yet you never hear anyone who uses it explain why they like it (and why you shouldn't change it) you know you're only getting half of the story. Or at least you should know... But that's why confirmation bias is so insidious. It's not a "thing" you can look out for; it's the absence of a thing, which makes it really hard to see...


Gah, I'm still salty about this. I think I'm gonna build a new boss NPC for my players using the new style feat and report play test data for it.


If deflect arrows is fine then cranes wing should be fine the way it was.

Not the end of the world though.


Darth Grall wrote:
Gah, I'm still salty about this. I think I'm gonna build a new boss NPC for my players using the new style feat and report play test data for it.

A npc who the pc's in my game might fight has cranes wing. Updated for the new rules recently.

Maybe I'll post the results.


Felix Gaunt wrote:
Coriat wrote:
memorax wrote:
Felix Gaunt wrote:
[It doesn't take a precog to know that this wasn't going to go over well. :-/
I guess this is what bothers me with how the devs design errata. Sometimes it's impossible to gauge the reaction on a ruling change or errats. In this case it should have been obvious from the start. For them to act surprised and shocked at the negative reaction to Crane Wing is to me at least unbeleivable.
I think Jason said they were expecting an outcry, just not as much or (more so in the immediate aftermath than now with a few nights to sleep on it) as bitter.
I saw that the original Crane Wing thread had a lot of posts, so I was curious to see how it rated against past threads. So I did a sort, and guess what? I think it's 13th, that's pretty friggin high given this is only a few days old. If you include this thread in it then it's easily in the Top 10, I think about 6th. Then I noticed the top thread titles, 6 of which are about Martial hate and 2 of those are Monk-centric. So yeah, the data is there that this was going to explode. Anyone who plays the game with any frequency would of said "Yeah, you're going to do what? The fit is so going to hit the shan!" lol

Yeah... I've not even been here long and I could see the explosion coming from orbit.

I kinda suspect they were thinking the nerf would come across as more reasonable than it does.


Lemartes wrote:

A npc who the pc's in my game might fight has cranes wing. Updated for the new rules recently.

Maybe I'll post the results.

Please do, should they fight them.

I'm curious to see if such a character will have ANY real effect on a fight. For NPCs, they will be outnumbered, making a possibility of deflection a mediocre option at best given all the action economy at best. As for the fighting defensively bonus, I'll be interested to see how effective it is. Or if it even makes a difference.


Lemartes wrote:
Darth Grall wrote:
Gah, I'm still salty about this. I think I'm gonna build a new boss NPC for my players using the new style feat and report play test data for it.

A npc who the pc's in my game might fight has cranes wing. Updated for the new rules recently.

Maybe I'll post the results.

I'm actually hoping to set up an unofficial playtest system on here to prevent unneeded nerfs from happening and give the devs a better idea of what needs fixed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MagusJanus wrote:
I kinda suspect they were thinking the nerf would come across as more reasonable than it does.

I think they must have too. But most players and DMs I think can agree that defensive options are already weaker than offensive ones, and this make one of those better options now one of the weakest for the cost.

See I don't even get the whole reason one would nerf it. Were DMs really that upset they couldn't hit the few PCs with this feat? When I don't hit my PCs I'm glad, I want my players to win against the odds.

You know what would have been a great nerf? Remove/Reduce the reduction of AB penalties from the style. If you don't want them to maintain offense while getting deflection, make it so that they don't hit as easily.

You don't want the deflection to be automatic? Come up with a check or something to make it less consistent.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

unfortunately the errata is bad. I think the devs made a terrible call in their decision.

The funny thing is I wouldn't have minded had they tweaked it a bit, but throwing the feat on the garbage list was just uncalled for.

I know they've said that they'll revisit it later, and keep a look out for it, but it seems to me that the feats that get changed are rarely the ones in the garbage list getting made better. If that was the case I'd applaud them for attempting to make sure every feat had a place in someones build somewhere.

As to many GM's who felt like their characters were unhittable and therefore this was needed, I feel your pain. I GM a fighter at level 7 with a 35-40 AC depending on what buff's he has up. I realized though, that he wanted to have his character be unhittable, so he is. Guess what, the monsters still hit everyone else. In fact with him being so ridiculous I've had to change up my tactics in how to fight him. It's fine though, because I've realized that trying to up stats to be able to hit him:

1. defeats the point of his character concept, and makes his feats a complete waste
2. hurts the rest of the party unfairly
3. was really just my own annoyance that I can't curb stomp him with a powerful melee character.

I think the martial/caster discussion is entirely valid, but is not needed to make the point that this was a bad decision

I think the deflect arrows comparison has some issues, but is not needed to make the point that this was a bad decision

I think that the PFS caused the problem is valid, but is not needed to make the point that this was a bad decision

I think the point that we should have more feats like crane wing, not less, is a valid point, but is not needed to make the point that this was a bad decision

In short, I do hope the devs revisit this feat and bring it back into a state where it might be used. I have strong reservations that they are saying that just to appease the anger though. Only time will tell.


The old feat was fine, had no issues with it. Unless every creature just uses the 'Hulk smash' *swing sword* tactic, I fail to see any issue.

Instead of nerfing this, they should think about buffing a lot of the mediocre combat feats out there. I'd rather make the pool of feat options better than drag down one of the good ones.

OR

Have the PFS ban MoMS if it's such an issue. I think they'd have many less problems if it was take at the normal levels instead of 1st.


I don't even think all of the devs are directly involved in PFS in the first place.

I don't think you can really blame PFS. Speaking for myself, I took a look at Master of Many Styles and the Style feats and decided I didn't want to address the issues with that material in my customized monk book. Crane Wing was definitely one of the offenders.

graystone wrote:


Instead of nerfing this, they should think about buffing a lot of the mediocre combat feats out there. I'd rather make the pool of feat options better than drag down one of the good ones.

If every combat feat allowed you to ace a broad kind of encounter, the game would quickly become unplayable. Issues with flight and Deflect Arrows and size differences and energy immunities would be nothing in comparison to a game where a fighter had five or six feats, each of which raised such issues on their own. It would be comparable to turning the wizard spell list into the "all good spells" version.


Felix Gaunt wrote:
I saw that the original Crane Wing thread had a lot of posts, so I was curious to see how it rated against past threads. So I did a sort, and guess what? I think it's 13th, that's pretty friggin high given this is only a few days old. If you include this thread in it then it's easily in the Top 10, I think about 6th.

Note that there was a third thread going as well, which was locked after about 350 posts. That thread can be found here.

At the moment I count about 1800 posts total spread across three threads in two days, which leaves 'crane gate' roughly tied at third most posted ever in the General RPG forum. It is thoroughly beaten by "the main problem with fighters" with 3100 posts and "on Paladins and being a good player" with 2400 posts, and is neck and neck with "talk me down: Exotic race Antipathy" with 1819 posts.
In comparison the Arcanist (which I personally consider the most controversial class in the ACG play test), both pre and post-revision threads, totaled about 2300 posts over four weeks.

It seems safe to say Paizo hit a nerve with this particular errata.


Along the lines of the errata to Crane Wing: I hope that the stupid jingasa gets nerfed. I'm miffed at that item's existence.


I'm terribly surprised Double Barreled didn't get nerfed. That seemed like an easy one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Ede wrote:
That's tge 2nd time you've said that apparently as an attack on my GMing failure been the reason I found Crane Wing a problem in High AC builds.

*stretches and yawns*

I said, "Once again, if you are upping the stats of monsters to hit defense specialized players at rates similar to non-defensive specialized players you are doing it (GMing) wrong".

So are you confirming that you did this, even if you thought it was a bad idea? Because upping their to-hit to obscene levels is not only very petty but it addresses the real issue like upping the to-hit bonus on an archer versus the dude with Deflect Arrows (you're still not going to land Manyshot).

I can only assume that you did in fact do this, because you seem highly offended when I made the statement that doing that would be very poor. So I guess you did do it, since you responded that I was attacking your "GMing failure". Let's get past that for a moment and look at the real issue.

Crane Wing has pretty much nothing to do with high AC builds beyond merely allowing them to ignore one auto-hit per round, since according to you, you're going after the "5% chance to always land a hit", since Crane Wing isn't providing the AC boost, it's just deflecting an attack that is incoming. This can only be done once per round and amusingly is less effective against weak enemies (since if you have a 95% evasion due to AC vs incoming attacks of level appropriate enemies, anything with a lower to-hit bonus still has the same % chance to land attacks).

I'm not sure what you plan to do if you won't accept that being difficult to hit by melee attacks isn't a thing. High level combat would make anyone who dislikes Crane Wing cry themselves to sleep. At high levels, martials can have ACs that are capped at the 95% mark against balors, with 20-50% miss chances on top of that, and quite possibly a 75% or better chance to just outright ignore critical hits, and then you likely have some form of damage reduction on top of it to boot.

If a player has a 95% chance to avoid incoming physical attacks, you either begin debuffing or attacking them differently, or throw out more attacks. If the player is not having fun because s/he is not challenged by martial combat (an odd thing to assume given that their build is based around the idea of being hard to deal with in melee combat) and you are just looking for more opportunities to challenge them, there are countless ways. Using less equal-to-high CR melee brutes and throwing more mooks into the fray is a good way (if you're fishing for 20s anyway, fish more).

Not that it matters I guess since you said...

Quote:
The problem is that players don't like to feel that they are under no threat/challenge and they don't like been beaten with magic when they are Melee specalists.

It's clearly unreasonable to challenge PCs with anything except in areas where they clearly excel. Do you nerf melee monsters when they get into range of the casters because they don't like being beaten with physical when they are magic specialists?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Scavion wrote:
I'm terribly surprised Double Barreled didn't get nerfed. That seemed like an easy one.

I believe they're still watching that one. They said when they errata'd weapon cords that they were going to see if the weapon cord fix was enough, or if they would have to tackle double-barreled weapons as well.


Ashiel wrote:
Stephen Ede wrote:
That's tge 2nd time you've said that apparently as an attack on my GMing failure been the reason I found Crane Wing a problem in High AC builds.

*stretches and yawns*

I said, "Once again, if you are upping the stats of monsters to hit defense specialized players at rates similar to non-defensive specialized players you are doing it (GMing) wrong".

So are you confirming that you did this, even if you thought it was a bad idea? Because upping their to-hit to obscene levels is not only very petty but it addresses the real issue like upping the to-hit bonus on an archer versus the dude with Deflect Arrows (you're still not going to land Manyshot).

I never said I took that approach. I said I didn't consider it an appropriate approach to take. Somehow you keep trying to read that as "I took this approach".

Your comments about Balor's summons up a large part of the problem. You (and others) can't seem to accept that only a tiny amount of games are ever played at that level. Indeed only a tiny part of games are ever played above 14th level. In 30 years of playing DnD/Pathfinder I've once reached 18th level and another ended at 14th level. And if you look at the player surveys this is pretty representative. IIRC about 90% of games never see 10th level.

So when you say Melee combat doesn't matter at 18th level my response is "so what. Almost no one plays at those levels". And if Melee Combat is so unimportant why are there people complaining about this feat getting nerfed. I would suggest that the truth is that Melee combat is important to most players, including those claiming it's not important, because they wouldn't be complaining if it wasn't.

I would also suggest that since I'm seeing very little descriptions of how Crane Wing made for more interesting melee fights then the fact that so much complaining is occurring indicates that the complainers agree that it was simply a very powerful feat and they're unhappy about losing that power.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Ede wrote:

I would also suggest that since I'm seeing very little descriptions of how Crane Wing made for more interesting melee fights then the fact that so much complaining is occurring indicates that the complainers agree that it was simply a very powerful feat and they're unhappy about losing that power.

Don't deride the opposition by calling us complainers. There are very real problems with the nerf, how it came about, and what it means for the rest of the system.

I can immediately think of one way Crane Wing makes fights more interesting. The game is built around rocketing your offense about. Anything that delays that makes fights more interesting. Being able to build a BBEG who can last a few rounds with the Front Liner slugging him is a godsend.

There are multiple points of which people are frustrated with the nerf and I don't like the way you're dismissing them with the folks who believe melee combat is relatively uninteresting.

First and foremost is it lowers variety. Defensive builds are already an incredible minority to the rocket tag builds of martials. With or without Crane Wing. Likely this nerf will push those builds even further away. People are going to be disappointed by the lack of support for duelist style defensive fighting.

Second you have the folks(like me) who are bothered by the fact that PFS seems to have a major part in this errata which has affected all of Pathfinder.

Third we have the people annoyed that the Caster Martial disparity has grown even moreso since Crane Wing was an ability that scaled as you went. It also had an interesting reversal of the power chart. Martials are strong early and less powerful later on. Crane Wing was held as a shining example of a Martial feat, so of course it was powerful early on. At later levels it decreased in effectiveness as all Martials do.

There are more reasons and I'd love for people to add to my list.


The feat itself really wasn't too powerful, it was that a few classes could bypass the requirements and take it straight out of the gates.

At that point there really isn't much alot of melees can do to deal with the feat. They aren't going to have multiple attacks, they won't have access to haste, twf can only be effectively done by people who went that route and is still negated by "I move more than 5 feet", and frankly its too early for people to be effective switch hitters.

So anyone that bypassed the requirements basically negated any form of melee offense at low levels with regular ease. Once you reached the appropriate level, 5th or so, where you'd regularly get the feat people had other ways of dealing with it.

It wasn't unbalanced. It was unbalanced for level 1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
At that point there really isn't much alot of melees can do to deal with the feat.

Melee-focused characters can't carry a bow or flasks of alchemist's fire or whatever as a backup weapon? Sure, they won't be effective switch-hitters, but that doesn't mean they can do nothing.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
At that point there really isn't much alot of melees can do to deal with the feat.
Melee-focused characters can't carry a bow as a backup weapon?

Already replied to that if you didn't bother to read the rest of it but here it is again on its own.

You can but you won't make an effective switch hitter at level 1. There generally aren't enough feats at level 1 to be an effective ranged character and melee character.


Scavion wrote:
I'm terribly surprised Double Barreled didn't get nerfed. That seemed like an easy one.

Well, weapon cord was nerfed. I suppose that was enough for now.

251 to 300 of 830 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Crane Wing errata poll All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.