| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So let me get this right. One of t[h]e reasons you don't like PFS is because you don't have to honor the rules.
Incorrect: I dislike PFS because of how limiting it is for DMs. We are referees instead of DMs, and we are supposed to not change or modify anything in order to enhance the experience. This is fine and dandy, save for Paizo builds their modules for a core party (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard) that is balanced. Every time I run a PFS module and there is a big-bad final boss VS a party of 1 gunslinger, 1 zen archer, 1 barbarian, and a tanking battle cleric I just have to laugh since it does not have any prayer of a chance.
The intention is that there isn't supposed to be leeway, and you are not supposed to use your DMing skills to do anything beyond keep it rolling.The point, which was lost on you, was later in the post: Allow characters made with old errata to use old errata if they so choose, and force new characters to use new errata. This is technically "cheating" but it makes it so people can enjoy the character they made. I am not the type that wants my Players wondering if Paizo is going to "ruin" their characters with an errata change.
Essentially, I'm reading that (and correct me if I'm wrong) as you feel its too easy to cheat in PFS.
Perhaps you should point out exactly where you found this, be it sentence or paragraph, if you are referencing a clause to support yourself then quit wasting my time.
So then you go on to write quite a bit about how you don't intend to honor the rules as either a player or GM.
As paizo stated in the Core Rules Book:
The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into
your characters and the world they explore. While they are
designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might
find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your
gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours.
You can change them to fit your needs.
Therefore, your argument of "honoring" the rules as a DM is invalid in the context of my previous post. I decide how best to handle errata changes with my group, not Paizo. They create the content. They update their errata to ensure the best possible experience. It is the DM's job to ensure that everyone is enjoying themselves, and concessions must be made when something new comes along.
This nerf to Crane Wing will impact few players, but to those it does impact we should make concessions for them instead up just saying:So Paizo says that this new change effectively makes that feat you like pretty useless. If you don't like that this effectively ruins how your character played and how he stayed alive then too bad.
Do you want to play with that DM? I don't. He sounds like a jerk.
<blink>
Self-fulfilling prophecy?
<blink>
Your inability to read posts baffles me.<blink>Please follow the rules in PFS, and please don't advocate for others to cheat.
In your home game, you can set whatever house rules you like.
I am simply advocating that when you make a character that the rules that character is made within are applicable. Future rules and regulations that affect said character should either be ignored or offer major concessions, such as a full rebuild, if those changes change something key to the character. A change to the light spell shouldn't reset all of a character's spells, perhaps a concession of he can switch it out for something else if he feels so inclined.
One could, instead, state that the cheating is done by the errata update in that the character was made with a contract of the rules. The systems, feats, skills, traits, and class features that he used are changed, pulled out from under him one might say, and important things have changed. What does he get aside from the short end of the stick? More importantly why should he keep playing? A character that goes from being a bad-ass to being a punching bag due to errata changes isn't fair to the Player since he just saw his character go from Bruce Lee to a James Bond mook after the update.
Now, I could be wrong. I like everything being fair and people not feeling screwed because of things beyond their control. We get enough of that in our waking lives. Tax laws change, speed limits change, and all we can do against this, if we are found in violation thereof, is bend over and take the strap-on of justice.
The question is whether it is more important to strictly adhere to the rules that the characters predates be a large margin, or to not make your player feel singled out and screwed by changes.
A perfect example of how easy it is to get around Crane Wing: Our 6th level group (4 people, no arcane caster) went up against a 9th level fighter with Crane Wing and high AC. We could do almost nothing to him. However, I just used my Martial Manuever ability to gain Imp. Feint and Greater Feint as a move action, then feinted him and we crushed him in one round. This is called "adapting tactics to the encounter", what any GM or player should do normally, not anything special. So all the arguments against Crane Style are, IMO, weak at best.
And exactly how many monsters in the bestiary have 'martial manuvers'? Is that a brawler ability from an unpublished class? How many NPC's have that ability? It's certainly not an ability from the standard classes. This argument reminds me of the one guy who said a class was fine in power because you could use words of power for a level 2 Haste spell on yourself, and his entire defense was based on the one niche ability.
And you do know a Hold Person, Color Spray from an Oracle of the Heavens, Create Pit, or any number of spells could have done the same thing, right? Touch attack shocking grasps from a magus would have worked fine, too.
The problem isn't NPC's having Crane Wing, and it never has been. The party will find a way. You might as well be arguing that swarms are unbalanced, and golems, and people in A-M fields, and such.
Now, take that 9th level fighter and put him up against your 6th level party, and all of YOU have Crane Wing.
20 rounds later, the 9th level fighter dies of exhaustion because he can't do a bloody thing to you. So does the Ogre Barbarian, the giant, the troll, etc etc etc.
Then realize every single melee monster combatant the GM wants to use has to contend with the same thing every combat.
In which case now the GM can't use melee combatants if he wants to challenge the party, and 'the solutions to Crane Wing' suddenly start popping in. Combat is all ranged and spells, and Crane Wing is now useless, because the GM doesn't want to melee, he wants to CHALLENGE THE PARTY. And lo, Crane Wing becomes a worthless investment because now nobody is meleeing, and you've changed the game and made it unfun for everyone.
That's what Crane Wing can do to the game in the hands of a good PC. NPC? Who cares? Unless every NPC you meet has CRane Wing (you know, like every NPC is going to meet your PC, and he always has his Crane WIng), it's a non-issue for things YOU are fighting. It's no worse then a swarm the mage fireballs, the golem with dr 20 that the mage tosses in a pit, or the flying creature you shoot arrows at. They are all invulnerable to melee, and the party finds a way around it.
NPC's don't have that spur of the moment option, and certainly most monsters don't. The whole 'the GM can just change the encounter to challenge the party' argument is also 'Crane Wing means this style of play is not going to challenge the party, so don't use it in ANY encounter. That means don't use melee.'
==Aelryinth
Well, the GM can use melee mechanics, but he has to use something other than one big hit. Then again, there isn't an abundance of land octopus, and for this we should probably be thankful.
I feel like crane wing seeped into this...
