|
First, those claiming there was a big problem with CW or that it was overpowered continue to ignore the fact that there are numerous NORMAL and COMMON combat encounter tactics that either reduce or negate the effectiveness of the feat. Just that fact alone completely counters the OP argument.
However, with the new erratta to Crane Riposte, I actually like the new feat tree better. It actually is more powerful now. Before, my fighter would only use CW maybe 2-3 times (if that much) against a main enemy in a combat and almost none in any other fights, thus only giving me that many AoOs with CR. Now I can designate my CW versus the attack with the lowest bonus and get my riposte practically every round. Sure, I'll get hit slightly more often (but my very high AC still prevents that from being a big threat), but now I'm getting an extra AoO every round (big offensive boost).
Yeah, I'm a huge fan of the new Crane Riposte. The capstone feat of the style is now stronger than the 2nd feat in the style, and it feels good to use.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: Wow, you people type fast. Folks will need to go back about 10 posts to see what I was responding to.
I really think the +4 after suggestion (which has been suggested since almost immediately after the errata) is the way to go. It eliminates some the crazier possibilities, allows hits on a nat 20, and still gives a solid defensive buff. With that said, count me in the camp that says it needed a nerf. Also count me in the camp that says the current nerf is going to the other extreme. Seeing Cheapy's comment above refer to the post-errata state as "something more reasonable" saddened me. :(
BBT's comment about society GM's being unaware of options and counters is another really good point. Running scenarios for PFS is a FANTASTIC way for GMs to get their start. It's much easier to run a scenario than a module or AP, or create your own world. Beginner GMs can get the vital experience they need to run until they're confident enough to try more ambitious projects. For this reason alone, I think organized play (or at least scenarios) is vital to expanding and supporting the hobby.
Unfortunately, this otherwise very good thing adds its own complexities to the Crane Wing issue. A lot of PFS GMs who were stymied by highly defensive builds hadn't developped the system mastery necessary to counter them. And because they were encountering these builds in organized play, the options to counter or challenge the players of those builds were much more limited.
Not all of the GMs voicing complaints were inexperienced, either. Many were 3 to 5 star GMs with enough savvy to either handle or ban the build outside of organized play. But I imagine that enough of the newer GMs were asking how to deal with these builds that it underlined and emphasized the concerns of the more experienced GMs. It's also possible that Paizo received enough feedback from inexperienced non-society GMs that this issue seemed to be of a wider scale to the designers than to the objecting segment of the forums.
Add an already strong feat (honestly a bit too strong) with inexperienced GMs using a system that limits the possible responses and puts additional pressure on a strained scenario design team... I can see how this would be a bigger problem to Paizo than it seems to us.
There are aspects of this decision that could have been handled better. The nerf itself is too much. The questions over Crane Riposte make the nerf feel rushed or not fully thought out to those of us who aren't in the decision loop. I really wish there had been some form of warning or discussion allowed on the boards beforehand. But the design team gets a A LOT of credit in my book for their patience with the fallout. They've clearly been listening (even if they don't agree), and the FAQ on Crane Riposte showed me that they are willing to respond to feedback. Seeing their replies on the main thread - especially one of Stephen's posts - went a long way. If Paizo really didn't care (as some posters have implied or said outright) then they wouldn't have responded to the furor in the way that they did. That says a lot of very good things.
As to the bad things? Nobody's perfect.
If the bonus is a +4 Dodge bonus, on a single attack, while requiring a free hand, and requiring three other feats first, then I'm significantly better off using a shield. At the very least it should be an AC bonus scaling to level.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Argh, i also having trouble to understand why there is so many Crane Wing threads over here after UC Errata, but this thread turned to be big enough to me to follow, i think i will open a new Crane Wing thread to understand the explaining of the Crane Wing Threads... (jk)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing that strikes me the most is that it's clear many people had an issue with it, yet the "opposition" claims that there were no issues, while asserting that only inferior and unskilled players and GMs would ever have problems handling such a balanced and fair feat.
Its mostly that the people that said it was no problem are thinking from a "this is how I play, and it is not a problem" angle. A feat should make sense in all aspects, not just for the PCs. How does the feat affect the gameworld as whole?
The old crane wing allowed a relatively low level monk to be immune to 1 melee attack/round, regardless of how powerful the attacker is. How does that affect the gameworld? In any arena combat between a low-level CW monk and a low-level melee fighter, the melee fighter literally cannot hit the monk with his melee weapon, at all.
Clearly that is a poorly designed feat.
In play, where all we are considering is the PCs and generally focusing on higher-level play, the old CW would not be a problem.
The current fix makes CW much less effective, but still valuable.
As far a Deflect Arrows is concerned - it is not overpowered when focusing on the PCs and PC play, but once again, when we think of how this affects the game world, it is a poorly designed feat. If my character is the greater archer ever, and I fire an arrow at a level 1 monk, they shouldn't be able to automatically deflect my attack. It just doesn't make sense.
Deflect Arrows should also be errated, to a constant +2 or +3 dodge bonus against ranged attacks (with all of the limitations of the current Deflect Arrows.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing that strikes me the most is that it's clear many people had an issue with it, yet the "opposition" claims that there were no issues, while asserting that only inferior and unskilled players and GMs would ever have problems handling such a balanced and fair feat.Its mostly that the people that said it was no problem are thinking from a "this is how I play, and it is not a problem" angle. A feat should make sense in all aspects, not just for the PCs. How does the feat affect the gameworld as whole?
On the other hand, people who say that are ignoring spells and how the game is usually played with a GM.
Circle complete! Just keeps running in circles I swear.
|
The Crane Wing issue was resolved by ignoring unhittable PCs and moving on to someone you can kill. This is true even for PFS.
I don't see people whining about Emergency Force Sphere, which is realistically a similarly powerful ability that negates a significantly larger population of damage sources (let the record show that I am NOT whining about Emergency Force Sphere).
|
|
As far a Deflect Arrows is concerned - it is not overpowered when focusing on the PCs and PC play, but once again, when we think of how this affects the game world, it is a poorly designed feat. If my character is the greater archer ever, and I fire an arrow at a level 1 monk, they shouldn't be able to automatically deflect my attack. It just doesn't make sense.
It is so trivially easy to get multiple attacks as an archer (Rapid Shot, Many Shot, BAB progression, etc) that Deflect Arrows realistically stops becoming a big deal as the character progresses. Most Archers, unlike melee combatants, can stay relatively stationary throughout combat and therefore have a much higher capacity to do full round attacks. You should be crapping out tons of arrows. Deflecting one attack is good, but not a game breaker. Wind Wall and Fickle Winds are significantly more effective. Deflect Arrows is really not a big deal.
On the other hand, people who say that are ignoring spells and how the game is usually played with a GM.
That would only be applicable if I was arguing from a "Old CW is overpowered" angle. To which you can state that GM's can make it not overpowered by adopting certain strategies to lessen old CW's effect.
As I am specifically not making that argument, your reply doesn't fit.
. A feat should make sense in all aspects, not just for the PCs. How does the feat affect the gameworld as whole?
The old crane wing allowed a relatively low level monk to be immune to 1 melee attack/round, regardless of how powerful the attacker is. How does that affect the gameworld? In any arena combat between a low-level CW monk and a low-level melee fighter, the melee fighter literally cannot hit the monk with his melee weapon, at all.
Except now you're doing exactly what you've said you should not do: You've said that we should evaluate the feat based on all possible scenarios - the game world as a whole - and then instead you're focusing on one of those many scenarios and saying, "Because it negates this particular scenario - one-on-one combat - the feat is obviously too powerful."
If my character is the greater archer ever, and I fire an arrow at a level 1 monk, they shouldn't be able to automatically deflect my attack. It just doesn't make sense.
If your character is the greatest archer ever, then the fact that the Monk deflected a single arrow doesn't harm you in the slightest. Why?Because 1) We can assume the "greatest archer ever" is at least 20th level, so you've got another 5 arrows you can fire using your BAB alone, and 2) Even if you only fire one arrow, you most likely have Rapid Shot and Manyshot, so that first arrow is actually two arrows, and the second arrow more than likely just killed the 1st-level monk with his less-than-20 hit points.*
Compare the new Crane Wing to say, Combat Expertise. Combat Expertise has a much lower cost to enter - in fact, the only requirement is INT 13. By 13th level, Combat Expertise is granting the same benefit as the errata'd Crane Wing, but it does it against every attack and has a much lower cost to buy in. Now granted that you can achieve Crane Wing at 5th level, but personally I would rather have a +2 to AC from Combat Expertise against every attack after my turn, that would eventually scale to be higher than Crane Wing. Even if I hypothetically agree that the old feat was too powerful (and to be honest I've yet to see anything that makes me agree with that), I don't consider the new Crane Wing balanced in any way because of its high cost of entry.
[edit]
*Your assumption seems to be that any ability that can effectively negate even a single attack is somehow imbalanced. I disagree wholly. There are probably a hundred such abilities in the game, from attacks that apply status effects to spells that cause you to lose your turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is so trivially easy to get multiple attacks as an archer (Rapid Shot, Many Shot, BAB progression, etc) that Deflect Arrows realistically stops becoming a big deal as the character progresses.
You're right. And if I was arguing that deflect arrows is overpowered, your post would make sense.
I'm starting to see a pattern.
|
|
It is so trivially easy to get multiple attacks as an archer (Rapid Shot, Many Shot, BAB progression, etc) that Deflect Arrows realistically stops becoming a big deal as the character progresses.You're right. And if I was arguing that deflect arrows is overpowered, your post would make sense.
I'm starting to see a pattern.
You asserted it was poorly designed, I disagreed. Diminishing returns are built into the feat by the way archers work was the entire point of my post.
Good talk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You asserted it was poorly designed, I disagreed. Diminishing returns are built into the feat by the way archers work was the entire point of my post.
Okay, so let's focus on that. You think that a feat that allows a character, regardless of power level, equipment, experience, etc, to automatically avoid being hit by a second character, regardless of the second character's power level, equipment, experience, etc., is good feat design?
You asserted it was poorly designed, I disagreed. Diminishing returns are built into the feat by the way archers work was the entire point of my post.Okay, so let's focus on that. You think that a feat that allows a character, regardless of power level, equipment, experience, etc, to automatically avoid being hit by a second character, regardless of the second character's power level, equipment, experience, etc., is good feat design?
I don't think it's a problematic feat because I don't believe that negating a single attack is unbalancing. Is it a "good" feat? With the proper build, yes - it was effective, but not destructive, unless you were running the character predominantly in solo scenarios.
|
|
Are you saying that a feat that has diminishing returns to the point that it is crippled and 100% useless at the end of character progression is good design?
Deflect Arrows should also be errated, to a constant +2 or +3 dodge bonus against ranged attacks (with all of the limitations of the current Deflect Arrows.)
Do you actually understand how little +2 or +3 is in higher level play?
Deflecting one arrow per round is totally, 100% reasonable simply because of the huge number of attacks an archer has per round. The nature of how archers play make this feat balanced. You take one feat to negate one attack per round. If you can force an archer to move, awesome. They'll just attack something else. It makes you slightly more effective against archers, but literally does nothing else for you. Nothing.
You are overplaying the effectiveness of this feat and calling it poor design.
EDIT: This is kind of beside the point anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you saying that a feat that has diminishing returns to the point that it is crippled and 100% useless at the end of character progression is good design?
You're missing the point. I'm not arguing that it is too powerful. I'm arguing that it is poorly designed.
Look at the majority of the mechanics in the game. Attack roll versus armor class. Spell DC versus saving throw. Skill check versus skill check.
This design takes both sides abilities and experience into consideration when determining the outcome. Deflect arrows does not. It simply states that someone with the feat and a free hand can deflect 1 arrow a round, regardless of who fired that arrow or how powerful that arrow was.
That is poor feat design.
|
Deflect arrows and the core function of crane wing have been available as choices to players since at least 3rd edition (earlier I believe), although "crane wing" was under a different name and not part of a style chain back then. At least now it requires heavy investment in your defense; eating up three feat slots severely impacts the DPR of any and all martial classes. Period. There is a sacrifice there and it is a big one.
|
|
I disagree with you. You are examining this feat through the scope of a single attack. I believe that view is too narrow to fully understand Deflect Arrows. The feat is less effective against more experienced archers because they fire more attacks. It achieves the goal of "taking both sides abilities and experience into consideration" in that manner. That it's not a numbers game is irrelevant in my opinion.
We're going to keep arguing in circles with a conversation that is off topic and doesn't matter at all because neither of us are trying to make an argument that it needs to change. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So at worst, this feat was almost twice as good as Dodge, and exceeds twice its value when you include that it can defeat a natural 20 while Dodge cannot. The fact that it works against melee but not ranged mitigates it slightly, but melee attacks are more numerous and damaging in PRG, and natural attacks are almost never ranged.
Man it's almost like it requires 4 times the Feat investment of Dodge and so should be a lot better or something I dunno.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few people didn't agree with this decision, and have been fairly vocal about their displeasure.
A few? Heh - not hard to see which side of the argument you fall on, my friend.
If this was primarily a PFS problem, as you state, why was it not addressed in the PFS rules instead of across the board? Following that logic, shouldn't they be erratting away (is that a word?) Master Summoners or high level spells since they've been found to be inappropriate for PFS?
The Crane Wing issue was resolved by ignoring unhittable PCs and moving on to someone you can kill. This is true even for PFS.
I don't see people whining about Emergency Force Sphere, which is realistically a similarly powerful ability that negates a significantly larger population of damage sources (let the record show that I am NOT whining about Emergency Force Sphere).
Emergency Force Sphere is infinitely more powerful and doesn't require a single feat to gain, much less 3 or 4...
...and I'm not whining about it either. Some of my casters take it and some do not. Its been my experience that worshipping at the altar of 'balance at all costs' is the quickest way to kill a game.
A few people didn't agree with this decision, and have been fairly vocal about their displeasure.A few?
A few in the sense that Paizo has hundreds of thousands of players and the vast majority of those don't post on this forum.
On the other hand, I'd say the errata has seen a fairly overwhelmingly negative response from the forum community.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few people didn't agree with this decision, and have been fairly vocal about their displeasure.A few? Heh - not hard to see which side of the argument you fall on, my friend.
Actually, a count of unique posters in one of those threads showed that there weren't that many people at all.
So... yeah. "A few".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, a count of unique posters in one of those threads showed that there weren't that many people at all.
So... yeah. "A few".
There was an unofficial poll set up in one of the crane wing threads, 237 people have replied at the moment:
A: 52% thinks pre-nerf Crane Wing was well balanced and did not need a change.
B: 30% thinks Change was needed, but (Crane Wing) is now too weak and needs revision.
C: 17% thinks Change was needed, (Crane Wing) is now balanced and acceptable.
I'd say that when 82% of the respondents, almost 200 unique users, feel that the nerf went too far, it's disingenuous to refer to them as "a few posters".
So on the advice forum there are numerous threads about how the recent errata update to Crane Wing has put gimp masks on characters that take advantage of it, and now offer them to the riding crops of the melee enemies they face.
So, I am unfamiliar with Crane Wing since I never used it.
Can someone offer a before and after of it?
A questionable errata has turned Crane Wing from a powerful but balanced option into the new poster child for Caster/Martial disparity.
Emergency Force Sphere is infinitely more powerful and doesn't require a single feat to gain, much less 3 or 4...Emergency Force Sphere can be used once per round, every round, an unlimited number of times, 24 hours per day, as a free action, and is available at level 1.
Actually, it can be used once per combat as an immediate action and will last the entire combat, requiring no additional actions to provide its full benefits.
How many combats a day do you usually see? 2-5 I'd imagine. So yeah, a typical Sorcerer (for instance) would have access to it as often as he needed - and rather than work just once a round, it works against EVERY attack that round, round after round, including against spells...
...on second thought, I think you're right - it does sound rather silly to compare the two.
We've had a party that included a Dervish with Crane Wing and a Summoner with EFS (via Eldritch Heritage/Arcane Bloodline)... which do you think came across as more 'over-powered'?
This was 100% a PFS issue. In a home game where a GM can do "whatever they want" it was not as much of an issue.
Don't overlook that view. You should still do whatever you want in your home games.
Because of this I don't understand why people are so worked up.
|
|
Absolutely this is/was a PFS issue.
In the past 9 months, in 150+ sessions with 250+ different players, 400+ different characters and 40+ GMs, I have new perspective on Crane Wing that I didn't have this time last year.
And that is - it's really, really good at low levels in organized play. Especially given how many of these tables ride the level 1-5 treadmill repeatedly. And how many have encounters where the bad guys don't really have a choice to ignore the Crane-Winger unless the GM suddenly decides the mindless skeleton or giant centipede is infinitely more clever than it should be.
I know I've seen at least 30 level 1-5 "Crane Wing Tanks" in that span. All made heavy use of Crane Wing. I'd expect most of them to be pretty unhappy since this change will set them back at a level similar to most other tanking builds that didn't involve Crane Wing.
Last year I would have voted very differently on Crane Wing.
I don't disagree folks who want their level 12+ monks to have this capability should certainly have an option to "get it back". Perhaps some future product will have "Advanced Crane Wing" as an option and ensure it's only available in the higher levels where GMs are less hamstrung by printed modules or organized play.
(This really is no different that a card getting banned in MtG tournament play because it comes up so often and makes such an impact to the game - casual home play of MtG can remain unchanged)
|
|
The new crane wing has a couple of weaknesses.
1. You have to "guess" what attack you will be able to deflect with a +4 dodge bonus because you have to apply the bonus prior to getting the attack. As a result, you are now open to misfires (applying the crane wing to attacks that would not have hit anyway) or not applying it to attacks that could have been blocked. It is significantly weaker simply because of this - the likelihood of actually pulling it off when fighting defensively has been dramatically diminished.
2. The +4 dodge bonus when fighting defensively is really not a great window. It could be more reasonable if it scaled with level.
I think these are reasonable misgivings with the feat. I like that it can't deflect natural 20's anymore, and the limited dodge bonus means that monsters with super big attacks have a higher potential to hit. These are good things. But I think crane wing needs adjustment.
I am still under the opinion that crane wing was not as big of a problem in PFS as people make it out to be.
|
|
I am still under the opinion that crane wing was not as big of a problem in PFS as people make it out to be.
I'm certainly jaded. Seriously, about 30 different characters (only two of which were level 6+ and maybe only a dozen were full monks) with Crane Wing is a ridiculous amount to see over so many months.
They almost outnumbered the scimitar-wielding Dervish Dancing magi who were running about with magic lineage empowered shocking grasp.
We can't have that...
(Of course, you know the solution to this particular problem is more folks need to make magi)
|
|
Emergency Force Sphere is infinitely more powerful and doesn't require a single feat to gain, much less 3 or 4...Emergency Force Sphere can be used once per round, every round, an unlimited number of times, 24 hours per day, as a free action, and is available at level 1.
Your sarcasm is making you sound very silly largely because the argument you are making with it is simply missing the entire point. It's also very rude.
Yes Crane Wing could be used many more times than emergency force sphere. But the amount of damage sources crane wing can block doesn't even come close to what emergency force sphere can block. Crane Wing blocks a single melee attack per trigger. Emergency Force Sphere lasts many rounds, can be triggered as an immediate action (one per round, but any time it is needed), blocks more or less any source of damage is outside of it, and consumes one spell slot that could be recovered using pearls of power or runestones of power. And with a conjuration ability you can get out of it, or you can summon monsters while inside of it (subject to GM discretion I think).
Can emergency force sphere be triggered as many times as a crane wing in a given day? Theoretically, no. Certainly not. But it is far more effective than one crane wing simply because you don't need to trigger it as many times as Crane Wing and it blocks much more than Crane Wing does.
Seriously though, I really think the Crane Wing thing in PFS was not really that big of a deal. Getting it early on (via MoMS) is certainly a problem at low levels. The errata was helpful to making it more reasonable, but to say that it broke games is a huge exaggeration in my opinion. If you have a crane wing user that's blocking all of your melee attacks, well, stop attacking them and move on to someone you can punch.
|
|
Seriously though, I really think the Crane Wing thing in PFS was not really that big of a deal.
I am reminding of one particular level 5 table where 3 of the characters each had Crane Wing.
And yes, these guys played together regularly.
The other guy? Yeah, he had a low AC and armor of spell storing with some horrible touch attack spell in it.
Someone just needed to hand them a trophy. They win the metagame.
(No, not the metagame where they use player knowledge for their characters - the one where you build the "best deck" to take into a tournament).
(And yes, I had evil thoughts of my own about rallying together the 4 people I play with most and doing the same thing... I just didn't want my personal alignment to shift another step towards evil)
(And finally, I wouldn't doubt someone from Paizo ran into this group and that was fuel for the change)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... if the old CW is being compared to the EFS spell, let's compare the new one to the shield spell...
Emergency Force Sphere is infinitely more powerful and doesn't require a single feat to gain, much less 3 or 4...Emergency Force Sphere can be used once per round, every round, an unlimited number of times, 24 hours per day, as a free action, and is available at level 1.
Actually, it can be used once per combat as an immediate action and will last the entire combat, requiring no additional actions to provide its full benefits.
How many combats a day do you usually see? 2-5 I'd imagine. So yeah, a typical Sorcerer (for instance) would have access to it as often as he needed - and rather than work just once a round, it works against EVERY attack that round, round after round, including against spells...
...on second thought, I think you're right - it does sound rather silly to compare the two.
We've had a party that included a Dervish with Crane Wing and a Summoner with EFS (via Eldritch Heritage/Arcane Bloodline)... which do you think came across as more 'over-powered'?
Just to be clear, we are talking about this spell from this specific campaign world splatbook right?
The one which can be cut through in a single round by a high level physical attacker, that breaks your line of effect to everything else, and which requires either a standard action or a 7th level spell and a swift to get out of after using? That Emergency Force Sphere?
Which comes online at level 7 at the earliest?
We are comparing a feat which requires one level of investment, works from level one, required no action on the part of the user, and which was printed in a hardcover rulebook to a spell which is only available after 7th level, eats a minimum of one turn subsequently, can be breached with physical attacks (quite easily), and comes from an obscure softcover campaign splatbook?
Put me in the camp that doesn't really buy the logic that the two are comparable.
You can also put me in the camp that says that emergency force sphere could use an errata to make it clear you can't use it against melee attackers or a change to a 10ft. sphere that has the same effect (and lets the spell protect a party).
Absolutely this is/was a PFS issue.
In the past 9 months, in 150+ sessions with 250+ different players, 400+ different characters and 40+ GMs, I have new perspective on Crane Wing that I didn't have this time last year.
In your opinion, since this is/was a PFS issue, why was it not addressed in the PFS rules as countless others have been before. Entire archetypes have been done away with, whole races banned or prohibited... why did this feat have to be changed across the board for the game as a whole if the issue was specifically with organized, low level play?
It seems to me that we already have a mechanism in place for that, one that is used very, very often.
So... if the old CW is being compared to the EFS spell, let's compare the new one to the shield spell...
No comparison. Shield is better in all ways.
Seriously though, I really think the Crane Wing thing in PFS was not really that big of a deal.I am reminding of one particular level 5 table where 3 of the characters each had Crane Wing.
And yes, these guys played together regularly.
The other guy? Yeah, he had a low AC and armor of spell storing with some horrible touch attack spell in it.
Someone just needed to hand them a trophy. They win the metagame.
(No, not the metagame where they use player knowledge for their characters - the one where you build the "best deck" to take into a tournament).
(And yes, I had evil thoughts of my own about rallying together the 4 people I play with most and doing the same thing... I just didn't want my personal alignment to shift another step towards evil)
(And finally, I wouldn't doubt someone from Paizo ran into this group and that was fuel for the change)
LOL - why does this post remind me of the heady days of Necropotence?
|
|
In your opinion, since this is/was a PFS issue, why was it not addressed in the PFS rules as countless others have been before.
Heck if I know.
Maybe Jason saw it first hand, and Mike didn't?
Maybe someone thought about it and decided it was better to make a core rule change because they want to print advanced forms of the styles for level 10+ play in an upcoming rules book (something the PDT crew would do, and not the PFS crew).
Maybe someone has a buddy who's a passive aggressive GM and he baked fresh cookies for the PDT to do it this way, so he wouldn't have to have "the talk" with one of his players who'd rage if the change was made any other way? And not just any cookies, but chocolate chip ones.
I'm more upset by how much my monthly health care premium shot up $300/month. Crane Wing changed? Yeah, that's not something I'm going to dwell on too long.
Absolutely this is/was a PFS issue.
Standing on the outside looking in (I'm not an active PFS player though not by choice, as far as I know there is no organized PFS play in my country), I can't help but wonder if the PFS gameplay model (as near as I can tell defined by: Unknown players, unknown GM, single-session adventure) leads some people to take a different, and possibly rather more adversarial, attitude than the attitude they'd have if they were playing in the same home game with the same friends week after week.
I know I've seen at least 30 level 1-5 "Crane Wing Tanks" in that span. All made heavy use of Crane Wing. I'd expect most of them to be pretty unhappy since this change will set them back at a level similar to most other tanking builds that didn't involve Crane Wing.
That's really interesting! How many of those do you think used the Master of many styles dip to pick up the feat?
|
|
.. wonder if the PFS gameplay model.. leads some people to take a different.. attitude
I'd say yes - without a doubt. I never stepped foot into a PFS (or organized play) game prior to 2013, and I will say it has dramatically altered my perspective.
It must be pretty good considering I went from 0 games to clocking in over 100 sessions in 9 months, though! :)
That's really interesting! How many of those do you think used the Master of many styles dip to pick up the feat?
At least half of them.
Folks who say the MoMS dip is part of a larger problem are certainly onto something.
|
|
I'm not going to say that there wasn't a problem in PFS with this feat exactly, but I am going to say I never found one. I had a Champion of Irori who used this feat chain, and I never saw him become the "Uber-tank" people say this feat makes. I mean, he had a better AC than most, but he would get hit for half his total HP on the times he got hit, and he still hasn't found one PFS scenario that he only survived by a hair. I never saw the feat as OP.
I do find it funny that everyone arguing that Crane Wing isn't very powerful are the ones so very upset that it's making their characters so very weak as a result. "The one good thing martials had going for them" doesn't sound like a well-balanced feat. You mean that there's one feat so massively better than all other feats that any martial who can fit it into their build needed it? And that removing this feat cripples their defensive abilities?I never found this feat as being necessary in any build except for the 8CON monk and the COI I played in PFS for concept, because otherwise to get it I needed to either delay everything by 2 levels and be Lawful, or spend 5 feats on a one-trick pony feat chain that wasn't worth 5 feats. It wasn't the one good thing martials had going for them, but it was one of the few feat chains that scaled properly [unlike vital strike], worked together with itself [unlike the x status critical feats], and was a decent choice for martials {unlike Spell Focus[enchantment]}.
At this point I'm pretty convinced that even the people claiming the feat was "totally balanced, man" know how broken it was compared to other feats, and justified it by saying "martials are weak, they deserve an OP feat to 'fix' them."
So, its broken compared to other feats and therefor should be nerfed. Does that mean everything should be balanced around Scorpion Style, considering that weapon focus is OP compared to Scorpion Style? Or does it mean that there are some feats that are supposed to be sub-par yet cool.
Again, I'm not trying to say anyone's concerns were invalid, but In My Experience, the feats are about as good as the Stalwart line of feats, nice if you have the feats to spare, but not nearly OP. The only problem I had with it is that it didn't involve rolling dice, so I found it boring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Morphling's example clearly is not taken from gaming experience, because dragons don't work that way.
They usually have six good attacks (all within three points of each other), not one. And they are intelligent.