|
With the recent Errata of Ultimate Book, now at version 2.0; It seems they've tuned down Crane Wing/Riposte.
If I'm reading this correctly, it doesn't deflect attacks anymore, but instead just jacks up AC?
If I had all 3 Feats and were at least level 3+...
I'd have a change in stats/abilities as below:
+4 AC for fighting defensively
-2 Attack for fighting defensively
+4 Dodge bonus from Crane Wing(which you suffer temporary loss if they get too close to hitting you)
Deflect??
CounterAttack if something Misses(causing your dodge bonus to temporarily retreat) or is Deflected??
Page 93—In the Crane Riposte feat, in the Benefit, change the second sentence to the following: Whenever you def lect an opponent’s attack using Crane Wing or lose the dodge bonus from Crane Wing because an attack missed you by 4 or less, you can make an attack of opportunity against the attacker after the attack misses.
In the Crane Wing feat, in the Benefit entry, change the first two sentences to the following: When fighting defensively with at least one hand free, you gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC against melee attacks. If a melee attack misses you by 4 or less, you lose this dodge bonus until the beginning of your next turn.
It says to change the first two sentences... but those first two sentences are literally the entire benefit entry. To me that says it doesn't deflect anymore?
Basically, here's how it's supposed to work.
Crane Style:
When you Fight Defensively or use Total Defense, you gain an extra +1 to AC, and suffer only a -2 to your Attack Rolls.
Crane Wing:
While you have one hand free, you get an additional +4 Dodge Bonus to AC. When a melee attack misses you by this +4 Dodge Bonus (or less), this temporary bonus goes away.
Crane Riposte:
When the +4 Dodge Bonus to AC from Crane Wing disappears, you may make an Attack of Opportunity against the enemy whose attack removed the bonus. This Attack of Opportunity can be taken even while performing the Total Defense option.
So yes, Crane Style chain doesn't automatically deflect one attack anymore. Your AC is practically doubled in comparison (~+8 is ridiculous), and even if you are magically hit by some freak roll (Nat 20), you don't lose the temporary +4 (by RAW, it only goes away on a miss). Even if they remove the temporary +4, you do get a free attack on them, essentially.
That being said, I still preferred the original Crane Style; deflecting attacks was really nice and unique.
The deflect is nowhere to be found in the updated PRD entry for Crane Wing, so I don't see why there still is any mention at all of deflected attacks in Crane Riposte.
It seems that feat tree is doomed to stay in trouble forever.
|
|
Basically, here's how it's supposed to work.
Crane Style:
When you Fight Defensively or use Total Defense, you gain an extra +1 to AC, and suffer only a -2 to your Attack Rolls.
Crane Wing:
While you have one hand free, you get an additional +4 Dodge Bonus to AC. When a melee attack misses you by this +4 Dodge Bonus (or less), this temporary bonus goes away.
Crane Riposte:
When the +4 Dodge Bonus to AC from Crane Wing disappears, you may make an Attack of Opportunity against the enemy whose attack removed the bonus. This Attack of Opportunity can be taken even while performing the Total Defense option.
So yes, Crane Style chain doesn't automatically deflect one attack anymore. Your AC is practically doubled in comparison (~+8 is ridiculous), and even if you are magically hit by some freak roll (Nat 20), you don't lose the temporary +4 (by RAW, it only goes away on a miss). Even if they remove the temporary +4, you do get a free attack on them, essentially.
That being said, I still preferred the original Crane Style; deflecting attacks was really nice and unique.
But then why would the update in Crane Riposte state "Page 93—In the Crane Riposte feat, in the Benefit, change the second sentence to the following: Whenever you def lect an opponent’s attack using Crane Wing"?
I really feel like there is a missing piece or something...
Basically, here's how it's supposed to work.
Crane Style:
When you Fight Defensively or use Total Defense, you gain an extra +1 to AC, and suffer only a -2 to your Attack Rolls.
Crane Wing:
While you have one hand free, you get an additional +4 Dodge Bonus to AC. When a melee attack misses you by this +4 Dodge Bonus (or less), this temporary bonus goes away.
Crane Riposte:
When the +4 Dodge Bonus to AC from Crane Wing disappears, you may make an Attack of Opportunity against the enemy whose attack removed the bonus. This Attack of Opportunity can be taken even while performing the Total Defense option.
So yes, Crane Style chain doesn't automatically deflect one attack anymore. Your AC is practically doubled in comparison (~+8 is ridiculous), and even if you are magically hit by some freak roll (Nat 20), you don't lose the temporary +4 (by RAW, it only goes away on a miss). Even if they remove the temporary +4, you do get a free attack on them, essentially.
That being said, I still preferred the original Crane Style; deflecting attacks was really nice and unique.
But then why would the update in Crane Riposte state "Page 93—In the Crane Riposte feat, in the Benefit, change the second sentence to the following: Whenever you def lect an opponent’s attack using Crane Wing"?
I really feel like there is a missing piece or something...
I re-reviewed the text, and forgot this portion:
If you are using the total defense action instead, you can deflect one melee attack that would normally hit you. An attack so deflected deals no damage and has no other effect (instead treat it as a miss). You do not expend an action when using this feat, but you must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed.
So, it appears there is more merit to using the Total Defense option, since it actually grants the original Crane Wing benefit. I suppose if a nerf was going to go to this feat, that would be the way to do it. Still a little disappointed with it though.
At least the Crane Riposte option still works, regardless of if you use Fighting Defensively or Total Defense.
So the part you bolded is still in there after applying the changes in the errata file? In that case, the PRD is currently incorrect. That's where I looked up the changes to the feat because it's the only source I have available at the moment.
At this time, the PRD just has:
"Benefit: When fighting defensively with at least one hand free, you gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC against melee attacks. If a melee attack misses you by 4 or less, you lose this dodge bonus until the beginning of your next turn."
The 1.1 version of the errata (from 1st edition to 3rd edition printing) had the full Crane Wing benefit of the text. PRD is currently wrong, d20pfsrd has the errata'd Wing and Riposte feat text posted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 1.1 version of the errata (from 1st edition to 3rd edition printing) had the full Crane Wing benefit of the text. PRD is currently wrong, d20pfsrd has the errata'd Wing and Riposte feat text posted.
I have a third printing in my hand, and I can confirm that the PRD error did not affect the third printing. It has the full benefit.
*sigh* why can't martials have nice things? ;)
|
Style: as before;
- reduce penalty for defensive fighting, increase Dodge bonus
Wing: choose between defensive fighting or total defense.
- on defensive fighting, get additional +4 dodge. If this dodge bonus makes the difference between an enemy hitting or not, lose it after that attack ("if a +4 bonus would've been enough to deflect an attack, you deflect it", informally speaking)
- on total defense: deflect one attack of your choice
Riposte: if Wing "goes off", you get an AoO.
----
Basically, it works a lot like original crane wing except you can only deflect a blow that hit you by less than 4 margin, and have to do so on the first qualifying attack.
So it's not going to easily protect a L2 character from a T-Rex, but it'll help a lot against opponents in the same CR bracket as yourself.
Style: as before;
- reduce penalty for defensive fighting, increase Dodge bonusWing: choose between defensive fighting or total defense.
- on defensive fighting, get additional +4 dodge. If this dodge bonus makes the difference between an enemy hitting or not, lose it after that attack ("if a +4 bonus would've been enough to deflect an attack, you deflect it", informally speaking)
- on total defense: deflect one attack of your choiceRiposte: if Wing "goes off", you get an AoO.
----
Basically, it works a lot like original crane wing except you can only deflect a blow that hit you by less than 4 margin, and have to do so on the first qualifying attack.
So it's not going to easily protect a L2 character from a T-Rex, but it'll help a lot against opponents in the same CR bracket as yourself.
Hrm. Well that's not as awful as some would imply... not that I think the autoparry was that bad...
See:Deflect Arrows.
Yeah... I mean, considering the feat investment... oh we all know this game is caster based.
I'm a Hunter player for life now. Perfect class. :D
I'm surprised that the discussion seems so focused on comparing the newest version of Crane Wing (CW4) to the original version (CW1), which is long gone, instead of to the previous version (CW3). I got the impression that Paizo felt like they were giving Crane Wing users a boost here, but actually the most recent change seems like it could be a bit of a drag at least for my PC.
It took me a while to find the FAQ which confirmed it, but the previous version you were allowed to make an AoO the first time your selected enemy missed you each round:
"Whenever you are fighting defensively, and you use Crane Wing to add a dodge bonus against an opponent, that opponent’s first attack that misses you provokes an attack of opportunity from you."
I felt like the increased AoO rate from Crane Riposte with CW3 was pretty good compensation for decrease in the defensive bonus of Crane Wing itself. I've been using CW3 for a while now, and I was very happy with it. I'd put the +2 bonus on the most dangerous attacker or, perhaps more frequently, on the enemy who I most wanted to attack. This practically ensured that I'd get an AoO since very few of the enemies our party faces hit my PC's AC+6 with every attack. Since my PC generally fights with just his Bite (a stylistic choice) these AoOs have become a pretty significant part of his damage output. Now there's probably only around a 20% chance that a miss will trigger an AoO, and the DM and I will need to keep checking with each other to see if somebody has hit that unlucky 4 AC window.
I might have shrugged off the AoO loss if the +4 AC bonus and resulting AoO could be used on demand. Losing the both the AoO and the choice of who to defend against makes the errata seem like a nerf rather than a boost to me though.
I'd like to clarify that I think the Crane feats are still pretty decent. I just also think that if the errata was meant to improve them then the results were a mixed bag.
|
|
Style: as before;
- reduce penalty for defensive fighting, increase Dodge bonusWing: choose between defensive fighting or total defense.
- on defensive fighting, get additional +4 dodge. If this dodge bonus makes the difference between an enemy hitting or not, lose it after that attack ("if a +4 bonus would've been enough to deflect an attack, you deflect it", informally speaking)
- on total defense: deflect one attack of your choiceRiposte: if Wing "goes off", you get an AoO.
----
Basically, it works a lot like original crane wing except you can only deflect a blow that hit you by less than 4 margin, and have to do so on the first qualifying attack.
So it's not going to easily protect a L2 character from a T-Rex, but it'll help a lot against opponents in the same CR bracket as yourself.
That's actually a pretty fair compromise. That really makes sense of it too.
It also prevents deflecting of even a natural 20.
|
The autodeflect for melee was kinda broken. It let a level 2 monk stymie a T-Rex, or just about any monster with only one natural attack, no matter how good the monster's to-hit.
Martials should have nice things, but this was way beyond.
meanwhile the level 1 monk with deflect arrows stymies a crossbowman, whats your point.
If a dm is dumb enough to throw a singleton monster with exactly one attack at an original crane wing user, they deserve to have their encounter cakewalked.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A level 1 Strix anything can stymie a T-Rex, because dinosaurs can't fly.
Where my Strix nerf?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Heavens Oracle with Color Spray can take down a T-Rex.
Of course, we don't take away from casters.
If your level 1 heavens oracle has 42 Charisma, honestly the GM shouldn't be surprised that you knocked out an 18 HD creature. I am fairly surprised to hear an expected Charisma so high at 1st level, and I don't think it's representative of too many games.
IMO the problem was not with Crane Wing, it was with people dipping MoMS and getting it at level 2. Change the Level requirement to 6+ or later and the problem is solved with the changes to MoMS.
The current version will be a pain in the butt since your AC could change at any point while being attacked. High level combat doesn't need any more things to slow it down.
Personally I think the new version is intuitive and functional which is more than I could say about the last version.
Do I still think that new Crane is good? Hard to say. I can't look at it without comparing it to other defensive options and as such I can't say it is better strictly better because of it turning turn off on a near hit. It definitely is unique though, just not sure that's a good thing.
Though, I find it funny MoMS got fixed cause I think if they hit that first we wouldn't be having this discussion since the problem was MoMS made crane too dippable.
The 1.1 version of the errata (from 1st edition to 3rd edition printing) had the full Crane Wing benefit of the text. PRD is currently wrong, d20pfsrd has the errata'd Wing and Riposte feat text posted.I have a third printing in my hand, and I can confirm that the PRD error did not affect the third printing. It has the full benefit.
How soon can we expect this to get fixed?
|
|
The autodeflect for melee was kinda broken. It let a level 2 monk stymie a T-Rex, or just about any monster with only one natural attack, no matter how good the monster's to-hit.
Martials should have nice things, but this was way beyond.
meanwhile the level 1 monk with deflect arrows stymies a crossbowman, whats your point.
If a dm is dumb enough to throw a singleton monster with exactly one attack at an original crane wing user, they deserve to have their encounter cakewalked.
If the GM is runnning a PFS scenario, he can't just switch out a monster.
Most things that have ranged attacks also have some other thing they can do, but the same doesn't go for (dumb) melee monsters. And most ranged things eventually develop iteratives, but that doesn't work for single-natural-attack monsters.
If the GM has to throw out 20% of the Bestiary because of one feat, that feat is probably not well-balanced.
The issue isn't so symmetrical as you're making it look.
---
Re: other things (slumber hex) are just as problematic: sure. I don't like how that thing can wreck scenarios either.
But just because I'm not solving problem B for some reason, doesn't mean I shouldn't solve A.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The autodeflect for melee was kinda broken. It let a level 2 monk stymie a T-Rex, or just about any monster with only one natural attack, no matter how good the monster's to-hit.
Martials should have nice things, but this was way beyond.
meanwhile the level 1 monk with deflect arrows stymies a crossbowman, whats your point.
If a dm is dumb enough to throw a singleton monster with exactly one attack at an original crane wing user, they deserve to have their encounter cakewalked.
If the GM is runnning a PFS scenario, he can't just switch out a monster.
Most things that have ranged attacks also have some other thing they can do, but the same doesn't go for (dumb) melee monsters. And most ranged things eventually develop iteratives, but that doesn't work for single-natural-attack monsters.
If the GM has to throw out 20% of the Bestiary because of one feat, that feat is probably not well-balanced.
The issue isn't so symmetrical as you're making it look.
---
Re: other things (slumber hex) are just as problematic: sure. I don't like how that thing can wreck scenarios either.
But just because I'm not solving problem B for some reason, doesn't mean I shouldn't solve A.
The whole "Stop a T-Rex indefinitely" issue that supposedly arised from Crane Wing was a worst-case scenario for the GM, and that happens when he tries to design a Single "BBEG" encounter. (Oh boy, if a T-Rex was an actual BBEG of a campaign...) If a creature, such as a Tiger or similar, had their Natural Attacks going (Bite Claw Claw Rake Rake), the Crane Style would certainly help them mitigate these attacks, but it wouldn't nullify them entirely like they would in the T-Rex scenario, and that's worst case.
And those worst cases fall flat upon their faces way before the Crane Wing actually gets used. Slumber can invalidate that encounter. Hold Monster can invalidate that encounter. Charm Monster/Animal can invalidate that encounter (FREE T-REX RIDES!). Hell, even a Full Attack from an optimized Martial invalidates that encounter, if we're assuming it's a CR-appropriate foe. When Action Economy and an extreme variety of abilities due to multiple characters overwhelms a single creature, the problem doesn't simply become "CRANE WING TOO OP, NERF PLIS PAIZO," the problem is poorly thought-out encounter design.
I mean come on, there is a feat the T-Rex can take that allows him to make two Bite Attacks, both at highest BAB, and that allows him to still be able to make attacks against the Monk that aren't deflected. The factor that the stupid 2 Intelligence T-Rex specialized in the Vital Strike feat chain is also bad design (as well as simply a bad monster choice), because unless you're running Mythic Rules, Vital Strike is crap in the later levels.
And that's assuming we're facing creatures whose Intelligence doesn't constitute them having smarter tactics (which is the case for the T-Rex). Any braindead Martial would know after a couple rounds that attacking the guy who invalidates all of your attacks is a fruitless effort, and therefore should switch to a more effective target (like the Wizard lobbing spells at you).
My homebrew campaigns that I've been in have fought single BBEGs before (an Undead T-Rex was one of them, infact), and even duo BBEGs, and quite frankly, they were cakewalks. During the T-Rex fight, because it moved slow, all we had to do was move and shoot ranged weapons at it. It was a complete joke, because by the time it actually caught up to us, all it would take was a single hit and it was dead; nobody got hurt, and no major resources were expended. It might as well should've just been a bunch of CR 1/4 Kobold mooks; it would've been more fun, and might have actually killed us.
When we fought BBEGs with multiple, varied minions, that's when encounters get difficult, and that's a lot more challenging (and therefore more fun to overcome). Our final boss was a Storm Giant whose domain had an extremely fast and powerful whirling Lightning Tornado surrounding a platform (falling into it, which he did occassionally knock us into, dealt 20D6 Lightning Damage and threw us back out on a random spot in the platform), had two adjacent, smaller platforms that we had to escape to, due to his expanding Thunderous Aura, and deal with somewhat strong monsters there too. There was also a fight in a previous campaign where we had to fight a shadowy bizarro mirror version of our own party, and that was one of the best encounters to-date, especially considering where the idea came from.
I mean, even Tucker's Kobolds is a prime example of taking "not-so-strong" monsters, and using the environment and other "obscure" mechanics to their advantage and making them a truly terrifying (and memorable) encounter. That is good encounter design, one that every GM preparing an encounter should take notes on, especially if they want to properly challenge their PCs.
A lot of the fuss that came from Crane Wing (especially in PFS) was because it was used well before it was designed to be used (~level 5 or 6). Getting it at level 1 (or 2) made it an extremely powerful feat since you could get much more use out of it, and there are much more single-attack enemies in the lower levels than in the higher levels of play. Removing the ability to choose anything but Style feats (which they did in this errata), or only allow the feats to circumvent the requirements for Style feats (i.e. Feats that have the Style sub-type) would have fixed this obviously glaring issue, especially in regards to the MoMS dips that everyone would do just to get this feat chain easy peasy; the feat nerf was basically overreacting to a problem, and then, since they already nerfed the actual feat, they overkilled it with what the original solution to the Crane Style feat chains should've been. It's not much different than shooting a person in both the heart and the brain just to ensure they're dead. (Figuratively speaking, of course, not a literal, real-life suggestion.)
And yet at this point, I realize it is merely crying over spilled milk. The feat is nerfed, the archetype is nerfed, and stating all of this isn't going to change that. The only thing that needs to be understood is that Paizo has their own design values (and so does PFS it seems, since they ban certain Paizo content); the current Crane Style feat chain did not fit their design values, and neither did the Monk archetype, so they fixed it to a method that does fit their design values.
I wouldn't look to Paizo for a guidance on balance, especially when they are silent on a lot of glaring issues that have been addressed on these boards (and several of them have been going for years, I might add), which suggests that they aren't particularly adept at balancing. And it's much easier to assume that, at least for those old-age issues addressed, they'd rather leave it to the public to determine how those things work for their own game.
(It at least seems more preferable to assume that, since a lot of the balancing that they do accomplish, is usually met with a lot of negative feedback, and they do get a bad rep regarding FAQ/Errata as it is. Then again, you can't please everybody...)
/endunusuallyplacedrant
I'm still surprised that the focus is mostly on stuff like Crane Wing version 1 vs T-Rex, the history of Crane Wing in PFS, or encounter design philosophy rather than whether the latest version of Crane Wing is better or worse than the one immediately preceding it (since that's the change we're actually dealing with at this point)
@Darth Grall - What seemed less intuitive to you about the previous version? Was it the lack of clarity regarding how and when you designate the enemy who you're using the +2 AC bonus against for the round? If so then how did you rule on that?
@Acalaphus - I agree that refusing to solve problem A until problem B is solved too seems like a path unlikely to lead to many solutions.
I really like the new crane wing and I find it nicely balanced.
@Darth Grall - What seemed less intuitive to you about the previous version? Was it the lack of clarity regarding how and when you designate the enemy who you're using the +2 AC bonus against for the round? If so then how did you rule on that?
That was part of it IIRC, but also the fact that Riposte didn't work until an FAQ was put out(since it didn't say it deflected and that was the only thing that triggered the AoO). You couldn't just look at the RAW and figure out how to make the feat chain work, that's just not intuitive.
As for designating AC bonus, but I houseruled they could retroactively add the AC vs an attack to make it miss rather than making them add it before the roll like it was set up before.
For the record I hated that version so much I actually only played with it for a short while before we reverted back to old crane wing since I didn't have a problem with it at all. I don't know if I'd use this new one over the old one in my home games, but since no one's using those feats right now I guess it doesn't matter much at the moment. I think I wanna do some testing with it first anyways I suppose.
I agree that version 3 needed a FAQ to make it work as intended, but having played a lot of combats with it I felt that the benefit of getting that AoO just about every round was pretty helpful and made Crane Riposte a very satisfying feat to have. When you needed to designate the opponent for the +2 AC bonus was a bit of an open question though. My group figured it at least had to be done before the attack though, not retroactively.
Even without a steady stream of AoOs the effective +1 to hit from Crane Riposte while fighting defensively should be reasonably effective (kind of like a Weapon Focus which stacks with Weapon Focus), but the feat might end up feeling a little boring anyhow.
For what it's worth, I use the Total Defense option pretty frequently since my PC has some offensive options with Swift and Move actions. It can also be nice when getting hit seems unacceptable (say against a one attack foe with energy drain)
I really like the new crane wing and I find it nicely balanced.
Is it really balanced against Deflect Arrows? That is the feat that it most closely models.
|
|
While old Crane Wing resembles Deflect Arrow in terms of pure mechanics, it's not the same balance-wise.
Most monsters with a ranged attack have something else they can do, while many dumb melee monsters don't. Most ranged attacks will gain iteratives; monsters with natural weapons don't. And in my experience, I fight more things in melee than at range.
So old Crane Wing had a much wider scope of use than Deflect Arrow.
|
|
While old Crane Wing resembles Deflect Arrow in terms of pure mechanics, it's not the same balance-wise.
Most monsters with a ranged attack have something else they can do, while many dumb melee monsters don't. Most ranged attacks will gain iteratives; monsters with natural weapons don't. And in my experience, I fight more things in melee than at range.
So old Crane Wing had a much wider scope of use than Deflect Arrow.
Hello Ascalaphus. I, Iakhovas the Invincible, once possessed both the original Crane Wing and Deflect Arrows, while keeping track of how often each one proved applicable. It turns out that I used Crane Wing more than 50 times as often as Deflect Arrows, but slightly less than 100 times as often. Even with ranged attacking enemies, the chances that they were legal choices for Deflect Arrows turned out to be frustratingly low, like when unfettered eidolons started tossing boiling hot blood at me. It turns out that Deflect Arrows was not a worthwhile choice at all, except to service my paranoia against the occasional archer and thus maintain my title of "Invincible" due to being able to deal with one more type of situation, whereas Crane Wing came up all the time; despite the same wording between the two, it was like night and day.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's also worth mentioning that deflect arrows doesn't work on massive weapons like siege engines, giant thrown boulders, and manticore spikes.
I feel if the original crane wing had a caveat that you can't deflect natural attacks or weapons two sizes or more larger than you, it would have been less offensive in the original mode.
Sure, but it has a much steeper opportunity cost too.
1 feat prerequisite vs 3
no min Dex vs 13 min Dex (not that much of a burden)
free hand vs free hand
no stance requirement vs crane stance requirement
no fighting requirement vs fighting defensively requirement
Yep. Simulacrum is totally not broken since it require a steep investment of 15 wizard levels.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM is runnning a PFS scenario, he can't just switch out a monster.The autodeflect for melee was kinda broken. It let a level 2 monk stymie a T-Rex, or just about any monster with only one natural attack, no matter how good the monster's to-hit.
Martials should have nice things, but this was way beyond.
meanwhile the level 1 monk with deflect arrows stymies a crossbowman, whats your point.
If a dm is dumb enough to throw a singleton monster with exactly one attack at an original crane wing user, they deserve to have their encounter cakewalked.
which has more to do with PFS scenarios having terrible encounter design. Granted, this is because PFS's structure makes good encounter design either next to impossible or extremely deadly. This is the number 1 reason why PFS is not a good indicator of balance.
Most things that have ranged attacks also have some other thing they can do, but the same doesn't go for (dumb) melee monsters. And most ranged things eventually develop iteratives, but that doesn't work for single-natural-attack monsters.If the GM has to throw out 20% of the Bestiary because of one feat, that feat is probably not well-balanced.
They don't need to throw out anything, they need to respect the action economy of the party. also compared to a simple smokestick, deflect arrows is weaksause when it comes to ranged attacks.
Re: other things (slumber hex) are just as problematic: sure. I don't like how that thing can wreck scenarios either.But just because I'm not solving problem B for some reason, doesn't mean I shouldn't solve A.
the problem is, the problem isn't slumber hex, or crane wing, it's that people insist that a single monster will somehow be a challenge against any properly played party.
|
|
That's a very designer-centric way of looking at it. "This feature is hard to implement properly, so people shouldn't want it."
Boss fights are a staple of mythology. RPGs should be able to create satisfying fights of a party against a single monster. It's something I'm sure a lot of designers would like to invent.
And it's also a matter of degrees. Old crane wing made things significantly worse. Changing it didn't defeat the whole problem, but it's a step in the right direction.
And yeah, I think slumber is also badly designed and should also be changed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But Paizo won't change Slumber, because make you opponent sleep is "very magical", but parrying a T-Rex is "not realistic".
|
|
That's a very designer-centric way of looking at it. "This feature is hard to implement properly, so people shouldn't want it."
Less "shouldn't want it" more "understand the restrictions required to pull it off." This includes piercing the players defenses.
Boss fights are a staple of mythology. RPGs should be able to create satisfying fights of a party against a single monster.
and most boss fights have lackeys involved, yet so many ignore that they are there. except crushim
It's something I'm sure a lot of designers would like to invent.
and have, however d20 isn't where you'll find it easily.
Yep. Simulacrum is totally not broken since it require a steep investment of 15 wizard levels.
And compared to Simulacrum, the original Crane Wing as absolutely NOT broken.
Even if it were true that the original Crane Wing was only a problem PFS scenarios and APs it seems reasonable to me that Paizo would want to fix it since those are Paizo products and so is Ultimate Combat.
I'd be pretty surprised if Paizo suddenly decided to say, "Oh, to heck with it, let's bring back the original Crane Wing!" I wonder if they intend to ever release additional Mythic material though and whether something more like the original feat would be considered more reasonable for Mythic Crane Wing, perhaps in a web enhancement. I kind of like the idea of having higher power level material segregated into clearly optional sources which make it easier for DMs to decide and enforce what's allowed (and perhaps with less pleading, wheedling, and guilt trips from the players)
I guess another option to tweak Crane Wing will be when they adjust what the Combat Trick in Unchained does since it no longer works. I guess the simplest change would be to say you can designate an opponent for an extra +2 AC which works just like the previous version of Crane Wing. I think that the current cost of 5 points seems awfully high though, especially since you can get +3 AC against everybody by spending 3 points with the Crane Style trick (granted that's an immediate action instead of no action). Another simple and effective option might be to let you "regenerate" the +4 AC bonus after it is used.
That's a very designer-centric way of looking at it. "This feature is hard to implement properly, so people shouldn't want it."Less "shouldn't want it" more "understand the restrictions required to pull it off." This includes piercing the players defenses.
Boss fights are a staple of mythology. RPGs should be able to create satisfying fights of a party against a single monster.and most boss fights have lackeys involved, yet so many ignore that they are there. except crushim
It's something I'm sure a lot of designers would like to invent.and have, however d20 isn't where you'll find it easily.
Not to mention most single boss fights in video games achieve that by the enemies not playing by the same rules as the players, with things like being able to take more actions than a single PC can bring to bear, or having special tricks required to make them vulnerable.
In principle I am glad the design team revisited the feat from its first nerf, but I must say, I am not a fan of the current situation, where you adjust your AC based on how much your opponent misses you by.
The level of fiddliness and the importance of tracking small, bothersome mechanics in high level combat is already much too high for my taste. Not saying that this sort of mechanic is, by itself, a Herculean task to remember and apply, but it is one of many individually small steps in that direction that, when combined, have made high level combat increasingly burdensome and topheavy.
As such, it is my hope that revised Crane Wing never is used against my character in a game I play in.
Contrast this with v1 Crane Wing, which was used several times against my character by the GM, and, while slightly too good, and challenging (in the CR sense), was neither game-breaking in balance implications nor burdensome to apply.
My 2c. :(
For another 2c - that makes 4, I guess, but I feel rich today and will spread the pennies around - I think the very best version of Crane Wing would be the v1 version, nerfed to not deflect combat maneuvers. Such a feat would provide the slight nerf that was needed originally needed, and provide most any martial opponent with a way to at least affect a Crane monk, yet would involve absolutely no increase in the burden of tracking or applying the feat. Also makes thematic sense. Elusive opponent is giving you trouble with fancy moves? Grab him and squeeze.
T-Rexes and stuff
I suppose it was too much to hope that debunking the "v1 crane wing monk was immune to T Rexes" thing would have actually made it go away. I admit I'm surprised to see it rear its head again, not only after it was shown to be false, but also now that it's three iterations of errata obsolete.
The monks AC never really changes if you want it to not change. Just keep it normal and check if an attack hits you by 4 or less. If so you can deflect it. Now the Monk's AC never changes and the mechanics are the same Since you have to use it on the first attack that triggers it anyways.