What's your thought on the crane wing errata?

[MadBear]

The current version of crane wing is being changed from this

//Benefit: Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you. You expend no action to deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you.//

to this with the new errata

//Benefit: Once per round, when fighting defensively with at least one hand free, you can designate one melee attack being made against you before the roll is made.You receive a +4 dodge bonus to AC against that attack. If you 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.//

yep. wave goodbye to the useful feat.

[rollforeigninit]

I'm gonna go ahead & just...... ignore that one...........

Mundanes get no good things. Here mr Wizard, have another Conjuration.

[watchwood]

It's a pretty heavy nerf. Can't say I'm entirely surprised though, it *was* a pretty powerful feat.

[avr]

Fighting defensively with a one handed weapon is obviously far too good. Lets nerf it.

The monk doesn't need the nerf and if they're bothered by a magus using it to good effect they should have targeted that situation specifically. Bad move.

[MadBear]

it was a pretty fair feat even for the magus. It needed 3 feats to get off the ground (improved unarmed, dodge, and crane style). I'd say a 3 feat tax for a good feat is a fair trade. Heck even if they dipped the MOMS monk they'd still need to expend 1 regular feat, to get it, and they'd have lost a level of casting.

Pathfinders my favorite d20 system, but sometimes they do things that are just dumb.

[icefractal]

...

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/e/emergency-force-sphere

...

You know, I can actually forgive Paizo more when they publish a bunch of stuff that's not particularly balanced, because that just implies they don't care about balance. And since that's a winning strategy for them, why should they change?

But when they go to the trouble of errata - to make things less balanced ... it does not inspire any level of confidence in them.

[Gemini476]

...

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/e/emergency-force-sphere

...

You know, I can actually forgive Paizo more when they publish a bunch of stuff that's not particularly balanced, because that just implies they don't care about balance. And since that's a winning strategy for them, why should they change?

But when they go to the trouble of errata - to make things less balanced ... it does not inspire any level of confidence in them.

Remember the Flurry of Blows/Two Weapon Fighting ruling? Remember how Improved Natural Attack was changed from 3.5 to specifically disallow using it with Unarmed Strikes?

Remember how Paragon Surge and Blood Money+Fabricate are untouched?

Which developer did this, by the way? I need to know if I should add it to my list of Things I Do Not Like That SKR Is Responsible For.

[Psyren]

Am I reading it right? It looks like if you fight defensively and designate the attack before it is rolled, you get the +4 to AC, but if you instead use the Total Defense Action, you can designate one attack even after it is rolled and it's an auto-miss regardless of what they roll. That latter one would be really useful on a Flowing Monk - get between two guys, use Total Defense and have them beat the crap out of each other.

[Vedhin]

This makes me sad. Very sad.
You shall be mourned, fair Crane Wing.

[Psyren]

Er, I'm still missing the reason for all the wrist-slitting going on. The fighting defensively use got nerfed (slightly) but it looks like the total defense use got buffed. Auto-miss is great. Touch spell? Nope. Vital Strike? Nope. Power Attack? Nope. Use it against their highest iterative and rely on your AC to handle the lower ones.

[Vedhin]

Er, I'm still missing the reason for all the wrist-slitting going on. The fighting defensively use got nerfed (slightly) but it looks like the total defense use got buffed. Auto-miss is great. Touch spell? Nope. Vital Strike? Nope. Power Attack? Nope. Use it against their highest iterative and rely on your AC to handle the lower ones.

You appear to be missing that total defense puts you in the same boat as pretty much all tanks in 3.P: you are no threat. Sure you can block attacks, but your allies get slaughtered while you sit there.
And "no" to "+4" is not a slight nerf. You said it yourself: Auto-miss is great.

[Psyren]

And "no" to "+4" is not a slight nerf. You said it yourself: Auto-miss is great.

Ah, thank you. Yeah that does suck for defensive fighters, though I wouldn't call the feat useless even so.


You appear to be missing that total defense puts you in the same boat as pretty much all tanks in 3.P: you are no threat. Sure you can block attacks, but your allies get slaughtered while you sit there.

Why would you use total defense if they're not attacking you though? While it's true D&D has no aggro mechanic, if you park yourself in the enemy's midst (you still have your move and swift actions after all) then an enemy is going to take the bait, especially if that enemy isn't very bright.

[vhfforever]

Total Defense made perfect sense on paper. You get some monsters angry at you, slip up nice and cozy next to them, and drop into TD to avoid some punishment. Heck, you could even do it with broad blade shortswords for a time, to obtain a higher Dodge bonus. I mean, that sounds amazing, right!?

But, in reality, the monsters you piss off just ignore you. They decide you're not worth the time and move on to the next, easier to hit, PC's that are in the way. The only time it would even be moderately useful is if you created a choke-point in a doorway or 5' passageway and they didn't have the Tumble to get around it.

But then again...in that situation, even the Dwarven Defender is useful. And if the situation is such that THAT PrC is useful...well...you know it's niche.

[Powerfamiliar]

The "before the roll is made" part makes this nerf too much. I didn't like the feat before, I really dislike auto hit/miss mechanics, so i wanted it to change, but remain useful. I think if you let players use it after the roll it will still be good. I would probably still change the auto miss on total defense to a really high AC boost (10ish?).

[Psyren]

I don't think it's all that niche. When the spellcasters are invisible/flying or there is a cloud of fog/wall of force/grease patch/nasty summon etc. between them and the enemy, they're often more trouble to go after than they're worth. That leaves the melee to get picked on. And there's plenty of monsters out there that don't use much in the way of tactics anyway - animals, oozes, mindless undead, constructs, and plants for instance; they will just attack whatever is closest.

I do agree that declaring the attack before the roll sucks, but on the other hand, their first attack is almost always the one most likely to hit anyway so there isn't a ton of guesswork.

I would still take this on a flowing monk, though I agree that for e.g. a Magus it may not be worthwhile anymore (if it ever was to begin with.)

[StreamOfTheSky]

Posting my thoughts on this would break numerous forum rules. :smallfurious:

[Seerow]

Give nice thing to underrepresented, very weak, and niche fighting style.

See someone is having fun playing a non-caster class because of this.

Nerf so that it is only useful to an even smaller subset of the already niche fighting style, and much weaker even for that smaller niche.

Just another day at Paizo publishing.

[Threadnaught]

I need to know if I should add it to my list of Things I Do Not Like That SKR Is Responsible For.

That guy's a writer at Paizo?

I thought he was some guy with a blog. :smalleek:

[olentu]

Oh my, my, my, how incredibly funny.

[Seerow]

That guy's a writer at Paizo?

I thought he was some guy with a blog. :smalleek:

Yeah he's a developer there. Maybe lead developer? Not sure on the latter. I do know he's the most public face for things people hate about Paizo/Pathfinder.

[Psyren]

Hmmm... if I were doing this errata, I would let you choose between the 1/round auto-block, or the +4, but let it work on multiple attacks. (Maybe something like you use up an AoO on each one.)

That would be for fighting defensively. For Total Defense, I'd let you autoblock one and get +4 to AC against each attack after that.


Some rationale/a source behind this ruling would be interesting to read. It looks like it already made it to the PFSRD.

[Vedhin]

Some rationale/a source behind this ruling would be interesting to read. It looks like it already made it to the PFSRD.

Well, looking at the paizo messagboards, it looks like it was largely based upon the complaints of Pathfinder Society DMs. Turns out auto-blocking one attack/round in a game format that has lots of single attack/round enemies is a bit powerful. Also, people used Master of Many Styles Monk to get it at low level, well before the level range it was balanced for. Combine that with PFS being low level (capping at 12th), and the fact the Crane Wing deteriorates with age, and it caused PFS people problems. So instead of banning it in PFS (or doing something with MoMS), they nerf one of the few nice martial (and not two-handed or archery at that!) feats into oblivion.

Needless to say, the design team is getting a lot of angry reactions from people there.

[Psyren]

And now Crane Riposte is the new Prone Shooter.

I agree this was over-nerfed.

[Hytheter]

Well, looking at the paizo messagboards, it looks like it was largely based upon the complaints of Pathfinder Society DMs. Turns out auto-blocking one attack/round in a game format that has lots of single attack/round enemies is a bit powerful. Also, people used Master of Many Styles Monk to get it at low level, well before the level range it was balanced for. Combine that with PFS being low level (capping at 12th), and the fact the Crane Wing deteriorates with age, and it caused PFS people problems.

But it only works on Melee Attacks anyway. Wouldn't an easier soultion be to just use more spells and ranged attacks?
Now instead of a cool feat for a niche fighting style, it's practically useless. +4 AC vs a single attack? Not at all worth the feat tax/2 levels in Monk.

[Drachasor]

Yes, because blocking the attack of an enemy at the cost of a large penalty to your attacks is really going to end the encounter. Sounds like this is really a problem with PFS.

A class that got the unnerfed feat at level 1 would not upset anything.

[Hytheter]

Yes, because blocking the attack of an enemy at the cost of a large penalty to your attacks is really going to end the encounter. Sounds like this is really a problem with PFS.

Well, it's not exactly a large penalty, Crane Style makes it so that it's -2 to fight defensively instead of -4 (and Riposte makes it -1). But it's still an unnecessary nerf.

[Psyren]

Well, looking at the paizo messagboards, it looks like it was largely based upon the complaints of Pathfinder Society DMs. Turns out auto-blocking one attack/round in a game format that has lots of single attack/round enemies is a bit powerful. Also, people used Master of Many Styles Monk to get it at low level, well before the level range it was balanced for. Combine that with PFS being low level (capping at 12th), and the fact the Crane Wing deteriorates with age, and it caused PFS people problems. So instead of banning it in PFS (or doing something with MoMS), they nerf one of the few nice martial (and not two-handed or archery at that!) feats into oblivion.

The bigger issue I believe was Spring Attack. Against a melee enemy without pounce (which is a lot of them) you could use Crane Wing to basically become immune to damage. Run in, whack (taking no AoO) run out again; they follow you and either don't reach you at all or they auto-miss. Rinse and repeat as needed, then move on to the next opponent.

While I do think it was nerfed a bit too hard, I don't think it was fine as it was either. I think it could be salvaged if they just let you apply the dodge bonus after the attack roll is made; after all, a martial artist would slap away the blow that's coming for his vital areas, not the one that whistled harmlessly over his head.

Anyway, JB has said they're evaluating the errata, which is still far more than we'd have gotten out of WotC, so I'm still in their corner.

[Seerow]

The bigger issue I believe was Spring Attack. Against a melee enemy without pounce (which is a lot of them) you could use Crane Wing to basically become immune to damage. Run in, whack (taking no AoO) run out again; they follow you and either don't reach you at all or they auto-miss. Rinse and repeat as needed, then move on to the next opponent.

Which is still easily negated by (as you noted) anything with pounce, anything with good reach (unless the PC has exceedingly high levels of mobility. A large creature with a reach weapon will be able to full attack anyone with typical PC levels of movement spring attacking), anything with any form of ranged attack mode, or any encounter with more than a single monster.

And even if all of that is off, and you are fighting a single monster without reach and no ranged capabilities without pounce, there's still always the option of attack another character because this one is apparently invincible to you. In which case that character is giving himself a penalty to hit in order to make you ignore him.

I dunno, doesn't sound OP to me.

[Psyren]

Which is still easily negated by (as you noted) anything with pounce,

Thing is, not many non-animal creatures have it though - and animal bruisers are supposed to be a tough matchup for straight melee because they are so vulnerable to tactics/magic (due to being dumb.)



anything with good reach (unless the PC has exceedingly high levels of mobility.

Which monks certainly do, even before buffs.



And even if all of that is off, and you are fighting a single monster without reach and no ranged capabilities without pounce, there's still always the option of attack another character because this one is apparently invincible to you.

But they had that option with the old Crane Wing too, and in fact they were much more likely to use it there since their one attack would always be negated instead of only during TD. And besides which, "they can attack someone else" is not much of an argument because smart parties plan around that naturally. The whole point is to make attacking the melee more attractive than not, and then having the melee protect themselves. If your mages are attackable, the monsters should be going after them no matter which version of Crane Wing or any other defenses the melee has.

What I'm saying is that, yes, they went too far, but the feat was not fine as-is either.

[Raven777]

Why nerf Crane Wing while Deflect Arrow (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/deflect-arrows-combat) exists?

Or Come and Get Me (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/rage-powers/paizo---rage-powers/come-and-get-me-ex) + Dazing Assault (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/dazing-assault-combat)?

[MadBear]

The bigger issue I believe was Spring Attack. Against a melee enemy without pounce (which is a lot of them) you could use Crane Wing to basically become immune to damage. Run in, whack (taking no AoO) run out again; they follow you and either don't reach you at all or they auto-miss. Rinse and repeat as needed, then move on to the next opponent.


Even against a non-pounce character spring attack will only get you so far.

round 1.
you- spring attack, done.
enemy- I move adjacent, and ready an action to attack him if he moves

round 2.
you- move and provoke 2 attacks (only 1 can be deflected), don't move and eat a full attack, or withdraw away from said enemy.

Before it gets mentioned let me say that this doesn't work as well in a battle if you have your team there guarding you, but this is equally true of the enemy. If the GM sees the tactic, having 2-3 guys target him will help ensure a hit (which makes the PC a good tank btw).

So sure, spring attack might make it better, but against someone using basic maneuvering it's anything but game breaking.

Also, the fact that the change is obviously PFS centered is annoying, and they're denial of said fact just makes it worse.

[Psyren]

Why nerf Crane Wing while Deflect Arrow (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/deflect-arrows-combat) exists?

This isn't a perfect comparison - ranged weapons are much easier to get multiple attacks off with (since the attacker doesn't have to move, plus things like Rapid Shot/Manyshot even before iteratives are taken into account.)



Or Come and Get Me (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/rage-powers/paizo---rage-powers/come-and-get-me-ex) + Dazing Assault (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/dazing-assault-combat)?

This is a good combo, but DA has both a large penalty and a saving throw. attached. So you can end up smacked in the face for nothing. It also uses up your regular AoOs.

[Waddacku]

So in the circumstance that you're spring attacking, while being more mobile than your enemy, they only have non-reach melee weapon attacks and can only use a single one while moving, old Crane Wing would maybe let you win duels at very little risk but taking a long, long time.

Wow.

[Seerow]

So in the circumstance that you're spring attacking, while being more mobile than your enemy, they only have non-reach melee weapon attacks and can only use a single one while moving, old Crane Wing would maybe let you win duels at very little risk but taking a long, long time.

Wow.

So strong

much mobility

very wow

[Psyren]

round 1.
you- spring attack, done.
enemy- I move adjacent, and ready an action to attack him if he moves

round 2.
you- move and provoke 2 attacks (only 1 can be deflected), don't move and eat a full attack, or withdraw away from said enemy.

This is a terrible tactic by the enemy as if I don't move (e.g. I full attack or grapple/trip instead), his readied action won't fire and he has effectively wasted his entire previous turn. Plus, he has to actually move adjacent to me and stop - with monk speed + 20 untyped from ki if needed + buffs like haste (which you would certainly be using with spring attack) this isn't guaranteed. He can double move of course but then he won't be able to ready an attack. Heck, I could even just stand there and total defense, or use acrobatics to get away. There are many options to counter this even if he does manage to get next to me.


So in the circumstance that you're spring attacking, while being more mobile than your enemy, they only have non-reach melee weapon attacks and can only use a single one while moving, old Crane Wing would maybe let you win duels at very little risk but taking a long, long time.

Wow.

Many enemies lack pounce, more mobile is a given for monks (who can get up to +80 speed before party buffs), and monks can get reach too.

Again, I think the nerf went too far, but wanting to limit the circumstances in which you can simply ignore your opponent's best attack regardless of your own defenses is understandable.

[Seerow]

You do realize that Haste doesn't stack with a Monk's movement speed increase, right? They're both enhancement bonuses.




Also, for the situation you're laying out, simply moving away and shooting the enemy with a bow would be just as effective. Probably more effective since spring attack limits you to a single attack. Also, that single attack must be used fighting defensively, and I'm pretty sure that Spring Attack explicitly prevents you from using any standard action capabilities other than a single standard attack. And you're restricted to a single one handed weapon with an open offhand. So you're doing practically no damage with your attacks. At which point, why is this enemy bothering to even notice you? (And if you say "They're stupid animals!" I'm going to point you back to animals getting pounce).

Meanwhile a ranged character can use manyshot to get multiple attacks off, and kite just about any enemy that can be taken down by this strategy, but in far less time overall because you're using a combat style that is actually capable of dealing some damage.

[Kudaku]

I'm incredibly disappointed on three different levels.

One is simply because the nerf is so incredibly painful - Crane Wing requires a free hand to give you a circumstantial +4 AC bonus on one attack that you declare BEFORE the roll is made - or I can just hold a +1 shield and get +3 AC vs ALL attacks without requiring fighting defensively, and I've saved a feat to boot.

The other and even more worrying is that this is only the latest in a series of FAQs and erratas that have really, really disappointed me. Things like the amulet of mighty fists price change, spell combat not working with haste "because it's not a full attack"... The idiocy is piling up. Luckily most of those changes were reversed because the fan base got roused and the forum storm reached a point where they couldn't help but acknowledge it, but overall it still feels like they're implementing major changes with little to no thought about how the new version works.

Finally, Crane Wing was one of the relatively few genuinely good defensive feats available to martials in pathfinder. Paizo should design more feats like Crane Wing instead of 'errataing' the few that remain into obscurity.

[mistformsquirrl]

Posting my thoughts on this would break numerous forum rules. :smallfurious:

Ditto. Was my monk too strong or something, seriously?

[Psyren]

You do realize that Haste doesn't stack with a Monk's movement speed increase, right? They're both enhancement bonuses.

Blessing of Fervor then, another common party buff. It doesn't stack with haste, but it will stack with monk movement as written.


Also, for the situation you're laying out, simply moving away and shooting the enemy with a bow would be just as effective.

It would if you're an archer; but presumably, if you're using Crane Style at all, you're specced for melee, with your gear, stats and feats all focused on that goal, so that's moot anyway.

And no, you won't do a great deal of damage at all. But the idea behind this feat is defense, not offense - you're Death of a Thousand Stings-ing something that would flatten you in a straight punch-up.



Meanwhile a ranged character can use manyshot to get multiple attacks off, and kite just about any enemy that can be taken down by this strategy, but in far less time overall because you're using a combat style that is actually capable of dealing some damage.

Again, I don't know why an archer would be taking style feats anyway, especially ones that require him to keep a hand empty, so the fact that this doesn't work for them isn't much of a black mark; its not supposed to.

[Seerow]

The point was not that the Crane Wing style character can do this. It's that someone with the same level of mobility could accomplish exactly the same thing with archery instead of meleeing them to death.

Death by a thousand cuts is a meaningless. It's something that can be done in a half dozen different ways by various different archtypes. People don't typically play like that because it's boring. Groups that do play like that tend to avoid beatsticks with limited mobility because those encounters are meaningless to them.

Other note: The Crane Wing style only works against single enemies. Ranged attacks with mobility will work against any number of them.

[Psyren]

Before I continue, a word from JB:


Well Good Morning Everyone,

I just want everyone to know that these threads are on life support. I understand that some of you are clearly very upset about this, but the inability of some posters to remain civil is starting to turn this into a problem. Being rude to your fellow posters and paizo staff is not going to let you have your way.

There are few issues I want to address.

1. Because one thing is powerful, even overpowered, does not mean that we are not going to tackle other imbalances. If we lived by that philosophy, nothing would ever get taken care of. We cannot possibly hope to take care of every balance issue (perceived or real) simultaneously. Its a process. It is ongoing. Some folks have mentioned some other issues here (and I am not here to discuss them in an already meandering thread) and many of them are on our radar.

2. I am looking at putting out some clarification on Crane Riposte in the near future to ensure that it is working as intended with the feat chain. It clear to me that the wording is not quite right for the revision and it needs some work to avoid confusion. That will go up in the errata section as soon as the Dev team can come up with a consensus.

3. Folks should recognize that there are some feats we expect to be common and should be pegged at the top of the power curve (or close to it). We expect to see a lot of people with Power Attack. Thats why its in the core rulebook. That is not to say other feats cannot be as good (or close to it), but if we are always putting out Feats (and other mechanics) that trump existing ones, we end up with power creep. Its a delicate balancing act, and not one that we always get right. Every rule builds on those that have come before and as time goes on, it becomes more and more difficult to foresee all the ramifications. Thats not meant to be an excuse, I just wanted to give folks an idea of what we have to deal with on a daily basis. Concerning this feat, we came to agree that it was pushing a bit to high above the base line. We pulled it back. We are looking to see if we went too far. Its clear to us that many of you think we have. We will take that into consideration going forward.

So basically - they may revisit this, and they will definitely revisit Crane Riposte either way.

And this is part of the major reason why I prefer Paizo to WotC, there is dialogue.

[SiuiS]

it was a pretty fair feat even for the magus. It needed 3 feats to get off the ground (improved unarmed, dodge, and crane style). I'd say a 3 feat tax for a good feat is a fair trade. Heck even if they dipped the MOMS monk they'd still need to expend 1 regular feat, to get it, and they'd have lost a level of casting.

Pathfinders my favorite d20 system, but sometimes they do things that are just dumb.

Sometimes? This is the system with the feat that says "you use an action to give your enemy Power Attack against you".


Ah, thank you. Yeah that does suck for defensive fighters, though I wouldn't call the feat useless even so.

Why would you use total defense if they're not attacking you though? While it's true D&D has no aggro mechanic, if you park yourself in the enemy's midst (you still have your move and swift actions after all) then an enemy is going to take the bait, especially if that enemy isn't very bright.

You can't do it that way. You use total defense as your action, and suddenly you're useless; why would the monster attack when your action is "I'm going to stand here and be invulnerable"?

[Psyren]

You can't do it that way. You use total defense as your action, and suddenly you're useless; why would the monster attack when your action is "I'm going to stand here and be invulnerable"?

The point is for him not to be able to attack anyone else. Total Defense when you're the only line of defense is indeed silly.

Put another way - why would they waste time attacking you with the old Crane Wing either?

[SiuiS]

The point is for him not to be able to attack anyone else. Total Defense when you're the only line of defense is indeed silly.

Put another way - why would they waste time attacking you with the old Crane Wing either?

With the old one, you're still attacking them. Fighting defensively is what, -4 attack? You're a threat. You are hard to hit, and you can likely drop your defensive fighting, pull out good ol' power attack and suddenly be much easier to hit and harder to deal with. You cannot be ignored (power attack) and can handle the attention when it comes your way (crane wing).

Now, not so much. Not without weird readied actions.

[Kudaku]

And this is part of the major reason why I prefer Paizo to WotC, there is dialogue.

Respectfully, this is not dialogue. Dialogue would have been to start a thread or set up a blog post saying they're considering altering Crane Wing based on feedback from PFS and asking for suggestions. Instead, this feels like damage control.

CW is an iconic and very popular feat - and one of very few powers that can't be accurately replicated by a spell and supports an unusual combat style (1h free, ie not archery, TWF, or THF) to boot.

Making a minor adjustment to it would have been a viable alternative - specify that a natural 20 could not be deflected, put a size difference limitation on it, reword Master of Many Styles to make the feat harder to dip for... There's tons of options, and lots of good suggestions in the threads (except when the paizo admins are deleting those posts, that is) that are currently on fire on the Paizo forums.

Instead they absolutely butchered it, AND left Crane Riposte flapping in the wind to boot. As it stands now you're significantly better off using a shield than to even consider anything past the basic Crane Style feat.

Usually I'm a big Paizo supporter and I really do love their system, but 'erratas' and FAQs like these make it really hard sometimes.

[Psyren]

Respectfully, this is not dialogue. Dialogue would have been to start a thread or set up a blog post saying they're considering altering Crane Wing based on feedback from PFS and asking for suggestions. Instead, this feels like damage control.

He explained that too: this wasn't the only errata in the book and they didn't have time to do another playtest. Even ACG - the one they planned for - set back their schedule a couple of months. They also simply missed the Crane Riposte issue.

[Kudaku]

He explained that too: this wasn't the only errata in the book and they didn't have time to do another playtest. Even ACG - the one they planned for - set back their schedule a couple of months. They also simply missed the Crane Riposte issue.

And I find it a little worrying that they're 'errataing' feats without even considering the feat chain, let alone how it would interact with other feats or character builds in general. Honestly? It's sloppy work.

[icefractal]

Concerning this feat, we came to agree that it was pushing a bit to high above the base line.I think I see some of the problem here. Paizo does not understand how feats work.

By which I mean, they don't understand that the majority of the feats they publish are chaff, and people trying to make an effective character don't take them (or at least, don't take them unless they already have their chassis built and are just looking for flavor). And I don't just mean the obviously bad feats like Prone Shooter or whatever.

Let's take a random feat:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/arg-feats/goblin-cleaver-combat-dwarf
So when doing something that's a bit situational to begin with (Cleave), you can sometimes be able to use it better - if your foes are smaller than you (and you're a Dwarf).

And some classes are supposed to have that in lieu of abilities. What balances this, to the extent it even does, is that there are a lot of feats in Pathfinder, and if you search through enough of them you will find the nuggets of gold hidden in the chaff.

So - even the imperfect level of balance that does exist is based on people who rely on feats cherry-picking the best ones from the sea of mediocrity. When you try to drop those few standouts down to "baseline", it screws up balance as a result.

[Kudaku]

I found this (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qlnp&page=4?Crane-Wing-nerf#151) post particularly frustrating - I'll quote the relevant text:


Feats allow you to do things that you could not otherwise do based on the rules all the time. That is the entire point of them.

According to this definition the majority of Pathfinder feats fail entirely to qualify as feats.

[Hytheter]

The only good thing about this is that Crane Wing and Snake Fang can now be used together. :P

[Drelua]

Again, I don't know why an archer would be taking style feats anyway, especially ones that require him to keep a hand empty, so the fact that this doesn't work for them isn't much of a black mark; its not supposed to.

Actually, Crane Wing would have been a pretty good feat for a Zen Archer. You need two hands to fire a bow, but that doesn't mean both hands are full. Unless you're just about to shoot, you'd probably be holding the bow in your left hand and nothing in your right, so you could easily use deflect an attack from someone who approaches you, and they'd probably be able to attack only once since you're probably avoid letting anyone get close enough for a full attack. Not that this is really an important point, just something I felt I should mention.

Anyway, I'm really disappointed with this. I've got a 14th level Crane Style Monk that's probably the weakest character in the party, and I optimized as much as I could. He's by far the hardest to kill, but most enemies tend to ignore him even with his maxed out DEX and agile AoMF. The Battle Oracle, Wizard, and especially the Magus, are always higher priorities because they're actually doing damage. He's really hard to kill with great saves and an AC hovering around 50 depending on what he's doing that round, but that doesn't really matter when all the enemies are killing my friends. It's a similar problem to the Dwarven Defender; it doesn't matter how tough you are if you're not in any way preventing the bad guys from killing your friends. Some fights I barely do any damage and don't get attacked much, so I just feel like I'm along for the ride rather than being an adventurer.

I really don't feel like the feat was overpowered, and even if it was, this was a really clumsy, poorly thought out fix. They completely ignored Crane Riposte when they wrote this, and until they get around to 'fixing' that too, PFS monks everywhere have to play with a character built around a feat chain that just doesn't work anymore. This was completely unprofessional of them, and sadly not at all out of character.

[Drachasor]

I think I see some of the problem here. Paizo does not understand how feats work.

By which I mean, they don't understand that the majority of the feats they publish are chaff, and people trying to make an effective character don't take them (or at least, don't take them unless they already have their chassis built and are just looking for flavor). And I don't just mean the obviously bad feats like Prone Shooter or whatever.

Let's take a random feat:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/arg-feats/goblin-cleaver-combat-dwarf
So when doing something that's a bit situational to begin with (Cleave), you can sometimes be able to use it better - if your foes are smaller than you (and you're a Dwarf).

And some classes are supposed to have that in lieu of abilities. What balances this, to the extent it even does, is that there are a lot of feats in Pathfinder, and if you search through enough of them you will find the nuggets of gold hidden in the chaff.

So - even the imperfect level of balance that does exist is based on people who rely on feats cherry-picking the best ones from the sea of mediocrity. When you try to drop those few standouts down to "baseline", it screws up balance as a result.

Well, here's the thing...they are aiming to make almost all feats chaff. It's probably one of the biggest problems with PF. Whenever I've bought a book I've always felt like 90% of it or more was useless.

The disturbing thing is they nerf Crane Wing, but don't worry about Dazing Spell. There are honestly a ton of feats out there that are much, much better than Crane Wing. Well, and that they nerf a feat and don't bother considering how it affects other feats in the same chain...that's amateurish.

[Psyren]

And I find it a little worrying that they're 'errataing' feats without even considering the feat chain, let alone how it would interact with other feats or character builds in general. Honestly? It's sloppy work.

Agreed, it's sloppy, but at least they're willing to fix it.


I found this (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qlnp&page=4?Crane-Wing-nerf#151) post particularly frustrating - I'll quote the relevant text:



According to this definition the majority of Pathfinder feats fail entirely to qualify as feats.

What is wrong with that quote? It's true. Look at Spring Attack, or Point Blank Master, or Manyshot, or Combat Reflexes or any metamagic, or Eldritch Heritage, or Flyby Attack etc. They all take a base rule/state and break it.



Actually, Crane Wing would have been a pretty good feat for a Zen Archer. You need two hands to fire a bow, but that doesn't mean both hands are full. Unless you're just about to shoot, you'd probably be holding the bow in your left hand and nothing in your right, so you could easily use deflect an attack from someone who approaches you, and they'd probably be able to attack only once since you're probably avoid letting anyone get close enough for a full attack. Not that this is really an important point, just something I felt I should mention.

But you can't fight defensively with a bow so it would be useless anyway.

[Drachasor]

But you can't fight defensively with a bow so it would be useless anyway.

Sure you can.

[avr]

Whatever their reasons I predict that Crane Wing will be partially de-nerfed. Not the whole way (though targeting MoMS instead would be the sensible way to go IMO) because backing the whole way down is embarrassing, but ignoring hundreds of vocal fans is also embarrassing.

Whatever their reasons I'm OK with that if it leaves the feat usable.

[TuggyNE]

What is wrong with that quote? It's true. Look at Spring Attack, or Point Blank Master, or Manyshot, or Combat Reflexes or any metamagic, or Eldritch Heritage, or Flyby Attack etc. They all take a base rule/state and break it.

Kudaku's argument: All feats are intended to break the rules in some way. Very many published feats do not break the rules. Therefore very many published feats do not qualify as feats.

Your counterargument: Some feats break the rules. Therefore all published feats qualify as feats.

This does not compute.

[masterjoda99]

Blood Money+Fabricate.

Ok, color me stupid, but I'm not sure I fully understand this combo. What exactly is fabricate bringing in to the equation, and at how many str points eaten by blood money?

[deuxhero]

The raw materials for fabricate are the material component. It's easy money (at least False Focus was limited to 100 GP of components)



What is wrong with that quote? It's true. Look at Spring Attack, or Point Blank Master, or Manyshot, or Combat Reflexes or any metamagic, or Eldritch Heritage, or Flyby Attack etc. They all take a base rule/state and break it.


I think he agreed with it and was annoyed that most PF "feats" didn't follow it.

[Drachasor]

Whatever their reasons I predict that Crane Wing will be partially de-nerfed. Not the whole way (though targeting MoMS instead would be the sensible way to go IMO) because backing the whole way down is embarrassing, but ignoring hundreds of vocal fans is also embarrassing.

Whatever their reasons I'm OK with that if it leaves the feat usable.

At the very least, you need to decide to use the +4 AC AFTER you know the attack hits.


Ok, color me stupid, but I'm not sure I fully understand this combo. What exactly is fabricate bringing in to the equation, and at how many str points eaten by blood money?

Blood Money replaces the material component. Fabricate's material component is the raw material. So you can make anything non-magical for free. If you have trouble selling stuff (which you really shouldn't since you can teleport to major cities), then you can use Fabricate to craft gold pieces -- this is slightly less profitable than crafting something else.

[Gemini476]

Ok, color me stupid, but I'm not sure I fully understand this combo. What exactly is fabricate bringing in to the equation, and at how many str points eaten by blood money?

You just use Fabricate to make the temporary free material components from Blood Money into permanent wealth. You know how they needed Wall of Iron so you can't craft with it? Blood Money means that you get 499gp for free every day during downtime - later on, you can combine some of that wealth (I recommend diamonds) into a larger, more expensive thing. Like the 25,000gp diamond for Wish.

A level 17 caster gets a completely free Wish every 51 days, and if he has access to two Lesser Restorations/day then he can make 2499gp/day or a free Wish every eleventh day. If you find ways to boost your Strength up higher, you can increase that amount. 25,000gp is only what, 50 Strength damage? It's entirely possible to buff up enough that you can Fabricate a 25,000gp diamond every day and cast free Wishes forever.

Blood Money+Fabricate also means that money is meaningless after ninth level, since you have access to infinite money. Or just as well as infinite, since each Restoration you get cast on you is worth (Strength-1)*500gp-1. So if you have eleven strength, that's 4999gp/casting. A +2 Belt is worth 4000gp, and gives you +1000gp/casting. I think you can see where I'm coming from, and it's the land of infinite wealth.

It's also Eschew Material Components+, but I'm not sure if Pathfinder has spells that are affected by that (like, say, Ice Assassin and regular EMC.) Other than Fabricate, that is.

[Drachasor]

You just use Fabricate to make the temporary free material components from Blood Money into permanent wealth. You know how they needed Wall of Iron so you can't craft with it? Blood Money means that you get 499gp for free every day during downtime - later on, you can combine some of that wealth (I recommend diamonds) into a larger, more expensive thing. Like the 25,000gp diamond for Wish.

A level 17 caster gets a completely free Wish every 51 days, and if he has access to two Lesser Restorations/day then he can make 2499gp/day or a free Wish every eleventh day. If you find ways to boost your Strength up higher, you can increase that amount. 25,000gp is only what, 50 Strength damage? It's entirely possible to buff up enough that you can Fabricate a 25,000gp diamond every day and cast free Wishes forever.

Blood Money+Fabricate also means that money is meaningless after ninth level, since you have access to infinite money. Or just as well as infinite, since each Restoration you get cast on you is worth (Strength-1)*500gp-1. So if you have eleven strength, that's 4999gp/casting. A +2 Belt is worth 4000gp, and gives you +1000gp/casting. I think you can see where I'm coming from, and it's the land of infinite wealth.

It's also Eschew Material Components+, but I'm not sure if Pathfinder has spells that are affected by that (like, say, Ice Assassin and regular EMC.) Other than Fabricate, that is.

Actually, PF has rules for crafting gems and the DC is absurdly high for 25k. It's in the back of the equipment guide (someone pointed it out to me). So it is better to just use Blood Money to directly cast Wish or to make money to buy a 25k diamond (how they get made in PF I have no idea).

Magic Jar is the easy way to start getting high strength. You can get in the 50s trivially, and the 70s if you really work at it.

[Kudaku]

What is wrong with that quote? It's true. Look at Spring Attack, or Point Blank Master, or Manyshot, or Combat Reflexes or any metamagic, or Eldritch Heritage, or Flyby Attack etc. They all take a base rule/state and break it.

These are all excellent examples of (what I believe is) the minority of feats that do follow that quote (and I find it pretty ironic that all metamagic feats are covered) - However on the other hand you have feats like Acrobatic, Advanced Ranger Trap, Alertness, Andoran Falconry, Animal Affinity, Arcane Insight, Arcane Vendetta, and Athletic.

Notice a theme? I looked up the general (not combat) list of feats and started at A, those were the feats I found that do not follow that quote before I stopped - I made it all the way to Ath.

All of these feats play the number game - they don't break any rules, they don't offer any new or interesting options to a character. All they do is add a fixed bonus to an option already available.

Additionally you have the more rare (but still non-compliant) feats like Stunning Fist, Improved Iron Will, Elemental Fist etc.

[Raven777]

What Paizo's devs do is not dialogue. What they do is "Here's what we did and (vaguely, often ill conceived) why, deal with it". Dialogue is Star Citizen developers setting dedicated threads (https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/categories/ask-a-developer) to answer questions and replying daily. Dialogue is Dice setting polls (http://blogs.battlefield.com/2014/01/bf4-balancing-feedback/) on what to balance next patch.

[Psyren]

Sure you can.

If you fight with the bow, how is your hand free?


Kudaku's argument: All feats are intended to break the rules in some way. Very many published feats do not break the rules. Therefore very many published feats do not qualify as feats.

Your counterargument: Some feats break the rules. Therefore all published feats qualify as feats.

This does not compute.

All feats either (a) let you do something that the basic rules don't let you do, or (b) give you a bigger bonus to something than the basic rules allow.


And if you want to get technical, Blood Money is usable in Rise of the Runelords.

[eggynack]

All feats either (a) let you do something that the basic rules don't let you do, or (b) give you a bigger bonus to something than the basic rules allow.
I think the problem is that b doesn't much qualify as rule breaking. Bonuses aren't really that much outside the rules, even if they wouldn't be on your character without the feat. I mean, I get how you can argue the inverse, that even something like dodge is breaking the general rule that you don't have that +1 to AC, but that's not really what's happening, and the rules aren't changing in a real way. If you accept dodge into the category of rule breaking, then you can basically say that about any game object no matter what, and it becomes a meaningless designation.

[Drachasor]

If you fight with the bow, how is your hand free?

You said you can't fight defensively with a bow. That's it. Given the broad range of this discussion, I assumed that's what you meant to say rather than "you can't use Crane Wing with a bow"

Crane Style itself is fine with a bow.


What Paizo's devs do is not dialogue. What they do is "Here's what we did and (vaguely, often ill conceived) why, deal with it". Dialogue is Star Citizen developers setting dedicated threads (https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/categories/ask-a-developer) to answer questions and replying daily. Dialogue is Dice setting polls (http://blogs.battlefield.com/2014/01/bf4-balancing-feedback/) on what to balance next patch.

I've seen them tend to get upset at people who want to discuss changes in terms of balance and gameplay. Overall I'm not all that impressed with the dialogue, but I suppose some might consider it better than nothing.

[Raven777]

If you fight with the bow, how is your hand free?

Loosing a hand from a weapon and putting it back on the weapon are free actions (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qda).

[NightbringerGGZ]

Does anybody know if Paizo has more than three game developers on their team? Only three individuals participated in the ACG playtest forums, and if that is their entire staff then frankly those guys have to be really busy. In that light I'd judge the degree to which they communicate with the player base less harshly.

As for the Crane Wing nerf, I'm frankly not surprised. The feat had a few problems as far as I can see.

First, the Crane Style feat chain was fairly stronger than alternate feat chains. It gets brought up as an option far more often than other style feats in build threads.

Second, a significant number of PFS players were picking up the feat and it was causing havoc for GMs. Even if you weren't splashing Fighter or Monk for early entry to the feat, imagine trying to GM a table of 6 where half the players have Crane Style (this scenario happens). In this scenario even a monster with multiple attacks is going to have a significant number of them outright ignored each round.

Third, early entry into the feat chain resulted in a significant reduction to the Fighting Defensively penalty at early levels. A -2 to attack for +3 to AC and the ability to ignore one attack per round is pretty powerful. Especially when stacked with feats and class abilities that further enhance the AC bonus or reduce the attack penalty.

And finally fourth, one of the common sentiments of the Swashbuckler feedback thread was that the class abilities to Parry and Riposte (and the class on the whole) was inferior to a large number of alternate classes using Crane Wing. This wouldn't be the first game I've seen where a developer deems an old ability too powerful rather than recognizing that a new ability isn't performing like they think it should. I see that kind of reaction in MMOs all the time.

[The Insanity]

Another reason why I'll never buy a Paizo book.

[Coidzor]

Ah, thank you. Yeah that does suck for defensive fighters, though I wouldn't call the feat useless even so.

A 3 feat tax for a +4 dodge bonus is pretty lame. And you have to declare before the roll is made, so you can't even use it if your DM rolls while declaring attacks. Or he rolls and then declares who he's attacking. Or there's confusion as to who is actually getting attacked by whom.

[Kudaku]

All feats either (a) let you do something that the basic rules don't let you do, or (b) give you a bigger bonus to something than the basic rules allow.

That is not the definition previously used.


A 3 feat tax for a +4 dodge bonus is pretty lame. And you have to declare before the roll is made, so you can't even use it if your DM rolls while declaring attacks. Or he rolls and then declares who he's attacking. Or there's confusion as to who is actually getting attacked by whom.

It should also be noted that the +4 dodge bonus requires you to carry nothing in at least one hand - if you simply carry a shield you'll get a similar AC bonus very fast, against all attacks instead of just one, and it frees up your feats for better options.

[Psyren]

I think the problem is that b doesn't much qualify as rule breaking.

In a strict sense it does. For instance, your bonus to a skill is defined as ranks + modifier in relevant stat. Skill Focus changes that math, giving you a bonus that comes from neither of those sources.


That is not the definition previously used.

How so? It fits what I said just fine.

[eggynack]

In a strict sense it does. For instance, your bonus to a skill is defined as ranks + modifier in relevant stat. Skill Focus changes that math, giving you a bonus that comes from neither of those sources.

Indeed, and that's what I was indicating elsewhere in that post. It's just that such a definition of a feat as rule breaking is pointless when the function of everything is rule breaking in an exception based system. I suppose that it's plausible that such was the meaning of Jason Bulmahn's claim, but that doesn't really tell us anything about feats as opposed to non-feats. I don't know if he was necessarily trying to though.

[Kudaku]

How so? It fits what I said just fine.

Well, let's break the actual quote down into two assumptions:

(Feats allow you to do things) (that you could not otherwise do based on the rules) (all the time):

1. Feats allow you to do things that you could not otherwise do based on the rules
2. all the time

Nr 1: IE feats allow you to 'break' the rules, typically a specific rule or section of rules. If this definition includes feats that simply grant a passive bonus (like Athletic), then Gloves of Swimming and Climbing would also qualify as feats since they both provide a constant bonus, 'breaking' the rules on climbing checks. So would magical swords(breaking the rules on attack rolls), Inherent bonuses to ability scores (breaking the rules on adding your ability modifier) etc. Respectfully, this definition is so wide it becomes meaningless.

On the other hand, if this definition does not include feats that give passive bonuses (like Athletic) but instead feats that genuinely do let you break specific rules (such as Spring Attack, Cleave Precise Shot etc) then there is a significant amount of feats that do not qualify.

Then there is assumption nr. 2 which immediately eliminates a number of feats, like stunning fist, elemental fist, improved Greater fortitude etc. These feats have charge limitations, meaning they're not available all the time. In fact, for most people they'll be unavailable most of the time since you're better off using them early instead of potentially not using them at all. Ironically, even Crane Wing fails to qualify as a feat under this definition, since it's only available for a single attack each round - if you are attacked multiple times the feat provides no benefit and is not available.

Personally I like feats like Precise Shot - feats that open up new options. Conversely I hate feats like Point Blank Shot, which add absolutely nothing to the character other than a dull modifier. Crane Wing was one of the fairly few good martial feats available for PF martials that didn't tie into power attacking and a humongous axe. Paizo should do everything in their power to write more feats like Crane Wing, not hack away the few good and interesting feat options available.

[TuggyNE]

All feats either (a) let you do something that the basic rules don't let you do, or (b) give you a bigger bonus to something than the basic rules allow.

You'll need to really go into depth on why b is justified, since it is certainly not explicit in the actual definition, and various posters have already argued why it doesn't seem to work very well.

[Psyren]

"All the time" meant "virtually every feat falls under this." And frankly, with this level of anal analysis it's a wonder they can please anyone, or try.


Indeed, and that's what I was indicating elsewhere in that post. It's just that such a definition of a feat as rule breaking is pointless when the function of everything is rule breaking in an exception based system. I suppose that it's plausible that such was the meaning of Jason Bulmahn's claim, but that doesn't really tell us anything about feats as opposed to non-feats. I don't know if he was necessarily trying to though.

Exactly, it's an exception-based rules system. Every feat is an exception because every feat lets you do something you couldn't do without that feat.

[avr]

And finally fourth, one of the common sentiments of the Swashbuckler feedback thread was that the class abilities to Parry and Riposte (and the class on the whole) was inferior to a large number of alternate classes using Crane Wing. This wouldn't be the first game I've seen where a developer deems an old ability too powerful rather than recognizing that a new ability isn't performing like they think it should. I see that kind of reaction in MMOs all the time.
That does make sense. One guy was saying he'd been calling for a nerf to Crane Wing for a couple of years, the Swashbuckler feedback would explain why it happened now.

[TuggyNE]

"All the time" meant "virtually every feat falls under this." And frankly, with this level of anal analysis it's a wonder they can please anyone, or try.

It's really more of a qualitative analysis; not so much that there are three exceptions published, and therefore PATHFINDER IS TERRIBLE AND LIES, but that a pretty substantial fraction (anywhere from 20% to 60% or 70%, maybe) do not fit the definition, and therefore are not really well-designed. So no, I do not think "virtually every feat" qualifies, nor even anywhere close, unless "oh, around half" is the new "virtually every".


Exactly, it's an exception-based rules system. Every feat is an exception because every feat lets you do something you couldn't do without that feat.

Dodge: I was previously unable to dodge my foes! Oh wait, no, that's what a Dex bonus is for. Weapon Focus: Before I had this feat, I couldn't hit my foes properly with this weapon! Hang on, proficiency, BAB, and Str mod say yes I could. Athletic: Without this feat, I couldn't perform athletic stunts! Um, no.

Contrast Manyshot: I couldn't fire two arrows at the same time. It's true, you genuinely can't unless you have Manyshot. Or Point Blank Master: I suffered AoOs from trying to fire with an enemy nearby without the feat. Again, simple truth. There is a meaningful distinction between "I am now slightly better at this thing I could already do before" and "I can now do something that I couldn't even try to do before".

[Kudaku]

"All the time" meant "virtually every feat falls under this." And frankly, with this level of anal analysis it's a wonder they can please anyone, or try.

I see now, I read that full quote as being an actual definition of a feat. Actually, it still reads like a formal definition to me. Might be a language issue on my end I guess. :smallfrown:

Also, if you think that was anal analysis I have a grammar professor you really need to meet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Bu ffalo_buffalo).

I still think the first half of my argument stands up however - Athletic and its ilk does not allow you to meaningfully break the rules. What it does is provide you a bonus, typically a minor and easily ignorable one. I'd go into more detail here but I think Tuggy has covered the differences quite well already.

[TuggyNE]

Just for grins, let's run through a semi-random selection of feats: combat feats starting with the As. Out of 18 feats, 10 allow something new, 2 quite blatantly give you a bonus only, and 6 are rather dubious (because they remove a penalty, allow some remarkably situational ability, or whatever). Out of 28 in the Bs, the numbers are 14, 6, and 8 respectively. Total for both is 8 to 22 out of 46, which means that depending on how stern your gaze is, 17% - 48% of examined feats (probably around 30%, which was surprisingly low) are nothing but bonuses to things you can already do.

I will adjust my rhetoric in future accordingly.

[Psyren]

Not to reopen old wounds, but wanted to make sure people saw the Crane Riposte patch. (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1g1#v5748eaic9rmn)



Dodge: I was previously unable to dodge my foes! Oh wait, no, that's what a Dex bonus is for. Weapon Focus: Before I had this feat, I couldn't hit my foes properly with this weapon! Hang on, proficiency, BAB, and Str mod say yes I could. Athletic: Without this feat, I couldn't perform athletic stunts! Um, no.

The bonus is calculated a certain way before. Now, a number outside of that calculation is added. It's not that difficult to me.

It may not fit your definition, and that's okay - it doesn't have to. We can agree to disagree.


Athletic and its ilk does not allow you to meaningfully break the rules.

"Meaningful" is subjective. Clearly it means something to whoever would took the feat, or they wouldn't have done so.

[Kudaku]

"Meaningful" is subjective. Clearly it means something to whoever would took the feat, or they wouldn't have done so.

I do not believe I said Athletic does not provide a meaningful bonus, but rather that it does not "meaningfully" break the rules.

Still, this is a subjective point of contention. I suggest we just agree to disagree here.

[TuggyNE]

The bonus is calculated a certain way before. Now, a number outside of that calculation is added.

That's not "something you could not otherwise do". That's "something you couldn't do quite as well before". Unless the bonus is large enough to mean the difference between "this isn't worth trying" and "this may well work", it doesn't count at all. (+4, or the removal of a -4 penalty, is the bare minimum for that, and it's still dubious.)

Put another way, a feat, to fit the definition, must give you a qualitative new capability, not merely a small fixed quantitative change in an existing ability or defense.

What's especially irritating is that you obviously do understand what's meant:
Look at Spring Attack, or Point Blank Master, or Manyshot, or Combat Reflexes or any metamagic, or Eldritch Heritage, or Flyby Attack etc. They all take a base rule/state and break it.

Every one of those gives you new capabilities in a qualitative sense, exactly in the way that I've outlined. Denying that there is any distinction now just comes off as disingenuous.


"Meaningful" is subjective. Clearly it means something to whoever would took the feat, or they wouldn't have done so.

Which is why most do not take such feats. How convenient.

Using this design methodology, you could justify literally any feat at all as perfectly acceptable, even "By expending 500 HP, you gain a +1 bonus to your Appraise skill when used to assess statues made of unbaked clay, which does not stack with ranks, ability modifier, circumstance bonuses, competence bonuses, or enhancement bonuses". Hey, if someone takes the feat, it's clearly meaningful to them!

A criterion that cannot be failed is not a criterion.

[Thrair]

Ugh. This is.... just frustrating. It was an amazingly flavourful feat that was the capstone of a rare and generally uncommon fighting style. And they not only killed it, they broke the followup feat without even noticing.

Defensive builds are exceptionally rare in PF, as you're generally better off killing or disabling enemies rather than being harder to attack. It's the same reason in-combat healing is considered sub-optimal unless it's an emergency and needed to prevent a death. Or using a very specialized Oradin-style build.

Things like this just cement the supremacy of Rocket-tag. A high-level caster has spells that are far more disruptive. And offensive builds like uber-chargers are far more capable of wrecking encounters. More defensive playstyles aren't necessarily better, but they certainly shouldn't be actively discouraged. Especially with official errata.



Even if what people are saying is true: That it was nerfed because it was powerful at low levels, and some PFS DMs were complaining...

Then you know what? It's on those DMs for not adapting. Players can break encounter design in a lot of ways. And the type of encounters Crane Wing builds "broke" are the simplest types of encounters in the game: Big Stupid Fighter walks up and makes a single big hit.


If a DM is incapable of designing an encounter that has more tactical depth, the feat chain/style is not the source of the problem. You cannot except to be able throw the same type of encounter at every type of party and build and except to be able to challenge them. One-trick pony DMing shouldn't be something Paizo balances around.


Ugh. Just.... ugh.

[Drachasor]

Yeah, I can't believe they nerfed something based on PFS, especially when PFS has such crappy bosses. I thought this was why PFS had its own house rules in use -- why didn't they fix it there? Meanwhile, they refuse to errata Spell Mastery so non-wizards (like the Magus and Witch) can take it -- while suggesting the DM should house-rule it.

I often feel that the PF devs (aside from SKR) are good people but have little clue on balance. Stuff like this just cements that impression. There are really dozens of ways to counter someone using this feat. In fact, there are far more powerful magics to provide defense. But I forget that PF believes even more than 3.5 that mundanes can't have nice things.

[Thrair]

Yah. I just noticed this crap the other day, when I went to build a Duelist.


PFS getting crap nerfed it annoying. It's a single facet of the game, and one I don't think many people even play with. And hell, if DMs were having trouble with Crane Wing, rather than crush it with an errata, just ban it in PFS play.

[Raven777]

Even if what people are saying is true: That it was nerfed because it was powerful at low levels, and some PFS DMs were complaining...

Then you know what? It's on those DMs for not adapting. Players can break encounter design in a lot of ways. And the type of encounters Crane Wing builds "broke" are the simplest types of encounters in the game: Big Stupid Fighter walks up and makes a single big hit.


If a DM is incapable of designing an encounter that has more tactical depth, the feat chain/style is not the source of the problem.

PFS DMs are not allowed to modify encounters, no matter what. They are obligated to run the modules as written. Which is a bunch of bullcrap, because the whole point of encounter design in D&D is the ability of the DM to tailor the narrative and challenge to his group. /sigh