Pour all the senseless errata nerf here!

[Larkas]

I'm trying to compile a list of all the senseless nerfs Paizo did in errata to their books. Mind, I don't want to list ALL the nerfs (Paragon Surge arguably needed a tap with the nerf bat, and the nerf was pulled off nicely and elegantly). No, I want to list what I shall call "Type A" nerfs (nerfing was needed, but it went way too far or was poorly executed) and "Type B" nerfs (uncalled for nerf). What I don't want in this thread is a "Paizo Hate Fest": I want a specific assessment of the results of their work, nothing more.

So, to get us started:
-Crane Wing (UC; probably Type A);
-Scarred Witch Doctor (ARG; a little of Type A, mostly Type B);
-Opportune Parry and Riposte exclusivity (ACG, Type B).

So, can you guys help me compile that list? :smallsmile:

[Elricaltovilla]

Paizo committed genocide against all tieflings, aasimar, and dhampir by reducing their aging to match that of normal humans. Thousands of 65+ year old planetouched were in the prime of their lives and suddenly aged to feebleness and death in the blink of an eye. This tragedy should not go unnoticed.

[Larkas]

Paizo committed genocide against all tieflings, aasimar, and dhampir by reducing their aging to match that of normal humans. Thousands of 65+ year old planetouched were in the prime of their lives and suddenly aged to feebleness and death in the blink of an eye. This tragedy should not go unnoticed.

HAHAHAHAHA, okay, that's pretty silly, but it's mostly a flavor thing, right? :smallbiggrin:

[TheNivMizzet]

HAHAHAHAHA, okay, that's pretty silly, but it's mostly a flavor thing, right? :smallbiggrin:

Well considering that age does affect your ability scores unless your GM retconned your age you could be left with -6 to all your physical stats and +3 to your mental ones.

[Unbodied]

Well considering that age does affect your ability scores unless your GM retconned your age you could be left with -6 to all your physical stats and +3 to your mental ones.
Doesn’t Pathfinder have it so that you only get a + to your mental scores the first time you advance an age category?

[Elricaltovilla]

HAHAHAHAHA, okay, that's pretty silly, but it's mostly a flavor thing, right? :smallbiggrin:

Absolutely not. I'm in the middle of running a kingmaker game with three tieflings as the main characters. They were built before the errata came out, when starting age for tieflings was 65. They're now all venerable age and a hop skip and a jump away from dead.

Obviously I ignored the errata but this is a serious issue for people who built their characters following the rules. Either you suddenly de-age 30-40 years, or you risk dying from old age. And you can't rez someone who dies of "natural causes" i.e. old age.

[Kudaku]

Doesn’t Pathfinder have it so that you only get a + to your mental scores the first time you advance an age category?

Nope, middle-aged grants a -1 to all physical stats and a +1 to all mental stats.

The Flurry of Blows thing should definitely be on there. They reversed it after the boards ran riot for ~6 months straight, but still.

They FAQ'ed Courageous weapons to only grant the bonus on morale bonuses vs saves. While the original Courageous bonus was ridiculously good for barbarians, who is going to spend a +1 bonus to increase morale bonuses vs fear effects?

[khadgar567]

unchained summoner type c (aka don't needed but done it any ways)

[Spore]

Well considering that age does affect your ability scores unless your GM retconned your age you could be left with -6 to all your physical stats and +3 to your mental ones.

Wrong. Age penalties don't stack. You use the modifications given in your column of age category. It's -3/+1 at venerable age, not -1-2-3=-6/+1+1+1=+3.

[Dondasch]

Divine Protection was probably a Type A

I'd argue that Crane Wing was Type B-- it wasn't that it needed a nerf in and of itself, it's a combination of PFS play having many enemies that are humanoid weapon-wielders (Crane Wing is basically designed to beat these) and Master of Many Styles letting you take it when such enemies were limited to one attack per round.

[Kudaku]

Wrong. Age penalties don't stack. You use the modifications given in your column of age category. It's -3/+1 at venerable age, not -1-2-3=-6/+1+1+1=+3.

No, he's right. Age Penalties are cumulative.


With age, a character's physical ability scores decrease and his mental ability scores increase (see Table: 7-2). The effects of each aging step are cumulative. However, none of a character's ability scores can be reduced below 1 in this way.

So a venerable character would have -6 to physical stats and +3 to mental stats. This is why people frequently joke about how in D&D your hearing gets better as you age, since your wisdom goes up with each age step.

[Larkas]

Absolutely not. I'm in the middle of running a kingmaker game with three tieflings as the main characters. They were built before the errata came out, when starting age for tieflings was 65. They're now all venerable age and a hop skip and a jump away from dead.

Obviously I ignored the errata but this is a serious issue for people who built their characters following the rules. Either you suddenly de-age 30-40 years, or you risk dying from old age. And you can't rez someone who dies of "natural causes" i.e. old age.

Huh. I never thought people actually used those starting age tables. Well, I'll add that, though I'm not entirely sure it's a nerf rather than derp moment. :smallconfused:


The Flurry of Blows thing should definitely be on there. They reversed it after the boards ran riot for ~6 months straight, but still.

I don't quite remember: was that errata? I was under the impression that was carried out through FAQ. Still, at least that one was duly fixed.


They FAQ'ed Courageous weapons to only grant the bonus on morale bonuses vs saves. While the original Courageous bonus was ridiculously good for barbarians, who is going to spend a +1 bonus to increase morale bonuses vs fear effects?

... That's... Unfortunate, to say the least. But as it's not errata, it doesn't feature into the list I have in mind. I might expand that into FAQ territory when I'm done, though.


unchained summoner type c (aka don't needed but done it any ways)

It's not errata and I'm not sure I agree with you on that.


Divine Protection was probably a Type A

Oh, good catch.


I'd argue that Crane Wing was Type B-- it wasn't that it needed a nerf in and of itself, it's a combination of PFS play having many enemies that are humanoid weapon-wielders (Crane Wing is basically designed to beat these) and Master of Many Styles letting you take it when such enemies were limited to one attack per round.

Wait, did you get to circumvent the BAB/monk level restrictions with MoMS?

[torrasque666]

... That's... Unfortunate, to say the least. But as it's not errata, it doesn't feature into the list I have in mind. I might expand that into FAQ territory when I'm done, though.

Not errata yet, but it does have the phrase "This change will be reflected in the next errata." at the end of the entry. And Paizo has said that their FAQs hold the same weight as Errata with Pathfinder.

[Larkas]

Not errata yet, but it does have the phrase "This change will be reflected in the next errata." at the end of the entry. And Paizo has said that their FAQs hold the same weight as Errata with Pathfinder.

Gotcha. It will feature in the list in due time.

[Elricaltovilla]

Huh. I never thought people actually used those starting age tables. Well, I'll add that, though I'm not entirely sure it's a nerf rather than derp moment. :smallconfused:


It matters significantly in games with long IC timetables like Kingmaker, where decades might go by. And the starting age tables are in the rules, so anyone who used them now has a planetouched or dhampir of at least venerable age assuming they hit the bare minimum of starting age for their class. Any higher and you're rolling for dead.

I would consider -6 to my physical stats a massive nerf. That's -3 initiative, -3 damage, -3 attack, and -3 HP per hit die before even getting into all the other stuff involved in derived stats. It means that your character might no longer qualify for feats they previously qualified for, they might lose out on PrC levels they'd taken, it's a cascading effect that can absolutely destroy a character even if they actually survive the initial "suddenly very old" effect.

[Curmudgeon]

Tumble to avoid AoOs with fixed DCs -> Acrobatics opposed by CMD: maybe "Type A"
Hide while attacking, with -20 penalty, and only if you still meet all three requirements to use the skill -> Stealth cannot be used while attacking: "Type B"

[Dondasch]

Wait, did you get to circumvent the BAB/monk level restrictions with MoMS?

Yes. The interesting thing is that the MoMS can take the Elemental Fist feat as a bonus feat, but must meet the prereqs, so there would have been precedent for making Crane Wing work the same way.

[Prime32]

You carry a non-masterwork simple or martial weapon that has been passed down from generation to generation in your family.
Benefit: When you select this trait, choose one of the following benefits:

proficiency with that specific weapon
a +1 trait bonus on attacks of opportunity with that specific weapon
a +2 trait bonus on one kind of combat maneuver when using that specific weapon.

Note: You pay the standard gp cost for the weapon.


Type A. It used to grant a masterwork weapon at the cost of a normal weapon (which could be exotic), proficiency with that specific weapon, and a +1 bonus on attack rolls with it.

Note that the current version can be upgraded to masterwork via the 2nd-level spell masterwork transformation (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/masterwork-transformation), but in PFS spells like that wear off between games.



Also, Pummeling Style


Your unarmed strikes weave together in an effortless combo, focusing on the spots you've weakened with the last hit.
Benefit: Whenever you use a full-attack action or flurry of blows to make multiple attacks against a single opponent with unarmed strikes, total the damage from all hits before applying damage reduction. This ability works only with unarmed strikes, no matter what other abilities you might possess.


You collect all your power into a single vicious and debilitating punch.
Benefit: As a full-round action, you can pool all your attack potential in one devastating punch. Make a number of rolls equal to the number of attacks you can make with a full attack or a flurry of blows (your choice) with the normal attack bonus for each attack. For each roll that is a hit, you deal the normal amount of damage, adding it to any damage the attack has already dealt from previous rolls (if any). If any of the attack rolls are critical threats, make one confirmation roll for the entire attack at your highest base attack bonus. If it succeeds, the entire attack is a confirmed critical hit.
[Later Errata: "You can only use Pummeling Style with unarmed strikes." However, this seems to have been a general rule for Style feats that wasn't communicated properly, so it's more of a clarification than a change.]

Feats with Pummeling Style as a prerequisite still refer to it as making a single powerful punch, even after revision.

[Urpriest]

Tumble to avoid AoOs with fixed DCs -> Acrobatics opposed by CMD: maybe "Type A"
Hide while attacking, with -20 penalty, and only if you still meet all three requirements to use the skill -> Stealth cannot be used while attacking: "Type B"


Pathfinder is not in fact errata to 3.5.

[Psyren]

What is Type C? "Nerf was needed?" I'd definitely put Paragon Surge and Courageous weapons in that category.

Pummeling Style no longer works with Martial Versatility or Feral Combat Training = Type B
Personally I think the SLA to qualify thing was unnecessary, but I've seen enough GMs welcoming that nerf that I could probably agree it was needed.

[Hrugner]

I'd throw the changes to slashing grace on the list. It isn't so much an unreasonable change as it is done in a manner that ignores the context it exists in. All the change really does is move everyone back over to scimitars and dervish dancing.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Absolutely not. I'm in the middle of running a kingmaker game with three tieflings as the main characters. They were built before the errata came out, when starting age for tieflings was 65. They're now all venerable age and a hop skip and a jump away from dead.

Obviously I ignored the errata but this is a serious issue for people who built their characters following the rules. Either you suddenly de-age 30-40 years, or you risk dying from old age. And you can't rez someone who dies of "natural causes" i.e. old age.Last I heard, in PFS if you hit venerable you just die, too.

[Elricaltovilla]

Last I heard, in PFS if you hit venerable you just die, too.

Like I said, it's a genocide. Although, I'm not sure Tiefling etc. are PFS legal anyway.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Like I said, it's a genocide. Although, I'm not sure Tiefling etc. are PFS legal anyway.I don't believe they are at the moment, but it's hard to keep up with that shifting pile of houserules.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Only in errata, so stuff they destroyed from 3E in core from the get-go is off-limits, like monks not being able to take INA (Unarmed Strike)? Or how monk speed bonus only applies to base/land speed now? Or how monks effectively TWF with unarmed now yet can't tack on 2ndary naturals while as a Fighter who takes the TWF line and fights unarmed CAN do that? Or all the other ways they screwed over monks right from the start?


I'm trying to compile a list of all the senseless nerfs Paizo did in errata to their books. Mind, I don't want to list ALL the nerfs (Paragon Surge arguably needed a tap with the nerf bat, and the nerf was pulled off nicely and elegantly). No, I want to list what I shall call "Type A" nerfs (nerfing was needed, but it went way too far or was poorly executed) and "Type B" nerfs (uncalled for nerf). What I don't want in this thread is a "Paizo Hate Fest": I want a specific assessment of the results of their work, nothing more.

So, to get us started:
-Crane Wing (UC; probably Type A);
-Scarred Witch Doctor (ARG; a little of Type A, mostly Type B);
-Opportune Parry and Riposte exclusivity (ACG, Type B).

So, can you guys help me compile that list? :smallsmile:

Crane Wing was a Type B, it was uncalled for. Some others:

- Specifying that you can't Spring Attack with Vital Strike (Type B; as if VS wasn't already more geared towards brutes w/ ONE BIG ATTACK instead of the skirmishers it is supposedly made for)
- Changing the free action constrict, grab, and pull of White Haired Witch to swift actions (Type B; WHW is already massively worse than vanilla witch)
- Nerfing Spider Step and Cloud Step feats to cap at 50 feet instead of infinite feet at Monk 20 (Type A...I liked the idea of a monk 20 being able to traverse the entire world in a move action, though :smallfrown:)
- Making brass knuckles useless b/c gods forbid the monk only pay (bonus^2)*2000 gp enhancing unarmed (Type B)
- Disallowing the Bladebound Magus's Black Blade from getting enhanced at all outside its advancement. Maybe allowing it unrestricted was too much, but now it caps at +5 at level 20 and is going to be inferior to having some other weapon (Type A)
- Antagonize feat: Fixing the save DC was fine, but then they also changed it so you didn't have to melee attack the antagonizing person, making the feat nigh-useless...you can just throw a rock now (Type B)
- Cleave and Great Cleave don't work on mirror images (Type B; note it was the OPPOSITE in 3E)
- Magic Missile doesn't work on mirror images (Type B; note it was the OPPOSITE in 3E)
- Saying you can't TWF w/ a 2H weapon and armor spikes (Type B)
- It only takes one check to completely escape a grapple when pinned, while pinning someone still takes two checks to achieve (Type B)
- Saying you can't ready a charge even in situations where you can (partial) charge as a standard action (Type B)
- Not sure it counts, but all the nerfs Ninja got from the playtest to the final version. The playtest version was still the 3rd worst class in the game, it really didn't need to be "fixed" (Type B)
- It wasn't really an errata because nothing changed, but SKR's atrocious defense of the Vow of Poverty surely belongs as a Type B.

I recalled a truly terrible suggestion about limiting free actions to 3 per turn, but it appears they un-errata'd that away.:smallwink:

EDIT: I can't find it even listed in the errata, so proof that Cloud Step used to be awesome: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l6yc?20th-level-monk-and-Spider-StepCloud-Step
It even has SKR saying, "No trans-Atlantic steps for you!" That's just so perfect.:smallbiggrin:

[NightbringerGGZ]

I don't believe they are at the moment, but it's hard to keep up with that shifting pile of houserules.

They aren't, unless you were clever enough to play a level 1 Tiefling and then bank the character.

[Ilorin Lorati]

The original Aasimar and Tiefling ages never made much sense to me, personally. Tieflings already have a hard enough time not being killed at birth, having them basically have to make it through half the lifetimes of their parents before they can even think about being old enough to wander was silly.

20 years is a lot more reasonable, though I would have preferred they keep the extended lifespans.

[Psyren]

Last I heard, in PFS if you hit venerable you just die, too.

Age categories have no bonus or penalty in PFS anyway. It's described as a "roleplaying choice."



- Making brass knuckles useless b/c gods forbid the monk only pay (bonus^2)*2000 gp enhancing unarmed (Type B)

Amulet of Mighty Fists has been cheaper for years now (http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5le61?Monkeying-Around); It costs the same to enhance as brass knuckles now and applies to every unarmed strike (including fists, headbutts, etc) and natural attack you have. The PFSRD also reflects the updated pricing.



- Disallowing the Bladebound Magus's Black Blade from getting enhanced at all outside its advancement. Maybe allowing it unrestricted was too much, but now it caps at +5 at level 20 and is going to be inferior to having some other weapon (Type A)

Actually, you can still enhance it with your arcane pool (swift action, lasts 10 rounds) if you need a higher bonus (e.g. to beat some DR.) This explicitly stacks, up to +5.



- Antagonize feat: Fixing the save DC was fine, but then they also changed it so you didn't have to melee attack the antagonizing person, making the feat nigh-useless...you can just throw a rock now (Type B)

It's still useful on a character whose action would have been better spent not targeting you at all, e.g. an enemy healer or a pet that can't throw said rock.

[Extra Anchovies]

When listing errata, can we say what the changes were? I still have no idea what the original crane wing feat does. I'm also curious about what "the flurry of blows thing" was.

Also, the Divine Protection is type C for sure. That feat should never have even been written.

Sure, it still exists as a bad option (which is just barely worse than it not existing), but its introduction to the game was a terrible thing for class balance. You know what isn't a great idea? Taking single-classed full casters and making them stronger. You know what that feat did? Exactly that.

[Dondasch]

I still have no idea what the original crane wing feat does.

You move with the speed and finesse of an avian hunter, your sweeping blocks and graceful motions allowing you to deflect melee attacks with ease.
Prerequisites: Crane Style, Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +5 or monk level 5th.
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.

It did that. Note "melee weapon attack".

[Psyren]

When listing errata, can we say what the changes were? I still have no idea what the original crane wing feat does. I'm also curious about what "the flurry of blows thing" was.

Crane Wing: Used to be an automatic melee deflect every round when fighting defensively or total defense. Now you only get the deflect with total defense; when fighting defensively you get +2 dodge to AC, but it applies to any attack made by the enemy you designate, not just melee (though of course, you can't fight them defensively unless they're in reach of you anyway, so in practice it's still vs. melee attacks.)

Flurry of Blows thing: It used to be that you had to use two different weapons in your flurry of blows. They reversed that - you can do all the attacks with one weapon if you want, or any combination of monk weapons and unarmed strikes.

[Extra Anchovies]

You move with the speed and finesse of an avian hunter, your sweeping blocks and graceful motions allowing you to deflect melee attacks with ease.
Prerequisites: Crane Style, Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +5 or monk level 5th.
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.

It did that. Note "melee weapon attack".

Hm. Doesn't specify manufactured weapon, though, so you can deflect claws. A natural weapon is still a weapon.

That's definitely a type A nerf, though. It's a no-roll (Ex) attack-negation that doesn't require the expenditure of any actions or resources.

[Elricaltovilla]

The original Aasimar and Tiefling ages never made much sense to me, personally. Tieflings already have a hard enough time not being killed at birth, having them basically have to make it through half the lifetimes of their parents before they can even think about being old enough to wander was silly.

20 years is a lot more reasonable, though I would have preferred they keep the extended lifespans.

Try being an elf, they have to make it a century before they're old enough to cross the street by themselves. It isn't just tieflings who god nerfed though, it was all planetouched and dhampir. A lot of them don't have anywhere near the baggage that tieflings do.

Also, you know who gets to keep their extended lifespan? Half-elves. Totally arbitrary.

[Dondasch]

That's definitely a type A nerf, though. It's a no-roll (Ex) attack-negation that doesn't require the expenditure of any actions or resources.

Keep in mind that if you are using Crane Wing, you are both fighting defensively and fighting with one hand free. That puts a serious dent in your offensive ability.

[Sayt]

Primal Companion Hunter: went from getting as many evolution points as an eidolon of level for Hunter level minutes per day to.... 2/4/6 evolution points at 1/8/15 for same duration. Probably type A. I would have just said Half Eidolon level, perhaps

[Psyren]

Keep in mind that if you are using Crane Wing, you are both fighting defensively and fighting with one hand free. That puts a serious dent in your offensive ability.

Eh, not really - just fight unarmed and your hands are free anyway. You can even flurry, and Crane Style already reduces the penalty to only -2, plus you're at full-BAB while flurrying anyway, so you still end up ahead of where a 3/4 BAB class would be.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Amulet of Mighty Fists has been cheaper for years now (http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5le61?Monkeying-Around); It costs the same to enhance as brass knuckles now and applies to every unarmed strike (including fists, headbutts, etc) and natural attack you have. The PFSRD also reflects the updated pricing.

The link you posted says 4000 gp for a +1, like I knew already. That is cheaper than 3E, but it's still not 2000 gp like I said in my post. AoMF is an even better deal for someone with many natural weapons now, and...still overpriced for a monk who just wants to enhance his one natural weapon (unarmed strike).


Actually, you can still enhance it with your arcane pool (swift action, lasts 10 rounds) if you need a higher bonus (e.g. to beat some DR.) This explicitly stacks, up to +5.

I know. Or I could get a +10 total bonus weapon and apply arcane pool on top of that. The point is the Black Blade is inferior to a weapon you find or buy past level 6 or 8. Yes, it's also free. But then again, it cost an arcana and barred you from taking a familiar, which is a significant loss. I just find it odd that your bonded weapon will end up weaker than one you find in loot. It is a Type A errata, though. Not that awful, just went too far, IMO.


It's still useful on a character whose action would have been better spent not targeting you at all, e.g. an enemy healer or a pet that can't throw said rock.

You're spending a feat and your action to maybe cost the enemy his action (and only 1/encounter). I know a martial's action is worth far less than a caster's so this is still a good trade for those who flunked out of wizard school, but they could be a little less blatant about it...
In any case, the main point of the feat originally wasn't the action loss of the target. It was forcing a caster to come to melee range with you. The errata removed that. And foes that literally lack any ranged options at all aren't the types of foes you need to lure to melee with you in the first place, so that's irrelevant.


Eh, not really - just fight unarmed and your hands are free anyway. You can even flurry, and Crane Style already reduces the penalty to only -2, plus you're at full-BAB while flurrying anyway, so you still end up ahead of where a 3/4 BAB class would be.

Unarmed and single handed fighting styles are the weakest in the game, having to spend FOUR feats and fight in either of those fashions is a cost. Crane Wing single-handedly made those fighting styles viable. Or rather, it used to. Now it's pretty useless even if I could use it w/ a 2H weapon, I'd pass on it.

[Psyren]

The link you posted says 4000 gp for a +1, like I knew already. That is cheaper than 3E, but it's still not 2000 gp like I said in my post. AoMF is an even better deal for someone with many natural weapons now, and...still overpriced for a monk who just wants to enhance his one natural weapon (unarmed strike).

It's no more expensive than enhancing two weapons, just like any other TWF character. A +5 amulet is cheaper than a character with two +5 brass knuckles (since the latter has to start with two masterwork brass knuckles.) Moreover, you aren't forced to punch this way, and can use your entire body to unarmed strike as normal (including kicks, elbows and headbutts with your hands full.)


I know. Or I could get a +10 total bonus weapon and apply arcane pool on top of that.

The pool bonus maxes at +5, so no, you could not do this. The autoscaling is fine and saves you a lot of wealth in the long run, and you can burst it up with the pool when you need the bonus to hit, a specific attribute you don't have yet like ghost touch, or to overcome a specific kind of DR.



In any case, the main point of the feat originally wasn't the action loss of the target. It was forcing a caster to come to melee range with you. The errata removed that. And foes that literally lack any ranged options at all aren't the types of foes you need to lure to melee with you in the first place, so that's irrelevant.

But what about, say, pulling a low-will melee enemy away from your casters and archers? Sure the casters could probably accomplish something similar themselves, but you doing it frees up their actions to do more powerful things - teamwork.



Unarmed and single handed fighting styles are the weakest in the game, having to spend FOUR feats and fight in either of those fashions is a cost. Crane Wing single-handedly made those fighting styles viable. Or rather, it used to. Now it's pretty useless even if I could use it w/ a 2H weapon, I'd pass on it.

The +2 dodge isn't bad, this gets you a +4 to AC while fighting defensively that stacks with all your other bonuses. I agree though that they went too far nerfing this one, total defense is usually a poor option. But if you need to get out of dodge and withdraw/acrobatics are too dicey this is another option - you can total defense and just move away (at monk speed) with an automatic deflect and over +9 AC once you add this, Dodge and Mobility.

[Dondasch]

The +2 dodge isn't bad, this gets you a +4 to AC while fighting defensively that stacks with all your other bonuses. I agree though that they went too far nerfing this one, total defense is usually a poor option. But if you need to get out of dodge and withdraw/acrobatics are too dicey this is another option - you can total defense and just move away (at monk speed) with an automatic deflect and over +9 AC once you add this, Dodge and Mobility.

+2 dodge vs one opponent (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#dodge). The feat was awful in 3.5, doubling the bonus and making it situational still doesn't make it worthwhile. And pretty much any buff to total defense is worthless, because you aren't presenting a threat when you take it. "It's handy when withdraw and Acrobatics won't help, you need to run, and you can't take another hit" does not a good ability make. Also, your tactic requires boosted speed to be effective, and even then there's AoO+charge. So really, you need at least a 65ft movespeed before the total defense thing will even let you run away from a determined opponent.
Oh, and it requires a free hand, which could be used for a shield were you so inclined (a heavy shield even grants the same numerical bonus, but vs all opponents, at the cost of touch AC).

[atemu1234]

I use the human lifespan thing in my 3.5 games for Lesser Tieflings. True Tieflings (which, I know, should not exist according to the lesser rules, but screw that, it's my game) have something closer to an Elven span.

I thought it was worth a mention when I started typing it.

[Mithril Leaf]

It's no more expensive than enhancing two weapons, just like any other TWF character. A +5 amulet is cheaper than a character with two +5 brass knuckles (since the latter has to start with two masterwork brass knuckles.) Moreover, you aren't forced to punch this way, and can use your entire body to unarmed strike as normal (including kicks, elbows and headbutts with your hands full.)


Why does the Monk's Flurry have to be objectively worse than Brawler's Flurry again?

[Psyren]

Why does the Monk's Flurry have to be objectively worse than Brawler's Flurry again?

I'm not sure what you mean. Both classes can flurry with brass knuckles, but using the AoMF instead allows them to not be forced to punch, and to use the various Unarmed Strike enhancers like Pummeling Style.



Oh, and it requires a free hand, which could be used for a shield were you so inclined (a heavy shield even grants the same numerical bonus, but vs all opponents, at the cost of touch AC).

Monks can't use shields (well, they can but there are a lot of reasons they shouldn't.) I agree that the dodge bonus against only one foe isn't ideal, but Crane Riposte reduces your attack penalty even further and also allows you to counterattack even when using total defense.

[Mithril Leaf]

I'm not sure what you mean. Both classes can flurry with brass knuckles, but using the AoMF instead allows them to not be forced to punch, and to use the various Unarmed Strike enhancers like Pummeling Style.


The Brawler can actually use weapons besides his fists in a passable manner however. So he can actually use a good weapon with improved damage for Two-Weapon Fighting all on it's own. Why does the Monk have to pay more to use what amounts to his only shtick?

[Coidzor]

It matters significantly in games with long IC timetables like Kingmaker, where decades might go by. And the starting age tables are in the rules, so anyone who used them now has a planetouched or dhampir of at least venerable age assuming they hit the bare minimum of starting age for their class. Any higher and you're rolling for dead.

I would consider -6 to my physical stats a massive nerf. That's -3 initiative, -3 damage, -3 attack, and -3 HP per hit die before even getting into all the other stuff involved in derived stats. It means that your character might no longer qualify for feats they previously qualified for, they might lose out on PrC levels they'd taken, it's a cascading effect that can absolutely destroy a character even if they actually survive the initial "suddenly very old" effect.

At the risk of sounding like I'm Oberoni-ing, a good DM would not apply that change to a game that had begun under the previous rules.

[Psyren]

The Brawler can actually use weapons besides his fists in a passable manner however. So he can actually use a good weapon with improved damage for Two-Weapon Fighting all on it's own. Why does the Monk have to pay more to use what amounts to his only shtick?

Can you be more specific? Phrases like "passable manner" and "good weapon" are too vague for me to know exactly what calculation you're making to arrive at that conclusion.

The only weapons a brawler can flurry with that a monk cannot are, AFAIK: bayonet, gauntlet/spiked gauntlet/rope gauntlet, light shield, heavy shield, spiked shield, mere club, punching dagger, scizore, armor spikes, and wooden stake. only the shields and armor spikes are worth mentioning, and none of those are an option for the monk anyway, errata or no errata.

[Mithril Leaf]

Can you be more specific? Phrases like "passable manner" and "good weapon" are too vague for me to know exactly what calculation you're making to arrive at that conclusion.

The only weapons a brawler can flurry with that a monk cannot are, AFAIK: bayonet, gauntlet/spiked gauntlet/rope gauntlet, light shield, heavy shield, spiked shield, mere club, punching dagger, scizore, armor spikes, and wooden stake. only the shields and armor spikes are worth mentioning, and none of those are an option for the monk anyway, errata or no errata.

The Brawler uses nearly full Unarmed damage progression for those weapons.

But my main point was that they can Two-Weapon Fight with a large number of weapons just fine without having to pay double the cost. Why does the Monk who is notably more committed to Unarmed Strike (due to it being their nearly only source of viable damage) have to pay double what the Brawler does? I'm not saying the Amulet of Mighty Fists should be cheaper as it's much better for Natural Attacks, but that you should be able to use something to enhance only a single Unarmed Strike.

[Extra Anchovies]

But my main point was that they can Two-Weapon Fight with a large number of weapons just fine without having to pay double the cost.

Brawlers can make all of their flurry attacks with a single wielded weapon? Neat.

[Psyren]

The Brawler uses nearly full Unarmed damage progression for those weapons.

They do? I'm not seeing that in their entry, the scaling damage progression appears to only be for unarmed strikes. Did you mean the full strength bonus to all attacks in the flurry? Because monks get that too.



But my main point was that they can Two-Weapon Fight with a large number of weapons just fine without having to pay double the cost.

Monks aren't forced to do that either, you can enhance just one flurry-able weapon if you want and get the same number of attacks on both classes by making all your flurry swings with that one weapon. But there are feats and other abilities that only work if you unarmed strike (with style feats such as Pummeling Style, Dragon Style or Snake Style being the most notable examples) and that applies to Brawlers too.


Why does the Monk who is notably more committed to Unarmed Strike (due to it being their nearly only source of viable damage) have to pay double what the Brawler does? I'm not saying the Amulet of Mighty Fists should be cheaper as it's much better for Natural Attacks, but that you should be able to use something to enhance only a single Unarmed Strike.

Again, this is a drawback to brawlers too. Like Monks, they can choose to enhance one weapon, or they can choose to enhance unarmed strike via the amulet or bodywrap - it's no different. It's a more expensive to enhance unarmed strikes, but no moreso than enhancing two weapons is, and you get the same number of attacks as you would with two weapons. (Even more in the monk's case, because they can get an extra one from the ki pool). The amulet can't be sundered or disarmed, and unarmed strikes get more toys to play with. And I haven't even gotten to the Unchained Monk with their Style Strikes and Ki Powers.

[grarrrg]

They do? I'm not seeing that in their entry, the scaling damage progression appears to only be for unarmed strikes. Did you mean the full strength bonus to all attacks in the flurry? Because monks get that too.

I think he is referring to their Close Weapon Mastery ability:
"At 5th level, a brawler's damage with close weapons increases. When wielding a close weapon, she uses the unarmed strike damage of a brawler 4 levels lower instead of the base damage for that weapon"
Which means that weapons eventually do 2d8 Base damage at level 20.
Monk's Unarmed damage only ever applies to Unarmed Strikes.

[Psyren]

I think he is referring to their Close Weapon Mastery ability:
"At 5th level, a brawler's damage with close weapons increases. When wielding a close weapon, she uses the unarmed strike damage of a brawler 4 levels lower instead of the base damage for that weapon"
Which means that weapons eventually do 2d8 Base damage at level 20.
Monk's Unarmed damage only ever applies to Unarmed Strikes.

Ah, missed that. But come on, is that really worth anyone getting into a tizzy over? At high levels most of your damage is coming from your ability score (Str or Dex), not the weapon die. I'd rather have a smaller weapon and a ki pool for that extra full-BAB hit.

[The Random NPC]

Pummeling Style no longer works with Martial Versatility or Feral Combat Training = Type B

Wait, what? Since when?


They do? I'm not seeing that in their entry, the scaling damage progression appears to only be for unarmed strikes. Did you mean the full strength bonus to all attacks in the flurry? Because monks get that too.

At level 5 Brawlers get Close Weapon Mastery, which allows them to use their Unarmed damage progression - 4 with Close weapons.

[grarrrg]

Wait, what? Since when?

Since the Errata a couple weeks ago.
Pummeling Style:
"This ability works only with unarmed strikes, no matter what other abilities you might possess."

[RPZip]

The Brawler can actually use weapons besides his fists in a passable manner however. So he can actually use a good weapon with improved damage for Two-Weapon Fighting all on it's own. Why does the Monk have to pay more to use what amounts to his only shtick?

Because of reasons. Strange, strange reasons. The Unchained Monk actually gets around this though - starting with proficiency in all Monk weapons and being able to use them to flurry is handy, although some of their attacks (style strikes) will require the use of an unarmed attack or two.

e:
Ah, missed that. But come on, is that really worth anyone getting into a tizzy over? At high levels most of your damage is coming from your ability score (Str or Dex), not the weapon die. I'd rather have a smaller weapon and a ki pool for that extra full-BAB hit.


The scaling damage dice is significant if only because it scales up really well with size increases, which aren't exactly uncommon for a melee combatant.

[Coidzor]

It's still useful on a character whose action would have been better spent not targeting you at all, e.g. an enemy healer or a pet that can't throw said rock.

Eh? When did healers become relevant or common enemies? :smallconfused:


Crane Wing: Used to be an automatic melee deflect every round when fighting defensively or total defense. Now you only get the deflect with total defense; when fighting defensively you get +2 dodge to AC, but it applies to any attack made by the enemy you designate, not just melee (though of course, you can't fight them defensively unless they're in reach of you anyway, so in practice it's still vs. melee attacks.)

When did they nerf fighting defensively to only apply to one enemy or only against melee opponents? :smallconfused:


Ah, missed that. But come on, is that really worth anyone getting into a tizzy over? At high levels most of your damage is coming from your ability score (Str or Dex), not the weapon die. I'd rather have a smaller weapon and a ki pool for that extra full-BAB hit.

It's definitely an oversight that Brawlers got an ability like that and Monks didn't get any analogous ability with even Monk weapons, yes.

And why are you bringing up tizzies? This is a thread devoted to screw ups and senselessness.


And foes that literally lack any ranged options at all aren't the types of foes you need to lure to melee with you in the first place, so that's irrelevant.

well, if the action economy was better and it retained the melee pull it'd have also been great for getting a melee brute enemy away from a more vulnerable character. If things had gotten that bad in the first place without being so bad you didn't have the luxury of using Antagonize instead of killing an enemy.

[Psyren]

The scaling damage dice is significant if only because it scales up really well with size increases, which aren't exactly uncommon for a melee combatant.

Wait, you mean we're relying on buffs from other classes? Because unarmed strike still wins pretty handily (no pun intended) there. You can't cast Strong Jaw on brass knuckles after all.


Eh? When did healers become relevant or common enemies? :smallconfused:

Substitute "any spell caster without blasting then." This works just as well on summon-focused casters for instance, or anyone who simply doesn't have a ranged spell to throw at you. Or maybe you get them to waste their turn on Ray of Frost or something. There's a lot of ways this can be worth it.


When did they nerf fighting defensively to only apply to one enemy or only against melee opponents? :smallconfused:

They didn't? :smallconfused:


It's definitely an oversight that Brawlers got an ability like that and Monks didn't get any analogous ability with even Monk weapons, yes.

And why are you bringing up tizzies? This is a thread devoted to screw ups and senselessness.

For the record, I agree that monks should be able to get an ability like this, and it makes even more sense for them since they could activate it supernaturally with ki or something. But would that be the deciding factor that makes me go brawler instead of monk or especially unchained monk? Not just no, but hell no.

And I say tizzy because this is probably the most minor reason to choose Brawler over Monk. It isn't even relevant if you're fighting unarmed.

[Mithril Leaf]

Wait, you mean we're relying on buffs from other classes? Because unarmed strike still wins pretty handily (no pun intended) there. You can't cast Strong Jaw on brass knuckles after all.

For the record, I agree that monks should be able to get an ability like this, and it makes even more sense for them since they could activate it supernaturally with ki or something. But would that be the deciding factor that makes me go brawler instead of monk or especially unchained monk? Not just no, but hell no.

And I say tizzy because this is probably the most minor reason to choose Brawler over Monk. It isn't even relevant if you're fighting unarmed.

It's not that you should choose Brawler over Monk or anything. The original goal post was that the Monk shouldn't have to pay twice for Unarmed enhancements simply because he can flurry with them. It seems pretty clear that the Brawler can flurry just fine with one expensive weapon, why does the Monk have to pay twice that for it?

[Psyren]

We're starting to derail the thread so I'll spoiler my responses going forward:


It's not that you should choose Brawler over Monk or anything. The original goal post was that the Monk shouldn't have to pay twice for Unarmed enhancements simply because he can flurry with them. It seems pretty clear that the Brawler can flurry just fine with one expensive weapon, why does the Monk have to pay twice that for it?

Actually (and at the risk of repeating myself), both classes can flurry with one weapon. The real original goal post was that Brawlers were better off because they can pick a weapon and boost its damage die via Close Weapon Mastery.

But this doesn't take into account that (a) Monks get a ki pool, which means one more attack than the Brawler does at full BAB (with full Str/Dex on that attack's damage roll) to make up the DPR difference, and (b) aside from unarmed strike itself, most of the close weapons suck. And that's putting aside the other benefits of ki, like putting Ki Intensifying on your weapon.

Without size-increasing effects, CWM only translates to a few points difference in damage and definitely does not outweigh the benefits of that extra attack. With size-increasing effects, you could say the Brawler benefits more - but you'd still be incorrect, because the biggest size increasing buffs only apply to unarmed strike and natural weapons, which cost just as much for a Brawler to enhance as they do a Monk. That monk fighting unarmed can get Enlarge + Strong Jaw and blow the Brawler's damage away unless he goes unarmed too, at which point the price difference between the two is a wash.

[Mithril Leaf]

We're starting to derail the thread so I'll spoiler my responses going forward:



Actually (and at the risk of repeating myself), both classes can flurry with one weapon. The real original goal post was that Brawlers were better off because they can pick a weapon and boost its damage die via Close Weapon Mastery.

But this doesn't take into account that (a) Monks get a ki pool, which means one more attack than the Brawler does at full BAB (with full Str/Dex on that attack's damage roll) to make up the DPR difference, and (b) aside from unarmed strike itself, most of the close weapons suck. And that's putting aside the other benefits of ki, like putting Ki Intensifying on your weapon.

Without size-increasing effects, CWM only translates to a few points difference in damage and definitely does not outweigh the benefits of that extra attack. With size-increasing effects, you could say the Brawler benefits more - but you'd still be incorrect, because the biggest size increasing buffs only apply to unarmed strike and natural weapons, which cost just as much for a Brawler to enhance as they do a Monk. That monk fighting unarmed can get Enlarge + Strong Jaw and blow the Brawler's damage away unless he goes unarmed too, at which point the price difference between the two is a wash.

For the sake of being reasonable I shall do the same:
But why does unarmed cost more? Your original point was that unarmed costs twice as much because you can flurry with it and that's like TWF. Mine was that Brawlers can flurry with numerous things for better damage and it doesn't cost twice as much. Is there another reason that Unarmed should be twice as expensive?

[Psyren]

For the sake of being reasonable I shall do the same:
But why does unarmed cost more? Your original point was that unarmed costs twice as much because you can flurry with it and that's like TWF. Mine was that Brawlers can flurry with numerous things for better damage and it doesn't cost twice as much. Is there another reason that Unarmed should be twice as expensive?

I gave several in #48, which I'll repeat and expand upon here:

- can't be sundered
- can't be disarmed
- work with all style feats
- work with all style strikes (unchained)
- treated as both manufactured and natural
- hands free for other things (grapple, spellcasting, deflect arrows)
- can be used with hands full (climbing, carrying unconscious ally, grappling a different creature etc.)
- enhancing them + any natural weapons you have (e.g. from your race) doesn't cost any extra.

[Dondasch]

Monks can't use shields (well, they can but there are a lot of reasons they shouldn't.) I agree that the dodge bonus against only one foe isn't ideal, but Crane Riposte reduces your attack penalty even further and also allows you to counterattack even when using total defense.

Well, the shields was more directed at nonmonks (I suppose a Magus can't use a shield either).
But really? Spending three feats (I'm assuming you go MoMS to get IUS free and avoid Dodge), for some bonuses to fighting defensively and the ability to block+counterattack while using total defense (again, anything with an Intelligence score should be moving on if you use total defense), is a huge waste. If you're desperate for the ability to trade to-hit for AC, take Combat Expertise. 1 feat vs 3-5, scales throughout your career, and is a prereq for other things. If you insist on fighting defensively, the Aldori Swordlord Fighter Archetype is what you should be looking at, not the now nerfed Crane Style.

[Elricaltovilla]

New thread might be in order here guys

[danzibr]

Tumble to avoid AoOs with fixed DCs -> Acrobatics opposed by CMD: maybe "Type A"
Hide while attacking, with -20 penalty, and only if you still meet all three requirements to use the skill -> Stealth cannot be used while attacking: "Type B"
Pathfinder is not in fact errata to 3.5.
This made me laugh a surprising amount.

[nedz]

This made me laugh a surprising amount.

Likewise — I'm even tempted to Sig it :smallbiggrin:
Probably won't though because context.

[Thealtruistorc]

Animal Soul no longer allows for what was the primary use for it (immunity to a few "person" spells was not the reason anybody was taking it). The premise was being able to utilize animal growth or similar effects while in human form, and I thought that it made for a great feat.

[The Random NPC]

Since the Errata a couple weeks ago.
Pummeling Style:
"This ability works only with unarmed strikes, no matter what other abilities you might possess."

I'll have to see about fixing my shield throwing build. Idle curiosity, isn't there other things that have similar wording that is negated by newer feats/abilities?

[Red Rubber Band]

Hm. Doesn't specify manufactured weapon, though, so you can deflect claws. A natural weapon is still a weapon.

That's definitely a type A nerf, though. It's a no-roll (Ex) attack-negation that doesn't require the expenditure of any actions or resources.

I have to disagree with this. I think it's a type B nerf (that's the not needed one, right?).

3-4 feat expenditure and fighting defensively to negate one melee weapon attack per round when you're not flat-footed and are aware of the attack.

It's good and makes the unarmed, defensive master thing cool; but I don't think it needed a nerf. Especially not the one it got :smallfrown:

[Extra Anchovies]

I have to disagree with this. I think it's a type B nerf (that's the not needed one, right?).

3-4 feat expenditure and fighting defensively to negate one melee weapon attack per round when you're not flat-footed and are aware of the attack.

It's good and makes the unarmed, defensive master thing cool; but I don't think it needed a nerf. Especially not the one it got :smallfrown:

Well, it's type A in the context of MoMS getting it before anyone has BAB +6. But if MoMF would finally get around to not existing like I keep telling it to, the nerf... still would've been type A, actually. My issue with it is primarily that it has no action cost and requires no die roll. It cancels True Strike, it cancels natural 20s, it cancels everything.

[Sith_Happens]

That's definitely a type A nerf, though. It's a no-roll (Ex) attack-negation that doesn't require the expenditure of any actions or resources.


It cancels True Strike, it cancels natural 20s, it cancels everything.

And it does(/did) so... once per round. There are these things called "full attacks" and "multiple enemies" that make that far, far short of invulnerability.

[Red Rubber Band]

Well, it's type A in the context of MoMS getting it before anyone has BAB +6. But if MoMF would finally get around to not existing like I keep telling it to, the nerf... still would've been type A, actually. My issue with it is primarily that it has no action cost and requires no die roll. It cancels True Strike, it cancels natural 20s, it cancels everything.


And it does(/did) so... once per round. There are these things called "full attacks" and "multiple enemies" that make that far, far short of invulnerability.
This is effectively my answer to that. That and spells, ranged attacks, being made flatfooted, etc.

[Necroticplague]

Pummeling Style got hit by two different ones, one which was merely slightly dissapointing, and the other a major letdown. It can't be used by anything other than unarmed strikes, even with other abilities; and it got smacked from being melee Dead Shot (with improved amount of attacks to compensate for decreased range and variety), to being melee Cluster Shot. Both of these I find kinda dissapointing because they vastly decrease how much of a game element it is, making it less interactive. The old version had a lot more little levers you could tweak for interesting results. The new version, however, does exactly one thing, with very little interaction unique to it. The old Pummeling Style, you could build a character around. The new one is just a buff. I'd say the change would be class B for restricting it to UAS only (seeing how you already gotta pay through the nose to get it to other things), and class A for the complete redo. They could have just gotten rid of the explosion from multiple crits in one attack, or made it more like Dead Shot and limited it to BaB attacks and it would be fine.

[Extra Anchovies]

Pummeling Style got hit by two different ones, one which was merely slightly dissapointing, and the other a major letdown. It can't be used by anything other than unarmed strikes, even with other abilities; and it got smacked from being melee Dead Shot (with improved amount of attacks to compensate for decreased range and variety), to being melee Cluster Shot. Both of these I find kinda dissapointing because they vastly decrease how much of a game element it is, making it less interactive. The old version had a lot more little levers you could tweak for interesting results. The new version, however, does exactly one thing, with very little interaction unique to it. The old Pummeling Style, you could build a character around. The new one is just a buff. I'd say the change would be class B for restricting it to UAS only (seeing how you already gotta pay through the nose to get it to other things), and class A for the complete redo. They could have just gotten rid of the explosion from multiple crits in one attack, or made it more like Dead Shot and limited it to BaB attacks and it would be fine.

Old pummeling style was actually nasty strong because of the explosion of crits and the fact that you could use it with, say, a kukri and pick for 18-20/x4 (and do so seven times, which means on average you'll score a threat every full attack). If you remove the explosion of crits but keep it as melee dead shot, it's actually worse than making a bunch of separate attacks because it applies on-hit effects (sneak attack, stunning fist/similar feats, weapon properties) only once. The only time that it would have been better than a normal full attack is in the face of high DR - and new pummeling style helps with that just as much as old pummeling style did, and it applies on-hit effects multiple times. So the version in the ACG errata is actually a buff from the second iteration of pummeling style (i.e. unarmed-only). Also the change to unarmed only wasn't a nerf - it was a fix. The original design intent was for it to be unarmed only, hence the text "in one devastating punch".