Is there a size limitation to what you can "punishing kick"?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Trip has a size limit. Can a monk knock a colossal construct prone with a punishing kick?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It sure can. The kick is just that punishing!


Picture Cammy with her shoryuken-like kick.


Wow, ok.


If it's any consolation, by RAW a pixie can successfully grapple or pin the Tarrasque if she rolls a natural 20.

So, hardly the first instance of physics-defying mechanics. :)


PK isn't a maneuver, it's more similar to Stunning Fist...
And that Colossal creature will probably make its save.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
Archaeik wrote:

PK isn't a maneuver, it's more similar to Stunning Fist...

And that Colossal creature will probably make its save.

Well, it's a Construct, which by default have a +0 to Fortitude saves.


Yeah, see, that's the thing. Constructs are immune to many things that would ordinarily make you make fortitude saves, but their actual fortitude saves suck. That's why I asked.

Punishing kick *creams* golems. Creams them.

I've been wondering for a month whether I screwed a monk in my party out of a legit attack in a gaming session a while back. Turns out I think I did. I gave the Adamantine Golem a size bonus to its save vs punishing kick, because I couldn't imagine it would be easy to knock an Adamantine Golem prone. Apparently it's no big deal at all for a Hungry Ghost Monk to prone-lock even the ugliest construct in the book.

I had a custom monster in one of our previous encounters that was an Awakened Sequoya Tree with simply gross stats, 20+ HD, trample, etc. The party parleyed with it instead of attacking it. Now I discover that the monk could probably knock the entire 300 foot tall tree prone with a 1st level ability fairly easily. Timber! ...smash.

I guess this is just one of those unusual saddle points in the rules where things make less sense than you'd like. *shrug*


Honestly I think this is a clear case of Game Master discretion. Can your Monk by rules use a level one ability to knock over a creature four times his size or in some cases several hundred feet tall? By strict game rules sure he can. Should you allow him to? Depends on the type of game you want to run, are the characters in your game reality defying combat monsters? Or do the basic laws of physics still apply in your magical world?


I think people are over-reacting. Lets compare

Punishing Kick (Combat)

Spoiler:
Benefit: You must declare that you are using this feat before you make your attack roll (thus a failed attack roll ruins the attempt). On a successful hit, the attack deals damage normally and you can choose to push your target 5 feet or attempt to knock them prone. If you decide to push the target, it is moved 5 feet directly away from you. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and the target must end this move in a safe space it can stand in. If you decide to attempt to knock the target prone, the target receives a Fortitude saving throw with a DC of 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Wisdom modifier to avoid the effect. You may attempt a punishing kick attack once per day for every four levels you have attained (but see Special), and no more than once per round.

Stunning Fist (Combat)

Spoiler:
Benefit: You must declare that you are using this feat before you make your attack roll (thus, a failed attack roll ruins the attempt). Stunning Fist forces a foe damaged by your unarmed attack to make a Fortitude saving throw (DC 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Wis modifier), in addition to dealing damage normally. A defender who fails this saving throw is stunned for 1 round (until just before your next turn). A stunned character drops everything held, can't take actions, loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, and takes a –2 penalty to AC. You may attempt a stunning attack once per day for every four levels you have attained (but see Special), and no more than once per round. Constructs, oozes, plants, undead, incorporeal creatures, and creatures immune to critical hits cannot be stunned.

Punishing kick is an alternate to stunning fist. We can all agree that stun is better than prone. However, stunning fist is limited in what it can effect. Punishing kick only prones, but works on any type of creature. (Or they forgot to copy/paste the last sentence.)

Besides, your 300 foot tall awakened tree can still stand up as a single move action.

For more weird game immersion breaking, think that a monk could have ki thrown said awakened tree with a few ki points expended.


There is no over reaction, at least on my part. After 20+ years of Game Mastering I just feel you can't expect the books to have every answer for you. Sometimes as a Game Master you have to look your player in the eye and say...

"I understand that the rules do not say you can not Joe, but I am sorry I just do not think you can knock the three ton Golem prone with one kick."

I see no problem assigning a huge advantage to the Golem in the rolls. I mean honestly if the players couldn't even so much as push the creature given the time to exert the effort (push/drag rules) how is he/she ever going to muster the force to knock one over with a kick?

In the end once again all this comes down to GM discretion. If it is perfectly reasonable to you for your players to be able to knock massive golems over with a single kick or Ki Throw three hundred foot tall awakened red woods, go for it.


Of course the GM can fix the problem. That's true of every problem, real or imagined. The question is not about whether or not a DM can fix it. Nor is it about whether or not Punishing Kick is overall balanced against Stunning Fist.

It's about whether the rules for Punishing Kick are written to prevent an obvious absurdity. They are not.


Well actually the question was flat out "can this happen?" and by rules yes it can happen, then the thread evolved into a discussion on if it should be able to happen or not.


It should happen. It's a fantasy game, people need to stop holding noncasters to their maginations of what realism is. Realistically, there are no collossal things to fight (except maybe certain types of whales), realistically reading books doesn't let you fly.

It's not a combat maneuver. In most cases, mechanically I wish it were one, it's easier to to boost your CMB than nerf the enemy's saves IME. It's almost Su. Ever see a movie, TV show, or anime, where someone punches or even touches and the force sends the victim flying backward or to the ground hard? That's what punishing kick is.

So he has something really awesome against golems. Let him enjoy it. Lord knows golems shut down a lot of other tactics and attacks a monk might use.


You can not hide behind "It's a Fantasy Game" to answer every question posed to you. If it were that simple why are there realistic rules on running, jumping, swimming, climbing and so many other things.

If you want to go down that route next time your player tries to swim up a waterfall in full plate armor, while carrying a heavy load just let him after all it's a fantasy game realism has no place here.

Plus no one ever said the bloke couldn't let his players use the ability exactly how it is printed, we simply stated that for -some- people the ability to knock over a giant golem with a single kick is absurd but if it is not to you that is perfectly fine it's your game.


If a player had a feat or class feature to swim up a waterfall, I'd totally be fine with it.

If you could make a crazy high DC swim check (despite the armor and heavy load) much higher than any RL human could ever hope to even approach HALF of...I would also be totally fine with you being able to swim up the waterfall.

How do people who have a problem with this get over the idea of a fighter stabbing the gigantic metal golem with a longsword and hurting it? Or any of the many other realism disconnects.


I used to fall in the "GM maintains tight control over the rules and adjusts them to his encounter" camp. But now that I've been playing a lot more, and rotating into and out of GM stints, I've totally softened on that. If a monk wants to kick down a 300 foot tree construct and throw it ten feet away, then have it stand back up in 3 seconds, fine. Just makes that fight all the more memorable for the weird things that happened in it.

I figure if you're worried that your PCs are going to cruise through your encounters because of their weird abilities, just put bigger critters in them.

I just wanted to make sure there's not a rule I'm missing somewhere.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
beej67 wrote:

Yeah, see, that's the thing. Constructs are immune to many things that would ordinarily make you make fortitude saves, but their actual fortitude saves suck. That's why I asked.

Punishing kick *creams* golems. Creams them.

I've been wondering for a month whether I screwed a monk in my party out of a legit attack in a gaming session a while back. Turns out I think I did. I gave the Adamantine Golem a size bonus to its save vs punishing kick, because I couldn't imagine it would be easy to knock an Adamantine Golem prone. Apparently it's no big deal at all for a Hungry Ghost Monk to prone-lock even the ugliest construct in the book.

Everyone appears to have moved on from this, but I just now read it so I have to ask; why would the prone effect of Punishing Kick work on a golem? Constructs aren't just immune to many things that require a fort save. As far as I undertand, they're basically immune to everything that requires a Fort save.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Construct Traits (Ex) wrote:
Constructs are immune to death effects, disease, mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects), necromancy effects, paralysis, poison, sleep, stun, and any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless). Constructs are not subject to nonlethal damage, ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, exhaustion, or energy drain. Constructs are not at risk of death from massive damage.

Are objects really immune to PK?

PK wrote:
On a successful hit, the attack deals damage normally and you can choose to push your target 5 feet or attempt to knock them prone.

I don't see why you couldn't use it to push them...

So I think there's some room to still include prone as they don't avoid the save.


I have no idea whether objects are immune to punishing kick. That's an interesting question.

I can certainly push a kitchen table. I can certainly knock a kitchen table over. Punishing kick pushes and knocks over things. From that basic interpretation I'd say punishing kick works.

But how do you know if it works or not? What's the fortitude save of a kitchen table? And more importantly, what's the fortitude save of a Gargantuan Trireme Boat, with 200 rowers on it, and a battering ram, and three ballista? It's an object. Can the monk capsize it with Punishing Kick, sending everyone to their doom? HiYA! (chop)

This is an important question, as the party with the monk are pirates.

Again it comes back to an earlier question I had about punishing kick - why it's a fort save instead of a Combat Maneuver Check. I understand the intent - that it's some kind of monk magic or whatever, but that starts to go funny when you talk about golems and objects.

It'd be nice to get a ruling on this.


That's why I'd be hesitant to allow Punishing Kick on objects in most circumstances. Non-magical objects don't get a save; they're assumed to automatically fail. Does that mean you can just kick over anything? A construct isn't generally a non-magical object, but it also doesn't get save growth like magical objects do.

Also, certainly, a construct can be prone, but what does it mean for an object to be prone? The odd intersection comes from treating the first like the second but producing an effect that's only expressible in the first but not the second.

The weirdness surrounding the interaction just leads me to believe that the designers just didn't intend Punishing Kick to be used on objects and disallowing it against a construct is probably a justifiable ruling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Punishing Kick activates on a successful attack that deals damage, not on a sunder combat maneuver (which is one of the only two ways to damage an object). RAW the feat is a Fortitude-save-based ability that doesn't work on objects, so constructs would be immune to it.


Just to compare here, the people in the camp not allowing this...

You wouldnt allow a monk to kick something, knocking it over, but you would allow the same monk to perform a trip combat maneuver, knocking it over?

I fail to see an actual difference between these in the 'logical' sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WRoy wrote:

Punishing Kick activates on a successful attack that deals damage, not on a sunder combat maneuver (which is one of the only two ways to damage an object). RAW the feat is a Fortitude-save-based ability that doesn't work on objects, so constructs would be immune to it.

Except constructs are objects which can take damage from successful attacks... so it does work on them?


Weables wrote:

Just to compare here, the people in the camp not allowing this...

You wouldnt allow a monk to kick something, knocking it over, but you would allow the same monk to perform a trip combat maneuver, knocking it over?

I fail to see an actual difference between these in the 'logical' sense.

The effects are similar but they operate on different mechanics. One is a combat maneuver against CMD and one is a fortitude save. Constructs are generally immune to effects requiring a fort save. If you want to try to trip a construct, go ahead and do so.

Working backwards from, "Well, you can kick a bookcase over, so you can Punishing Kick a construct," doesn't really work. It creates highly exploitable situations that aren't really designed to work that way. Kicking over a bookcase via a fort save is silly. If you want to kick over a bookcase, you can. But you use a strength check.


I've studied kung fu for about 9 years now. A good hard kick to someone's ankle can cause intense pain, bone breakage, and loss of balance by causing the foot to scoot. So a medium-sized monk CAN punishing kick a much larger creature over as long we keep in mind that the kick's target area is in a different area of the body. A strong sliding kick to the achilles tendon would work, I think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While the rules allow for monks to punishing kick golems, I would not. The reasoning, is that it is a PUNISHing kick. I.E. it knocks you down because it hurts so bad. That is why it is a fort save.

Last I checked, constructs don't have nerves, and can't feel pain. Thus, just because you kicked them in their constructed balls, they aren't going to fall down from it.


WRoy wrote:

Punishing Kick activates on a successful attack that deals damage, not on a sunder combat maneuver (which is one of the only two ways to damage an object). RAW the feat is a Fortitude-save-based ability that doesn't work on objects, so constructs would be immune to it.

So he can kick over a treant, but not a chair?


Tarantula wrote:
WRoy wrote:

Punishing Kick activates on a successful attack that deals damage, not on a sunder combat maneuver (which is one of the only two ways to damage an object). RAW the feat is a Fortitude-save-based ability that doesn't work on objects, so constructs would be immune to it.

Except constructs are objects which can take damage from successful attacks... so it does work on them?

It doesn't matter if you can take an attack on a construct and deal damage. This is how I see RAW:


  • Punishing Kick doesn't work on objects.
  • Constructs are immune to any effect that requires a Fortitude save that doesn't normally affect objects.
  • Because of that, if you declare a Punishing Kick on a construct and hit with your attack roll, you'll do your regular damage but the construct is immune to the added effect.

Weables wrote:

Just to compare here, the people in the camp not allowing this...

You wouldnt allow a monk to kick something, knocking it over, but you would allow the same monk to perform a trip combat maneuver, knocking it over?

I fail to see an actual difference between these in the 'logical' sense.

We're discussing what the feat actually does by RAW, as this is the rules section. Arbitrarily assigning a rules interpretation based on what one thinks is "logically" the only choice isn't what we're trying to determine.

Personally, I agree with you to a certain point. Punishing Kick would be able to be used on some constructs in my home game. However, letting it work on all constructs isn't the only logical assumption. The last time I saw Punishing Kick discussed in the rules forum someone was complaining about being able to kick back/prone colossal centipedes with CMD vs. trips of 1,000+. Punishing Kick has absolutely no correlation to the trip mechanic, and it seems to drive people crazy one way or another just because it's also a way to knock enemies prone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Centipedes having CMDs of 1000 is what drives me crazy. For one thing, they don't actually have that many legs. For another, after a certain point, structurally any additional legs are just redudant and either don't make it less sturdy or are needed just to offset becoming more easy to trip from the additional length on a still narrow frame.

People also take prone condition too seriously. Like its such a bad condition to be afflicted with. This goes back since 3.0 and people complaining about trip fighters but not caring at all about wizards tossing save or dies.


WRoy wrote:

Punishing Kick activates on a successful attack that deals damage, not on a sunder combat maneuver (which is one of the only two ways to damage an object). RAW the feat is a Fortitude-save-based ability that doesn't work on objects, so constructs would be immune to it.

Wait, you can't damage an object with an "attack that deals damage?"

I thought you could, as long as you beat its hardness. (or in the golem case, DR) That's how we always beat through walls.

I reiterate: I'm not in either "camp," in terms of how I think it should be played. I'm in the camp to be clear about what the rules allow, and then allow that. And if it turns out that my buddy should have succeeded on punishing-kicking the adamantine golem a month back, I'll buy him a beer. Hell, he's probably reading this right now.


beej67 wrote:

Wait, you can't damage an object with an "attack that deals damage?"

Nope.

You make a sunder combat maneuver and not an attack, but it's against the object's AC instead of a CMD. It's frequently done wrong in games (by me included), because it's one of those changes from 3.5 that went under the radar, so to speak.

PRD wrote:
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver (see Combat). Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A sunder combat maneuver IS an attack...


StreamOfTheSky wrote:
A sunder combat maneuver IS an attack...

I thought Pathfinder differentiated between attacks and combat maneuvers, some of which can be done in place of an attack.

The difference is moot for the purposes of the bullet-pointed reason previously posted why I think RAW says you can't Punishing Kick constructs. The statement you're referring to was in context to using Punishing Kick. Unless you think you can tack the effects of that feat, Stunning Fist, or any of the other similar feats, onto a combat maneuver?


So you can't beat through a wall Of stone with lightning bolts? Or with straight damage?


You can't do a Punishing Sunder any more than you can do a Punishing Disarm, Stunning Bull Rush, Stunning Grapple, Dirty Trick of Serenity, Perfect Trip, etc.

(Although I wish you could do a Dirty Trick of Serenity... it just kinda rolls off the tongue.)

You damage objects either by trying to burst/break them with a Strength check or by damaging them via sunder. Because of that, objects cannot be affected by Punishing Kick. Because of that, RAW doesn't seem to let constructs be affected by Punishing Kick. Blame the PRD, not me. I personally would let hungry ghost monks Yoga-Kick the golems all over the battlemap.


WRoy wrote:
I thought Pathfinder differentiated between attacks and combat maneuvers, some of which can be done in place of an attack.

"Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll."

Linked to d20pfsrd because the PRD lacks the ability to direct link, but the text is the same if you wish to check.

WRoy wrote:
The difference is moot for the purposes of the bullet-pointed reason previously posted why I think RAW says you can't Punishing Kick constructs. The statement you're referring to was in context to using Punishing Kick. Unless you think you can tack the effects of that feat, Stunning Fist, or any of the other similar feats, onto a combat maneuver?

Of course you can tack Stunning Fist or other feats onto a combat maneuver. I don't think Stunning Fist can do anything if you don't deal damage, so a typical combat maneuver would be a waste to use Stunning Fist on, but you could do it.


RAW seems to side with WRoy.

RoC says "let 'em do it".


9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
StreamOfTheSky wrote:


"Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll."

Good point. I read that as combat maneuvers use the same mechanic as a basic attack (substituting CMB for normal attack bonus) but are still a different thing (in the paragraph prior to that in PRD it say you substitute them for a melee attack, and substitute /= same to me). You definitely have a solid case for it being the other way, however. I'm gonna bulletpoint a couple questions at the end of this post and FAQ it to see if we can get any official weigh-in.

Quote:


Of course you can tack Stunning Fist or other feats onto a combat maneuver. I don't think Stunning Fist can do anything if you don't deal damage, so a typical combat maneuver would be a waste to use Stunning Fist on, but you could do it.

Again you may be right, but I disagree completely that Stunning Fist and its alternatives were ever intended or designed to be applied with anything but a melee attack (no combat maneuvers). Punishing Kick is even more problematic in this regard because it doesn't rely on doing damage as a qualifier for its extra Fort-save-based benefit.

FAQ questions:


  • Can Punishing Kick, Stunning Fist, and Touch of Serenity be used with combat maneuvers?
  • Does Punishing Kick work on constructs, or are they immune to its Fort-save-based effect?


Sure, I'll FAQ that.

I'll be really dissapointed if my view isn't how it works, but it'd hardly be the first houserule to PF I'd have to make...

Dark Archive

beej67 wrote:
So you can't beat through a wall Of stone with lightning bolts? Or with straight damage?

From the Core (PRD Link):

Quote:

Smashing an Object

Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver (see Combat). Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.


WRoy wrote:
You damage objects either by trying to burst/break them with a Strength check or by damaging them via sunder. Because of that, objects cannot be affected by Punishing Kick. Because of that, RAW doesn't seem to let constructs be affected by Punishing Kick. Blame the PRD, not me. I personally would let hungry ghost monks Yoga-Kick the golems all over the battlemap.

Set Punishing Kick aside for a second, and lets talk about objects.

You're saying I can blast a kitchen table with a one hundred consecutive 10d6 lightning bolts and never break through the table top?

You're saying a Wall of Stone is impervious to all spells that can't make "sunder" attacks?

Do I understand that correctly?

Dark Archive

beej67 wrote:
WRoy wrote:
You damage objects either by trying to burst/break them with a Strength check or by damaging them via sunder. Because of that, objects cannot be affected by Punishing Kick. Because of that, RAW doesn't seem to let constructs be affected by Punishing Kick. Blame the PRD, not me. I personally would let hungry ghost monks Yoga-Kick the golems all over the battlemap.

Set Punishing Kick aside for a second, and lets talk about objects.

You're saying I can blast a kitchen table with a one hundred consecutive 10d6 lightning bolts and never break through the table top?

You're saying a Wall of Stone is impervious to all spells that can't make "sunder" attacks?

Do I understand that correctly?

While the section starts out as sunder, it goes on to state more.

The table, for example, would take damage from the spell, per this section:

Quote:

Energy Attacks: Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.

Ranged Weapon Damage: Objects take half damage from ranged weapons (unless the weapon is a siege engine or something similar). Divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the object's hardness.

Ineffective Weapons: Certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, a bludgeoning weapon cannot be used to damage a rope. Likewise, most melee weapons have little effect on stone walls and doors, unless they are designed for breaking up stone, such as a pick or hammer.

Immunities: Objects are immune to nonlethal damage and to critical hits. Even animated objects, which are otherwise considered creatures, have these immunities.

Magic Armor, Shields, and Weapons: Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to the hardness of armor, a weapon, or a shield, and +10 to the item's hit points.

Vulnerability to Certain Attacks: Certain attacks are especially successful against some objects. In such cases, attacks deal double their normal damage and may ignore the object's hardness.

Dark Archive

WRoy wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
WRoy wrote:

Punishing Kick activates on a successful attack that deals damage, not on a sunder combat maneuver (which is one of the only two ways to damage an object). RAW the feat is a Fortitude-save-based ability that doesn't work on objects, so constructs would be immune to it.

Except constructs are objects which can take damage from successful attacks... so it does work on them?

It doesn't matter if you can take an attack on a construct and deal damage. This is how I see RAW:


  • Punishing Kick doesn't work on objects.
  • Constructs are immune to any effect that requires a Fortitude save that doesn't normally affect objects.
  • Because of that, if you declare a Punishing Kick on a construct and hit with your attack roll, you'll do your regular damage but the construct is immune to the added effect.

Can you please give me the reason that you believe that punishing kick will not work on objects? You do make attack rolls to objects and the feat does not really call out target types (creatures, etc).

Also, from the "smashing an object" section of the core:

Quote:
Saving Throws: Nonmagical, unattended items never make saving throws. They are considered to have failed their saving throws, so they are always fully affected by spells and other attacks that allow saving throws to resist or negate. An item attended by a character (being grasped, touched, or worn) makes saving throws as the character (that is, using the character's saving throw bonus).

I should be able to, per RAW, punishing kick a chair either over, or 5 feet away from me. Unless you do not count the act of kicking a chair as an attack roll. If that is the case, you would not need the following section in the rules:

Quote:
Armor Class: Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they don't usually move, but many are tough enough to shrug off some damage from each blow. An object's Armor Class is equal to 10 + its size modifier (see Table: Size and Armor Class of Objects) + its Dexterity modifier. An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (–5 penalty to AC), but also an additional –2 penalty to its AC. Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon.


Happler wrote:
You do make attack rolls to objects and the feat does not really call out target types (creatures, etc).

Point of clarification: You make CMB rolls to objects.


Happler wrote:
Can you please give me the reason that you believe that punishing kick will not work on objects?

Because it's in the "being dead doesn't prevent you from taking actions" camp of rulings. With that ruling, ANY first level hungry ghost monk could move around a CASTLE as a standard action - and the castle gets no saves. It would mean just a few 1st level monks would reshape the whole world in a year or two.

The devs have said that sometimes, a rule should be so obvious that it doesn't need to be written (being dead prevents taking actions), I personally believe this is one of them.

EDIT: And by RAW you couldn't kick it over anyway. Prone as a condition doesn't exist for objects.


Happler wrote:
Can you please give me the reason that you believe that punishing kick will not work on objects? You do make attack rolls to objects and the feat does not really call out target types (creatures, etc).

If I understand the argument correctly, there is no way to specifically do melee damage to an object other than to sunder it. Since punishing kick does not sunder, punishing kick does not affect objects. Golems are objects, therefore cannot be punishing kicked.

Is that a correct representation of your argument, WRoy? I'm not objecting, just trying to be clear.

Quote:

Also, from the "smashing an object" section of the core:

Quote:
Saving Throws: Nonmagical, unattended items never make saving throws. They are considered to have failed their saving throws, so they are always fully affected by spells and other attacks that allow saving throws to resist or negate. An item attended by a character (being grasped, touched, or worn) makes saving throws as the character (that is, using the character's saving throw bonus).
I should be able to, per RAW, punishing kick a chair either over, or 5 feet away from me.

How about a Colossal Greek Battleship? It makes no saves. Capsize it with a punishing kick?

stringburka wrote:
EDIT: And by RAW you couldn't kick it over anyway. Prone as a condition doesn't exist for objects.

Does it exist for animated objects? Golems?


beej67 wrote:


If I understand the argument correctly, there is no way to specifically do melee damage to an object other than to sunder it. Since punishing kick does not sunder, punishing kick does not affect objects. Golems are objects, therefore cannot be punishing kicked.

Is that a correct representation of your argument, WRoy? I'm not objecting, just trying to be clear.

Close enough. You damage an object with a sunder combat maneuver against the object's AC, which I don't believe you can do as a punishing kick. Since you cannot use punishing kick on an object and constructs are immune to Fortitude-save-based effects that don't work on objects, the effect of punishing kick won't work on constructs.


stringburka wrote:
Because it's in the "being dead doesn't prevent you from taking actions" camp of rulings.

I disagree. I think claiming that the rules don't let you attack objects or make at least "tall" ones prone by knocking them over is the silly, "it doesn't say one way or the other, so I'm gonna ignore basic common sense and play it how I want! lalalala..." Except most likely in this case it's the DM doing it instead of a player...

Castles presumably have foundations under the ground to keep them from being moved (punishing kick doesn't let you move something into an "occupied square" -- the dirt filled ground surrounding the castle's foundation -- does it?).


WRoy wrote:
beej67 wrote:


If I understand the argument correctly, there is no way to specifically do melee damage to an object other than to sunder it. Since punishing kick does not sunder, punishing kick does not affect objects. Golems are objects, therefore cannot be punishing kicked.

Is that a correct representation of your argument, WRoy? I'm not objecting, just trying to be clear.

Close enough. You damage an object with a sunder combat maneuver against the object's AC, which I don't believe you can do as a punishing kick. Since you cannot use punishing kick on an object and constructs are immune to Fortitude-save-based effects that don't work on objects, the effect of punishing kick won't work on constructs.

So you're saying I can't swing my weapon at a golem to do damage? I must attempt to "sunder" the golem in order to do damage to it at all? It gets AOOs if I don't have the improved sunder feat?

I've never played this way in any version of dnd, and it seems very unintuitive to me.

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Is there a size limitation to what you can "punishing kick"? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.