Is this something you can use with Two-Weapon Fighting, flurry of blows, or brawler's flurry?
Is this something you can use with Two-Weapon Fighting, flurry of blows, or brawler's flurry?Yes.
Still, Pummeling Style appears to be its own full round action and therefore is unable to be combined with anything other than a standard full attack. Makes me wonder what kinds of things it can't be combined with.
|
If this could work with any weapon, then it would be even better for a paladin who has Bless Weapon running and is attacking an evil target. He charges and gets a full attack with Pummeling Charge, 1 of those is a crit threat, so Bless Weapon kicks in and automatically confirms, and that makes ALL of his attacks (that hit) crits.
|
|
Let's say a monk hits 3 times for 1d8 each, one of the rolls was a natural 20, confirmation roll confirms crit. How much damage is that?
A)Sum up all damage, then apply crit multiplier, for 6d8 damage;
B)Apply crit modifier to individual attacks, then sum up all damage, for 4d8 damage.
The way I read it is that this is meant to be a way of bypassing DR. Basically you are condensing every attack into one single blow.
So say you have 4 attacks in your flurry at 1d10+5. Two hit, the third crits and forth misses. This would mean your singular blow is now 3d10+15 and is a critical threat. Confirming on a x2 would be 6d10+30.
I could be wrong but that is the way I am reading it
|
I still don't understand how that crit part is supposed to work.
Let's say a monk hits 3 times for 1d8 each, one of the rolls was a natural 20, confirmation roll confirms crit. How much damage is that?
A)Sum up all damage, then apply crit multiplier, for 6d8 damage;
B)Apply crit modifier to individual attacks, then sum up all damage, for 4d8 damage.
It should be the same damage either way, I'm not sure where you are getting 4d8 from.
option 1: 3d8 * 2 = 6d8
option 2: (1d8 * 2) + (1d8 * 2) + (1d8 * 2) = 6d8
The way I believe the critical pummeling style full attack would work is each attack crits for itself then adds together. Lets say we are doing the kukri / heavy pick combo:
Attack with heavy pick - success; add 1d6+bonuses to pool
Attack with kukri - critical threat; add 1d4+offhandbonuses to pool
Roll conformation - success; add 3d6+3x(bonuses) for pick
and add 1d4+offhandbonuses for kukri
Total for 2 attacks, one with each weapon is 4d6+4x(bonuses)+2d4+2x(offhandbonuses)
This feat does seem a little powerful, but I selfishly hope it stays with flurry-able weapons because I have a zen archer who would love this.
I really like that I can finally make One-Punch Man, though!
I was under the impression that all style feats only worked when unarmed...
I was under the impression that all style feats only worked when unarmed...
Unfolding Wind Strike, one of the Perfect style feats lets you "Double the range increment of thrown weapons". Seems pretty clear you aren't throwing your unarmed attack...
I'm curious as to how this interacts with Two-Weapon Rend? I would think that it doesn't since the feat indicates it's just one punch, even though you deal damage as if you had hit with both fists.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't found anything in the rules that says the text description of an ability isn't part of the rules for that ability. To me, the word punch means fists and those few weapons that are used to enhance fists, like cestus and spiked gauntlet.
"Punch" is not a weapon. It is actually not a game term, to my knowledge it has never been formally defined in rules text. Unarmed Strike is a weapon which could include a kick thus not requiring your hands to even be free when delivering an unarmed "punch" with Pummeling Strike. Cestus, spiked gauntlet, and the others suggested by several posters are all defined weapons. The text for this feat does not mention any specific weapon or set of weapons (e.g., close weapon group) as defined in game terms. The clause "in a single punch" could be replaced with "in a single burst" and have the same meaning to many of those reading the text. If the author intended this to be limited to a specific set of weapons, many of us expect them to list the restrictive set of weapons.
No-one here can claim the author did or did not intend for the feat to be restricted to certain weapons, and this is because the text of the feat does not clearly spell out this intent. Thus, we are asking for clarification.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First I would like to say that the Pummeling Style feat chain is an awesome addition. It fixes two major problems with the Monk: it allows them to get through DR with a clustered shot type ability, and it enables them to be a mobile skirmisher by allowing them to use all of their attacks at the end of a charge. Well done!
Having said all that I think it would be best to limit this to only Unarmed Attacks, or at least a group of weapons that have identical critical threat and multiplier stats. It would preempt a lot of confusion that way.
I recognize that other melee types need something like this or pounce (except the Barbarian who already has far too many goodies), but they can get something else. Something closer to the Barbarian pounce that doesn't have the critical weirdness built into it. Leave Pummeling Style for the Monk or Brawler. Let them have something special.
Design Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Punch" is not a weapon. It is actually not a game term, to my knowledge it has never been formally defined in rules text.I haven't found anything in the rules that says the text description of an ability isn't part of the rules for that ability. To me, the word punch means fists and those few weapons that are used to enhance fists, like cestus and spiked gauntlet.
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts...
A punch is a type of unarmed attack, so I would think there's a pretty strong argument that the ability is limited to unarmed strikes. And maybe wushu darts?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But then would that mean that you can't use Pummeling Style with your hands full? A punch may be an unarmed attack, but not all unarmed attacks are punches. However, all attacks with a cestus or brass knuckles are punches.
I'd be very careful to try and parse the language that way - it quickly invalidates a number of feats. I think a better argument is that the feat description on p. 140 says "pool all unarmed strikes", but the feat could also have been changed in editing to be less restrictive and they simply forgot to change the blurb description.
The best option is to hit the FAQ key and hope someone picks up on this one sooner rather than later. Truth be told it's a feat that could use a good FAQ for a number of reasons, especially how the critical hit mechanics are meant to work.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, just noticed this.
Pummeling Style might work with ranged attacks as well. No melee restriction here!
Drop Clustered Shots, grab this instead for the mass-crit goodness.
Even if the feat is pulled back to "unarmed strike or weapon you can flurry with" or some such, the Zen Archer's still good to go with his Pummeling arrows.
:-)
Pummeling Style (Combat, Style)
You collect all your power into a single vicious and debilitating punch.Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike; base attack bonus +6, brawler's flurry† class feature, or flurry of blows class feature.
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.
As a full-round action, you can pool all your attack potential in one devastating punch.
I think there's only a few weapons that are considered punching.
That's flavor text, not rules text. Irrelevant to the mechanics discussion. As written, it applies to any and all weapons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you can't tell descriptive flavor text from mechanical rules text, I don't know what to tell you.
Oh, just noticed this.
Pummeling Style might work with ranged attacks as well. No melee restriction here!
Drop Clustered Shots, grab this instead for the mass-crit goodness.
Even if the feat is pulled back to "unarmed strike or weapon you can flurry with" or some such, the Zen Archer's still good to go with his Pummeling arrows.
:-)
Pummeling Style (Combat, Style)
You collect all your power into a single vicious and debilitating punch.Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike; base attack bonus +6, brawler's flurry† class feature, or flurry of blows class feature.
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.
....you are just trying to make a kamehameha now, aren't you?
And Zhayne, if you can't tell when 'flavor text' tells the entire intended effect of the feat, then I don't know what to tell you. If you ignore half of the text, then what you are left with can rarely if ever live up to your standards without being the densest, driest legalese possible. You can already see the conclusion of that train of thought with Joe's words above.
The difference between flavor text and rules text:
Flavor text (usually) doesn't contain rule language.
Because the section, "you can pool all your attack potential in one devastating punch" doesn't contain any rules language, it's not binding.
Also, could we stop trying to say that Pathfinder will be the dryest, most boring legalese if we ignore flavor? As someone who has actually read legal documents, I can assure that Pathfinder as a good 500 years to go before it even approaches the mind numbing boredom that is a terms and service document. God forbid you actually attempt to read a bill proposal for Congress or something.
The difference between flavor text and rules text:
Flavor text (usually) doesn't contain rule language.
Because the section, "you can pool all your attack potential in one devastating punch" doesn't contain any rules language, it's not binding.
Also, could we stop trying to say that Pathfinder will be the dryest, most boring legalese if we ignore flavor? As someone who has actually read legal documents, I can assure that Pathfinder as a good 500 years to go before it even approaches the mind numbing boredom that is a terms and service document. God forbid you actually attempt to read a bill proposal for Congress or something.
Well, I wouldn't say it is devoid of rules language (that sentence does define the act as a full round action and says that it must be delivered as a punch, which is defined as a form of unarmed strike within the core rule book's combat section, immediately after the attack action), just that it assumes a certain core set of assumptions about how one reads the text, the understanding of the typical conventions of style feats, monks/brawlers, and unarmed strikes, as well as the commons sense of the reader.
The unspoken assumption made by the writer, which was not explicitly written out in the text, is the rather plain assumption that damage rolled comes from the weapon that you are hitting with (which is a 'punch', which again is defined as a type unarmed strike).
If they had simply inserted the word 'unarmed' before 'attacks' in the phrase 'Make a number of rolls equal to the number of attacks you can make with a full attack or a flurry of blows', then there would have been no room for argument. So yes, I will acknowledge that this is a minor oversight that could have allowed them to keep their flavor without increasing complexity.
I simply find it dirty that you just get to ignore 40% of the text with this kind of argument, particularly when the text is not irrelevant, but rather insufficient to cover exploitation. We both know that this will be vindicated in the court of common law, since no GM in their right mind would go along with this unless you just beat them into a concussion with the rule book (metaphorically, of course). And it is not going to be hard to imagine how this will end if this is taken to FAQ.
Idea: Who wants to take bets on how long it will be before there is official errata on this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it is only with punches would it work with a punching dagger?
....you are just trying to make a kamehameha now, aren't you?This means nothing to me.
:-)
So wait...You make a thread about the topic title specifically, to get it fixed/clarifying intent, and then go on to say it means nothing to you?
The contradictions are real.
That being said, the intent is quite obvious as to what "punch" means in this case, as well as the prospect that unarmed strikes (or weapons that function like unarmed strikes, such as the Brass Knuckles, Cestii, Gauntlets, etc.) are what gets the benefit, not swords or axes or what have you. Even if RAW is pretty ambiguous, it's just the excuse munchkins need to pull their crap.
Munchkins' wet dream, sure. But only if the GM is a completely oblivious goon, and if that's the case, what sane player would want that goober for a GM?
If we go by the 'rule of language', then punch is any thrusting blow. It doesn't have to be limited to a fist. Think of a hole punch and remember it has no fist attached! :P
Idea: Who wants to take bets on how long it will be before there is official errata on this?
Hard to say. It is a competition between how little the designers want to deal the issue (I've given my two cents about how they would be frustrated with how the feat is being read; the fact that it might not have any significance outside of the rules forum itself could also be an issue) versus how bad this thread (and the numerous clones it will likely spawn) actually get. The fact that there would be a demand for an errata just days after publishing must be an issue too.
Joe M did help by setting up a fairly straight forward question in his first post that he clearly indicated with his formatting. They just need to copy/paste that and put 'It is only intended to work with unarmed strikes'. The only reason I can see the explanation being more than one sentence would be the expansion to other forms of unarmed strikes like kicks as well.
...hole punch...
HORY SHET!!! All this time and I never realized those office clerks were only one step away from killing me with the Ultimate Weapon of Death!!!
Thought Clerics were Bad Ass? Wait until you see the CUBICLE WARRIORS!!!
Idea: Who wants to take bets on how long it will be before there is official errata on this?
FAQ or errata?
Errata only comes out when there is a new edition.
And if we listen to the flavor text, no need for the quotation marks, we can't kick, headbutt, or knee anyone with this, despite all of these attack options being the exact same thing, mechanically. The flavor text says it has to be a punch though...The difference between flavor text and rules text:
Flavor text (usually) doesn't contain rule language.
Because the section, "you can pool all your attack potential in one devastating punch" doesn't contain any rules language, it's not binding.
That's one way to look at it, I guess. However, if I don't ignore the so-called "flavor" text, then I don't need a FAQ or a note from the devs to explain that the abilities does exactly what it says it does.
Why is that a problem?
A great many martial art styles don't really use punches. So since we're listening to flavor text, then a great many flavors of martial arts are lost.
It also means that Monks who wield double-chained kamas and other reach weapons would be disqualified from using pummeling style for their unarmed strikes.
|
|
....you are just trying to make a kamehameha now, aren't you?This means nothing to me.
:-)
So wait...You make a thread about the topic title specifically, to get it fixed/clarifying intent, and then go on to say it means nothing to you?
The contradictions are real.
Hah! Sorry. I meant specifically that I have no idea what a "kamehameha" is.
My interest in getting the question resolved is (1) academic, because I enjoy working on PF rules puzzles, and (2) for PFS, as specified in my original post and some of my early follow-ups.
:-)
....you are just trying to make a kamehameha now, aren't you?This means nothing to me.
:-)
So wait...You make a thread about the topic title specifically, to get it fixed/clarifying intent, and then go on to say it means nothing to you?
The contradictions are real.
Hah! Sorry. I meant specifically that I have no idea what a "kamehameha" is.
My interest in getting the question resolved is (1) academic, because I enjoy working on PF rules puzzles, and (2) for PFS, as specified in my original post and some of my early follow-ups.
:-)
Kamehameha is basically the signature ultimate attack of the character Goku from Dragon Ball Z.
A great many martial art styles don't really use punches. So since we're listening to flavor text, then a great many flavors of martial arts are lost.And if we listen to the flavor text, no need for the quotation marks, we can't kick, headbutt, or knee anyone with this, despite all of these attack options being the exact same thing, mechanically. The flavor text says it has to be a punch though...The difference between flavor text and rules text:
Flavor text (usually) doesn't contain rule language.
Because the section, "you can pool all your attack potential in one devastating punch" doesn't contain any rules language, it's not binding.
That's one way to look at it, I guess. However, if I don't ignore the so-called "flavor" text, then I don't need a FAQ or a note from the devs to explain that the abilities does exactly what it says it does.
Why is that a problem?
Ah. So as GM you can just let the PC specify that their "punch" is actually a kick, or a head butt, or whatever their signature move is. But did you notice that the part you dismiss as flavor text is also the only place it specifies how long the attack takes?
"As a full-round action, you can pool all your attack potential in one devastating punch."
If we're not paying attention to this sentence, why can't a character do this as a free action?
I don't think I ever said ignore the sentence. What I did do, is specifically quote the part of the sentence that is 'flavor text'.
So... basically, we have to houserule the feat in order to make it work because, flavor text. Or we ignore the flavor text, which makes it function a lot easier. Or the PDT issues a FAQ to clarify the feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A great many martial art styles don't really use punches. So since we're listening to flavor text, then a great many flavors of martial arts are lost.And if we listen to the flavor text, no need for the quotation marks, we can't kick, headbutt, or knee anyone with this, despite all of these attack options being the exact same thing, mechanically. The flavor text says it has to be a punch though...The difference between flavor text and rules text:
Flavor text (usually) doesn't contain rule language.
Because the section, "you can pool all your attack potential in one devastating punch" doesn't contain any rules language, it's not binding.
That's one way to look at it, I guess. However, if I don't ignore the so-called "flavor" text, then I don't need a FAQ or a note from the devs to explain that the abilities does exactly what it says it does.
Why is that a problem?
Ah. So as GM you can just let the PC specify that their "punch" is actually a kick, or a head butt, or whatever their signature move is. But did you notice that the part you dismiss as flavor text is also the only place it specifies how long the attack takes?
"As a full-round action, you can pool all your attack potential in one devastating punch."
If we're not paying attention to this sentence, why can't a character do this as a free action?
I don't think I ever said ignore the sentence. What I did do, is specifically quote the part of the sentence that is 'flavor text'.
So... basically, we have to houserule the feat in order to make it work because, flavor text. Or we ignore the flavor text, which makes it function a lot easier. Or the PDT issues a FAQ to clarify the feat.
...'easier'? You do realize that a monk with 7 unarmed attacks has about a 30% chance of threatening a crit with all of them with this feat? And that the crit is confirmed with the highest BAB?
And if you include improved critical (it is on the monk bonus feat list), you know it has 52% of threatening a crit?
I am already seeing some people fear this feat for that alone. Now imagine if all that was with a 15-20/x2 weapon on a full BAB character. There is an 82% of threatening a crit on all 4 attacks with that. On a barbarian. Or a paladin.
If this feat is going to survive outside of the nether realm of syntehsists and leadership, it would do well to keep its goals low.
I agree, I don't think this feat should be used with weapons. Not sure I ever said that, thought I did do my best to point out absurd things with this feat.
The point with the above long quoted post, is if we use flavor text to dictate rules, then the feat is only useful to characters that exclusively uses punches.
So if your hands are tied, no Pummeling Style. If your hands are full, no Pummeling Style, if you can't use your hands for some reason, no Pummeling Style.
That is stupid and wrong.
Flavor Text does not dictate rules, never has. As it stands, the RAW of this feat is that it can be used with any weapon. I'm absolutely certain it will receive a FAQ to clarify it can only be used with unarmed strikes.