Pummeling Style


Homebrew and House Rules

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

One of my players was upset to see Pummeling Style get completely rewritten by the ACG errata. He got the feat specifically for the flavor of having a "Falcon Punch." So, I came up with this revision that stays true to the original while also better explaining how it works.

Pummeling Style (Combat, Style)
You invest all of your power into a single devastating punch.

Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike; base attack bonus +6, brawler’s flurry, or flurry of blows class feature.

Benefit: You can perform a pummeling strike as a full-attack action, making all attacks against a single creature using unarmed strikes. Make all attack rolls before rolling damage, totaling the damage rolls before applying the target’s damage reduction. Weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision damage, and other bonus damage that normally does not multiply on a critical hit apply only once to a pummeling strike. Miss chance from concealment, mirror image, and similar effects apply once, but can thwart all attacks from a pummeling strike as if it were a single attack.

You take a –5 penalty to critical hit confirmation rolls while performing a pummeling strike. For each critical threat beyond the first, this penalty reduces by 1 to a minimum of 0. If one or more attacks score a critical hit, roll damage as if all successful attacks scored a critical hit.


While it is clearer than the original I feel there's still some issues.
Mainly, there's a gray area around the question of if it is a single or multiple attacks.
We know that damage are (mostly) computed as multiple attacks, and that Miss chance and DR are applied as a single attack; however, we don't know about triggered effect and the like.
For example how does it works with Chill Touch and other "on touch effect" like a vampire Energy Drain ?

Maybe it could help to explicitly declare the ability as a single attack with multiple attack rolls (or something similar) ?

As a sidenote, I find the fact that the errata version mimic Clustered Shots quite inspired.

For reference :

Pummeling Style (original version):
Pummeling Style (Combat, Style)

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.

Pummeling Style (errata version):
Pummeling Style (Combat, Style)

Prerequisite(s): Improved Unarmed Strike; base attack bonus +6, brawler's flurry class feature, or flurry of blows class feature.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The final version of Pummeling Style is what it should have been in the first place. Now the only real issue with it is that it's incompatible with Dragon Style.


Why go through all this rigamarole rather than just saying "it's flavored as a single punch"?

Arachnofiend wrote:
The final version of Pummeling Style is what it should have been in the first place. Now the only real issue with it is that it's incompatible with Dragon Style.

How so?


Because what unarmed strikes need are a way to get acceptable damage and a way to mitigate the effects of DR. We now have both of these things, but they are mutually exclusive.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Because what unarmed strikes need are a way to get acceptable damage and a way to mitigate the effects of DR. We now have both of these things, but they are mutually exclusive.

Unless I'm missing something in the errata document (possible because of the layout) I'm not seeing how Pummeling and Dragon can no longer function together.


chaoseffect wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Because what unarmed strikes need are a way to get acceptable damage and a way to mitigate the effects of DR. We now have both of these things, but they are mutually exclusive.
Unless I'm missing something in the errata document (possible because of the layout) I'm not seeing how Pummeling and Dragon can no longer function together.

Exactly. You need Fuse Styles just like always, sure, but that's not a specific Pummeling/Dragon non-interaction.


It's a specific example of the general "style feats can't be used together" rule that is especially egregious because they're two halves of a good Monk build. I know you know that the existence of the MoMS doesn't actually help Monks.


Arachnofiend wrote:
It's a specific example of the general "style feats can't be used together" rule that is especially egregious because they're two halves of a good Monk build. I know you know that the existence of the MoMS doesn't actually help Monks.

I think the "worrying about what does or doesn't help the monk" ship has sailed. Monk the class is dead to me beside a couple archetypes and Unchained Monk isn't much better in my esteem, but at least a two level dip into MoMS can let monk, the character concept, function elsewhere. Asking for any more than that is a guaranteed to leave you disappointed.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Rynjin wrote:
Why go through all this rigamarole rather than just saying "it's flavored as a single punch"?

My player thought the change made the feat really boring. In some ways, the change is a nerf to pummeling style, as well.

Aralicia wrote:

While it is clearer than the original I feel there's still some issues.

Mainly, there's a gray area around the question of if it is a single or multiple attacks.
We know that damage are (mostly) computed as multiple attacks, and that Miss chance and DR are applied as a single attack; however, we don't know about triggered effect and the like.
For example how does it works with Chill Touch and other "on touch effect" like a vampire Energy Drain ?

Mechanically, it's multiple attacks with exceptions as noted above.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only thing it actually CHANGED was the ridiculous crit thing.


Rynjin wrote:
The only thing it actually CHANGED was the ridiculous crit thing.

Well, it's clearer now as to what happens.

A LOT of the Sacred Fist nonsense proposed by Undone was based on the idea that Pummeling Style was a single, solitary "attack" - that every "hit" was treated with 1.5x Damage when combined with Dragon Style and Dragon Ferocity; that the Air Blessing ability to add electricity damage to a Pummeling Style attack was superior to the Destruction Blessing because it hit every role; yada, yada.

There were pages of arguments on the Warpriest Guide page as to whether it legitimately was a single "Attack" with a multiple-part roll (and thus spells/effects which affect only a single Attack Roll would affect every single roll contain within that Attack), or whether it was like Clustered Shots, with multiple separate Attack Rolls and Damage Rolls all being added together before calculating DR and like effects.

The Crit-Once-Crit-All thing was really, really awesome, but bordering on broken. I'm a little sad to see it go, but I understand WHY it needed to go.


Well, there were many weird interaction with other rules that are now clear. I did liked the falcon punch image though.


Nicos wrote:
Well, there were many weird interaction with other rules that are now clear. I did liked the falcon punch image though.

I think that's a little more of a fluff and character choice thing; you can either think of it as Ranma Saotome's Katsutenshin Amaguriken attack, or as Kenichi Shirahama's Mubyoshi attack - one is arsetons of jabs, the other is a super-focused single punch.

The effects are basically the same, the only difference is the fluff to it all.

That goes a bit double for combining Pummeling Style with Blood Crow Strike.

(Though if you want to get SUPER technical, I guess Vital Strike is a bit more of the single-punch trick, while Pummeling Style is the flurry-of-jabs one).


chbgraphicarts wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Well, there were many weird interaction with other rules that are now clear. I did liked the falcon punch image though.

I think that's a little more of a fluff and character choice thing; you can either think of it as Ranma Saotome's Katsutenshin Amaguriken attack, or as Kenichi Shirahama's Mubyoshi attack - one is arsetons of jabs, the other is a super-focused single punch.

The effects are basically the same, the only difference is the fluff to it all.

That goes a bit double for combining Pummeling Style with Blood Crow Strike.

(Though if you want to get SUPER technical, I guess Vital Strike is a bit more of the single-punch trick, while Pummeling Style is the flurry-of-jabs one).

Vital strike isn't a single action, it just modifies the damage dice of a single attack in your action (or multiple if you're the unchained monk and have the improved/greater feats); it can be used as part of a full attack action and therefore isn't just a falcon punch because you can follow up.

Also your damage resistance isn't really a worry since monk already bypasses adamantine resistance and is only blocked by non-lawful-alignment based DR; pummeling style also makes even DR/20 laughable.


If you think Vital Strike can be used on a full-attack you need to go read it again.


It functions like Power attack, it can be applied to any single attack roll (blah, blah, max BAB, etc, exact wording "When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon’s damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision-based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total.") meaning on a hit you get a free damage dice on your first attack in the round. Full attack is a "standard" (as in not a separate action like cleave or spring attack but one that you can apply power attack, combat expertise, and precise shot (for ranged attacks) to) and you can apply vital strike as such. No where does it mention a feat specific action and standard attack and full attack are both attack actions.


AwesomenessDog wrote:
It functions like Power attack, it can be applied to any single attack roll (blah, blah, max BAB, etc, exact wording "When you use the attack action..."

"The Attack Action" is a VERY specific game term.

It means a single attack as a Standard Action.

A Full Attack is made as part of the "Full Attack Action", which is a special form of Full-Round Action.

Combat wrote:
Attack Action: An attack action is a type of standard action. Some combat options can modify only this specific sort of action. When taking an attack action, you can apply all appropriate options that modify an attack action. Thus, you can apply both Greater Weapon of the Chosen and Vital Strike to the same attack, as both modify your attack action. You can apply these to any combat option that takes the place of a melee attack made using an attack action (such as the trip combat maneuver), though options that increase damage don't cause attacks to deal damage if they wouldn't otherwise do so (such as Vital Strike and trip). You can't combine options that modify attack actions with standard actions that aren't attack actions, such as Cleave.


That is totally wrong in multiple ways.

EDIT: you have to ninja'd me right
chbgraphicarts?


Full attack isn't a separate action as for qualifying for feat usage...

Combat wrote:
After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.

...its something that's decided after your first attack of the round and "consumes" your move action taking the total time of a full round action (standard + move). Therefore not eliminating the vital strike "standard action"/attack action wording. Also since you always are considered to have all of the attacks your BAB allots until you take a move action in the round, Full attack, it inherently an attack action.


Here it is, plain as day, in the FAQ

Vital Strike FAQ wrote:

Vital Strike: Can I use this with Spring Attack, or on a charge?

No. Vital Strike can only be used as part of an attack action, which is a specific kind of standard action. Spring Attack is a special kind of full-round action that includes the ability to make one melee attack, not one attack action. Charging uses similar language and can also not be used in combination with Vital Strike.

And here it is from Jason Buhlmann's own mouth.


Ok, that's nice, but it doesn't change what I just said. Even assuming that the wording is high form legal binding - never to be taken with a grain of salt - I can 5ft step to Dr. Evil, standard attack with vital strike, then wrap up by "spending" my move action to finish the rest of my attacks.


AwesomenessDog wrote:
Ok, that's nice, but it doesn't change what I just said. Even assuming that the wording is high form legal binding - never to be taken with a grain of salt - I can 5ft step to Dr. Evil, standard attack with vital strike, the wrap up by "spending" my move action to finish the rest of my attacks.

No, no you cannot.

You can't take a Full Round Action in the same turn that you take a specific Standard Action.

After you make a single, normal Attack can you then decide whether it's going to be an Attack Action or part of a Full Attack Action.

Vital Strike is like casting a Spell - once that action is used, you're done Attacking. You can use Move Actions, but you cannot make more Attacks.


It doesn't say that anywhere; it just says that vital strike is part of an already normal attack. Also you can fight after casting a spell, it just has to be a spell that doesn't use your standard action.

There is no reference to a specific standard action (besides attack) to activate the feat meaning vital strike is not a specific standard action.


AwesomenessDog wrote:

It doesn't say that anywhere; it just says that vital strike is part of an already normal attack. Also you can fight after casting a spell, it just has to be a spell that doesn't use your standard action.

There is no reference to a specific standard action (besides attack) to activate the feat meaning vital strike is not a specific standard action.

Vital Strike is an ATTACK ACTION.

AN ATTACK ACTION IS DEFINED BY THE GAME AS A VERY. SPECIFIC. STANDARD ACTION.

YOU CANNOT PERFORM A STANDARD ACTION AND A FULL-ROUND ACTION.

ONCE YOU'VE DECLARED YOU'VE USED/ARE USING THE ATTACK ACTION, YOU CANNOT USE A FULL-ROUND ACTION (FULL ATTACK).


Dude, chbgraphicarts have just quoted a FAQ qhen the developers of the game explain that vital strike is an specific standard action.


Just read back through the eratta/faq listing; I didn't see that the first time you posted the links:

Not only are they very indecisive in the rulings and have not given something that disallows what I have pointed out, but it also makes separate points of "specific full attack actions" for things like charge and spring attack indicating that non-specific full actions are perfectly fine to use vital strike.


Ill just put this back here since you missed it a moment ago.

Combat wrote:
After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.


AwesomenessDog wrote:

Just read back through the eratta/faq listing; I didn't see that the first time you posted the links:

Not only are they very indecisive in the rulings and have not given something that disallows what I have pointed out, but it also makes separate points of "specific full attack actions" for things like charge and spring attack indicating that non-specific full actions are perfectly fine to use vital strike.

You're looking at this, right?

Full Round Actions are there own action type and preclude the use of both standard and move actions. Vital Strike is a standard action, therefore you can't use it and do a full round action in the same turn. It is not even close to being ambiguous. You seem to be confusing "attack action" with "can be used in place of an attack," which is a totally reasonable mistake to make, but still a mistake.


Action Types wrote:


An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated.

There are six types of actions:

Standard
Move
Full-round
Swift
Immediate
Free

In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.

In some situations (such as in a surprise round), you may be limited to taking only a single move action or standard action.

Vital Strike wrote:
When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage.
Standard Action, Attack Action wrote:
An attack action is a type of standard action. Some combat options can modify only this specific sort of action. When taking an attack action, you can apply all appropriate options that modify an attack action. Thus, you can apply both Greater Weapon of the Chosen and Vital Strike to the same attack, as both modify your attack action. You can apply these to any combat option that takes the place of a melee attack made using an attack action (such as the trip combat maneuver), though options that increase damage don't cause attacks to deal damage if they wouldn't otherwise do so (such as Vital Strike and trip). You can't combine options that modify attack actions with standard actions that aren't attack actions, such as Cleave.

I'm just going to punch a hole through the wall over the inanity of this conversation now...


that only proves that You can attack once and decide after it if that is your standard action attack and take a move action, or continue attacking making it a full round action.

But Vital strike IS necessarily a standard action so when you use it there is no turning back, you just can't complete the full attack. The same way you can't make an attack with a weapon in your main hand without taking the -2 and then TWF after it.


There is no reason to be angry when answering a rules question, just say the right answer provides the evidence and that's it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
There is no reason to be angry when answering a rules question, just say the right answer provides the evidence and that's it.

Just read all of chbgraphicarts's posts here in a Samuel L. Jackson voice and it's a lot better.


chaoseffect wrote:
Nicos wrote:
There is no reason to be angry when answering a rules question, just say the right answer provides the evidence and that's it.
Just read all of chbgraphicarts's posts here in a Samuel L. Jackson voice and it's a lot better.

I AM SO TIRED OF THESE MOTHAF!!@IN' FIENDISH SNAKES ON THIS MOTHAF*&%IN' MATERIAL PLANE!!!


Technically no, I wasn't looking at that, I was looking at Chpgraphicarts' "Jason's own mouth" hyperlink but the wording for your specific entry is the same as found in his hyperlink, but while I was there, I read everything with vital strike in it, even old and redacted errata. It also doesn't say vital strike is in place of an attack.

There's no need for such rash action, were all calm here.

(and lastly) Vital strike isn't a standard action, if it was, I couldn't use power attack with it, just like I cant with cleave and spring attack.

As the rules stands in your eyes, vital strike is worse than the similar range feat, manyshot, which makes no fundamental sense because they get the rest of their attacks, plus their damage and str mod, and their extra damage die (they are also making a ranged attack so they don't have to worry about not losing their move action). Granted I'm not trying to make a balance argument, but this doesn't appear to be the intent or at least doesn't make sense to me as to why it would.

(edit: typo)


chaoseffect wrote:
Nicos wrote:
There is no reason to be angry when answering a rules question, just say the right answer provides the evidence and that's it.
Just read all of chbgraphicarts's posts here in a Samuel L. Jackson voice and it's a lot better.

And imagine Samuel Jackson has your avatar's face.


AwesomenessDog wrote:
(and lastly) Vital strike isn't a standard action, if it was, I could use power attack with it, just like I cant with cleave and spring attack.
Q&A with Jason "I RUN THIS F@$!ING GAME" Bulmahn, Chief Creative Officer of Paizo Publishing, LLC. wrote:


Q: What type of action (standard, full, move, swift, free) does Vital Strike use?

A: (Jason Bulmahn) Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action.

ENGLISH, MOTHAF%%@A! DO YOU SPEAK IT!?


Isn't a specific standard action*


AwesomenessDog wrote:
Isn't a specific standard action*

I'd post a certain picture with a certain quote from a certain movie of Robert Downey, Jr. as a black man right here, but it would get taken down, so I'll just imagine it in my head.


Ben Stiller wrote:
"Yeah, What do you mean?"

Back to seriousness, it was just a clarification; and you're still the one punching walls.


AwesomenessDog wrote:
(and lastly) Vital strike isn't a standard action, if it was, I couldn't use power attack with it, just like I cant with cleave and spring attack.

You MOST DEFINITELY can use power attack with cleave, spring attack and Vital strike, I don't even have a clue from where such misunderstanding of the rules could came from.

And, as pointed many times, Vital strike IS a standard action, the clarification is the rule. There are dozen or so of threads of vital strike you can read them, the same answer we are giving you here is the one dozen of other people, including the very designer of the games, give there.


Might have just been gullible young me taking a GMs word for it when he said there was a errata that said you couldn't, but I have always operated under power attack and similar feats could only be used on stock or modified-stock attack actions (including full attack).

Liberty's Edge

well, you can't combine cleave, spring attack or vital strike because they're all standard or full round actions, but you can apply power attack anytime you make an attack roll, not an attack action, so you can use it even if it's not your turn.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Pummeling Style All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules