This ability works only with unarmed strikes, no matter what other abilities you might possess.
So, no. Only unarmed strikes.
Specific beats the general. It doesn't wOrk.
Nope.
General rule #1 is that you can't have two style feats simultaneously.
If you got the Weapon style mastery feat (either as a fighter or picking up martial focus before), you could have two style feats simultaneously.
Now, if you got that hurdle done, WHICH ASCETIC STYLE DOES NOT HELP ACCOMPLISH, and you managed to get ascetic style and pummeling style on simultaneously, you'd still be unable to combine them, nectar pummeling style explicitly stops any such interactions.
pummeling style is the ONLY thing I know of that it doesn't work with.
If, for example, I used Ascetic Style + Dragon's Style + Dragon's Ferocity, and TWF, I could TWF with a pair of, say, dan bongs, and get 1.5x STR to damage with all my attacks, which is ridiculous.
But Pummeling Style doesn't work because of a specific line in the feat that prevents it.
Anyway, Unchained Monks don't want Pummeling Style anyway, they just use Flying Kicks. You are better off avoiding Weapon Style Mastery shenanigans, slapping Ascetic Style, and combine Flying Kicks with Temple Sword 2H slashes.
THE REASON YOU CAN'T DO IT WITH PUMMELING STYLE IS THE LINE THAT SAYS "REGARDLESS OF ANY OTHER ABILITY, ITEM, FEAT, FEATURE, POWER, ETC, PUMMELING STYLE CAN ONLY BE DONE WITH ACTUAL UNARMED STRIKES"
"This ability works only with unarmed strikes, no matter what other abilities you might possess"
so even though your weapons count as unarmed strikes they still aren't unarmed strikes, so pummeling style still doesn't work.
IT IS THE ONLY THING I KNOW OF THAT WONT WORK WITH ASCETIC STYLE. so pick a different style, use pummeling with only fists and other things with your weapon, or just use ascetic and save yourself some feats.
And your warhammer wont work with ascetic style since it's not in the fighter's monk weapon group. And ascetic style doesn't care if it's a monk weapon, so adding that still wouldn't help you.
Right, a Monk weapon, That means it has the monk special quality.
Being a monk weapon doesn't add it to the Fighter's Monk weapon group.
no, there are 2 or 3 weapons that are monk weapons and not in the fighter weapon group. And there are 2 or 3 that aren't monk weapons but are in the fighter group.
If you're GM is already houseruling things then ask if you can pummel with your weapon.
and urumi doesn't have the monk quality and the temple sword is a monk weapon that isn't in that list.
There are two ways that I can see this interaction being read.
Ignoring any other ways to get these to work together
1. Ascetic style treats the weapon as an unarmed strike. Pummeling style checks, sees it as an unarmed strike. Done.
2. Ascetic style treats the weapon as an unarmed strike. Pummeling style checks, sees an unarmed strike, checks to see what is modifying it, turns off ability turning it into an unarmed strike. One works, the other doesn't.
Personally I would likely go with #1 at home and if it caused problems would fix it later after talking with the player (I'm relatively lenient unless a lot of problems crop up or someone is just doing something ridiculous). However, from a RAW and even RAI standpoint I see #2 being the correct answer.
When they put something in specifically to stop mechanical work arounds, the work arounds don't work.
The wording on ascetic style has been proven to be problematic in the past for being very unlcear and subjective as to what it applied to (the author even facepalmed at themselves over the wording on their site)
But in this case, pummeling style is crystal clear that you can't work around the fist requirement.
So if they wanted Ascetic Style to work with pummeling style, they would have had to call it out in the feat, like saying something like, Ascetic Style will count the weapon of Choice as an unarmed strike for feats like pummeling style as long as you have martial focus, and weapon style mastery, or other feats that have improved unarmed strike as a prerequisite?The wording on ascetic style has been proven to be problematic in the past for being very unlcear and subjective as to what it applied to (the author even facepalmed at themselves over the wording on their site)
But in this case, pummeling style is crystal clear that you can't work around the fist requirement.
Right. Ascetic style would have to specifically call out working with pummeling style to be the more specific exception to the specific exception to the general rule of the specific exception that (exception inception...)
Also can you like me the post from the what the author said about the feat, i would like to see.
Does the entended wording of ascetic style make it work with pummeling style.
No. Pummeling style still has a very specific "that will not work" exception.
|
If, for example, I used Ascetic Style + Dragon's Style + Dragon's Ferocity, and TWF, I could TWF with a pair of, say, dan bongs, and get 1.5x STR to damage with all my attacks, which is ridiculous.
But Pummeling Style doesn't work because of a specific line in the feat that prevents it.
Anyway, Unchained Monks don't want Pummeling Style anyway, they just use Flying Kicks. You are better off avoiding Weapon Style Mastery shenanigans, slapping Ascetic Style, and combine Flying Kicks with Temple Sword 2H slashes.
The only way to get this to work is with Master Of Many Styles, right?
The only way to get this to work is with Master Of Many Styles, right?If, for example, I used Ascetic Style + Dragon's Style + Dragon's Ferocity, and TWF, I could TWF with a pair of, say, dan bongs, and get 1.5x STR to damage with all my attacks, which is ridiculous.
But Pummeling Style doesn't work because of a specific line in the feat that prevents it.
Anyway, Unchained Monks don't want Pummeling Style anyway, they just use Flying Kicks. You are better off avoiding Weapon Style Mastery shenanigans, slapping Ascetic Style, and combine Flying Kicks with Temple Sword 2H slashes.
I specifically mentioned Weapon Style Mastery earlier :P
|
pummeling style is the ONLY thing I know of that it doesn't work with.
It also doesn't work with the kineticist elemental ascetic archetype's Elemental Flurry, as that specifies Fists only. It's even more restrictive than Pummeling Style, which would allow kicks, head butts, and other unarmed strikes than fists.
Didn't read every post, but the end results is that there is absolutely no way to use Pummeling Style with anything other than unarmed strikes.
The feat literally says "This ability works only with unarmed strikes, no matter what other abilities you might possess."
It is the most specific statement your going to find for how the feat works. There is simply no way around it. Quiet intentionally.
Nothing works to modify it so that it works with anything other than unarmed strike, because it literally says so.
Feral Combat Training was changed anyways. It doesn't work the way it used to, though I can't remember exactly what was changed.
You can bet your ass they are likely to change that on Ascetic Style on a PFS Clarifications Document later down the line, once sales stop, and then hopefully legalize the feat for PFS.
True, but there's no reason to keep it banned just because of the obscurity of "that augments unarmed strike". Nixing that line and allowing it on PFS would be ideal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can bet your ass they are likely to change that on Ascetic Style on a PFS Clarifications Document later down the line, once sales stop, and then hopefully legalize the feat for PFS.
As the designer of the feat, I sure as Hell hope they do. I'm still embarrassed about my typo for that one. (I intended for Ascetic Style to apply class abilities and feats, not feats and effects.)
You can bet your ass they are likely to change that on Ascetic Style on a PFS Clarifications Document later down the line, once sales stop, and then hopefully legalize the feat for PFS.As the designer of the feat, I sure as Hell hope they do. I'm still embarrassed about my typo for that one. (I intended for Ascetic Style to apply class abilities and feats, not feats and effects.)
You saying this makes it a lot more likely to get into that document.
So was Style supposed to be only feats and Form adding the class abilities?
Are you sure it was a Typo and not intentionally changed in publishing?
I don't think they'd intentionally commit Feral Combat Training twice.
I don't think they'd intentionally commit Feral Combat Training twice.
They seem to have done so with glorious heat so why not Feral Combat Training?
Mark Moreland, 2011: "Were we to reprint the book, we would change the Glorious Heat feat to grant the fire spell's spell level in healing instead of character level."
Jason Bulmahn, 2011: "my preferred solution (which would have been to catch this before it went to print"
Inner Sea Gods, 2014: Unaltered feat reprinted despite "Unlimited healing at the cost of a feat and an orison slot is just too good" and "Were we to reprint the book"... Even if they don't touch the original book, nothing stopped them from fixing it in a new book, but they didn't.
Sometimes they seem to do the exact opposite of what they say so it's not surprising that people have to question everything and can't take anything for granted.
So was Style supposed to be only feats and Form adding the class abilities?
Are you sure it was a Typo and not intentionally changed in publishing?
I can't, and will never, try to speak for Paizo.
I can, however, confirm that my notes say "feats and class abilities" while my turnover has something very similar (if not identical) to the current wording. Even if someone from Paizo came into the thread and said, "Its not your fault, Alex," I would still consider it to be on me fault for that reason.
However, I highly doubt that me admitting this has any impact on the PFS clarity or errataing processes over in Redmond. The designers and developers will do what they feel is best for the game regardless of what one errant little freelancer admits to. :-)
I don't think they'd intentionally commit Feral Combat Training twice.They seem to have done so with glorious heat so why not Feral Combat Training?
Mark Moreland, 2011: "Were we to reprint the book, we would change the Glorious Heat feat to grant the fire spell's spell level in healing instead of character level."
Jason Bulmahn, 2011: "my preferred solution (which would have been to catch this before it went to print"
Inner Sea Gods, 2014: Unaltered feat reprinted despite "Unlimited healing at the cost of a feat and an orison slot is just too good" and "Were we to reprint the book"... Even if they don't touch the original book, nothing stopped them from fixing it in a new book, but they didn't.
Sometimes they seem to do the exact opposite of what they say so it's not surprising that people have to question everything and can't take anything for granted.
I feel this is true for older stuff. The RAI of things then and the RAI now seem different at times. Like Jason saying that alternate classes are just big archetypes, ACG saying they are, and then with Unchained them saying that they are not archetypes.
*Did they remove that line from the new printing of ACG?
So was Style supposed to be only feats and Form adding the class abilities?
Are you sure it was a Typo and not intentionally changed in publishing?
I can't, and will never, try to speak for Paizo.
I can, however, confirm that my notes say "feats and class abilities" while my turnover has something very similar (if not identical) to the current wording.
Even if someone from Paizo came into the thread and said, "Its not your fault, Alex," I would still consider it to be me fault for that reason.
However, I highly doubt that me admitting this has any impact on the PFS clarity or errataing processes over in Redmond. The designers and developers will do what they feel is best for the game regardless of what one errant little freelancer admits to. :-)
Well if what you gave them wasn't what you meant then that's likely where the issue was.
But curious still, was the Ascetic Style Feat supposed be just feats then and the second feat, Ascetic Form, adding in class abilities? Because what it sounds like you're saying was that Ascetic style was supposed to be feats and class abilities, which makes me curious what the second feat, Ascetic Form, was supposed to do as it seems to me that it's handling the Class abilities part.
I feel this is true for older stuff.
It doesn't even have to be very old. You have to look no further than the SLA FAQ switches. There wasn't a huge amount of time between saying no, then yes then no again. It's a good place to see how their thoughts changed in a relatively short time.
I've pretty much stopped trying to guess what they are thinking and just shrugging with a 'who knows what they're thinking' unless they actually tell me it in a FAQ/errata/blog post. it's the safest way to think these days.
EDIT: And thanks Alexander Augunas for the input. I always enjoy author input and it never hurts to understand where you where coming from when you wrote the rule. And I wouldn't worry about any "fault" in your work. I enjoyed everything you did in the book and would love to see more of it. Everyone makes a "typo" or two. ;)
I don't think they'd intentionally commit Feral Combat Training twice.They seem to have done so with glorious heat so why not Feral Combat Training?
Mark Moreland, 2011: "Were we to reprint the book, we would change the Glorious Heat feat to grant the fire spell's spell level in healing instead of character level."
Jason Bulmahn, 2011: "my preferred solution (which would have been to catch this before it went to print"
Inner Sea Gods, 2014: Unaltered feat reprinted despite "Unlimited healing at the cost of a feat and an orison slot is just too good" and "Were we to reprint the book"... Even if they don't touch the original book, nothing stopped them from fixing it in a new book, but they didn't.
Sometimes they seem to do the exact opposite of what they say so it's not surprising that people have to question everything and can't take anything for granted.
One case does not the law make. I think that the real effort to streamline the game has come last year with the ACG/UC/APG/ARG errata. The game is more geared towards PFS than ever now, and balance matters more.
an ability that overrides pummeling would be a nice logic bomb