Check out Feral Combat Training. Ascetic Style was modeled after that feat.
Well, let's look into the horse's mouth. (End of page.)
|
Just remember the first sentence of the feat:
"Choose one weapon from the monk fighter weapon group."
You can't get it with any weapon.
Monk weapon group according to pfsrd:
bo staff, brass knuckles, butterfly sword, cestus, dan bong, deer horn knife, double chained kama, double chicken saber, emei piercer, fighting fan, hanbo, jutte, kama, kusarigama, kyoketsu shoge, lungshuan tamo, monk's spade, nine-ring broadsword, nine-section whip, nunchaku, quarterstaff, rope dart, sai, sansetsukon, seven-branched sword, shang gou, shuriken, siangham, temple sword, tiger fork, tonfa, tri-point double-edged sword, unarmed strike, urumi, and wushu dart.
...
I'm all about the technicality, and technically, you have a point. But Ascetic Strike is official rules, too. And interpreting it out of existence can't be right. If you want to seize upon this technicality in Pathfinder Society games, you'll be turning up your middle finger to Paizo Publishing, and I applaud you for it. But I must advise against it.
Since the Ascetic Style feats are banned in PFS this really isn't an issue.
Just remember the first sentence of the feat:
"Choose one weapon from the monk fighter weapon group."
You can't get it with any weapon.
Monk weapon group according to pfsrd:
bo staff, brass knuckles, butterfly sword, cestus, dan bong, deer horn knife, double chained kama, double chicken saber, emei piercer, fighting fan, hanbo, jutte, kama, kusarigama, kyoketsu shoge, lungshuan tamo, monk's spade, nine-ring broadsword, nine-section whip, nunchaku, quarterstaff, rope dart, sai, sansetsukon, seven-branched sword, shang gou, shuriken, siangham, temple sword, tiger fork, tonfa, tri-point double-edged sword, unarmed strike, urumi, and wushu dart.
The original version of the Temple Sword did say that it was in that group, but the updated version introduced in Ultimate Equipment does not. Paizo has published many different versions of the Monk Fighter Weapon Group, and Temple Swords are not on any of them. Even the most recent Paizo weapon group listing doesn't include them.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Oh, I didn't realize!Since the Ascetic Style feats are banned in PFS this really isn't an issue....
I'm all about the technicality, and technically, you have a point. But Ascetic Strike is official rules, too. And interpreting it out of existence can't be right. If you want to seize upon this technicality in Pathfinder Society games, you'll be turning up your middle finger to Paizo Publishing, and I applaud you for it. But I must advise against it.
If you'd like to understand why they are banned, it is because the author intentionally design them to work as the errata FCT and is "embarrassed" he left the wording the unclear way in the handover. They are banned in PFS until the errata is live and may be included the the new campaign clarifications with prerelease Errata.
In other words, Ascetic Style will receive errata at some point to remove the "augment" part, so use with caution.
Care needs to be taken here.
Monk weapon proficiencies, weapons with the 'monk' special quality and the monk fighter weapon group are all very different things.
Monks are proficient with the club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, short sword, shortspear, shuriken, siangham, sling, spear, and any weapon with the monk special weapon quality.
Monks are proficient with the club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shortspear, short sword, shuriken, siangham, sling, and spear.
Only unchained monks are automatically proficient with weapons with the 'monk' special quality.
Neither are automatically proficient with weapons that fall in to the 'monk' fighter weapon group.
Neither are automatically proficient with weapons that fall in to the 'monk' fighter weapon group.
To make the matter worse, core was written before some weapons made their way into the game. While the CRB does not list those weapons the weapon's own description does say they are proficient in them.
Neither are automatically proficient with weapons that fall in to the 'monk' fighter weapon group.To make the matter worse, core was written before some weapons made their way into the game. While the CRB does not list those weapons the weapon's own description does say they are proficient in them.
Citation? or did you mean that to be less all encompassing than written.
I just checked the first 2 monk weapons in Ultimate Equipment (Lungchuan Tamo and Jutte) and saw two others on the way (Kyoketsu Shogi and Kusari Gama) and none of them indicate the (chained) monk is proficient with them.
Neither are automatically proficient with weapons that fall in to the 'monk' fighter weapon group.To make the matter worse, core was written before some weapons made their way into the game. While the CRB does not list those weapons the weapon's own description does say they are proficient in them.Citation? or did you mean that to be less all encompassing than written.
I just checked the first 2 monk weapons in Ultimate Equipment (Lungchuan Tamo and Jutte) and saw two others on the way (Kyoketsu Shogi and Kusari Gama) and none of them indicate the (chained) monk is proficient with them.
Check the temple sword, exact weapon we were talking about.
Oh, I didn't realize!Since the Ascetic Style feats are banned in PFS this really isn't an issue....
I'm all about the technicality, and technically, you have a point. But Ascetic Strike is official rules, too. And interpreting it out of existence can't be right. If you want to seize upon this technicality in Pathfinder Society games, you'll be turning up your middle finger to Paizo Publishing, and I applaud you for it. But I must advise against it.
Yeah, it's hard to keep up with all of the PFS rules.
...I don't understand. Monks are proficient with simple and monk weapons. Monks are proficient with the Temple Sword, as called out in the sword's description. The flavor of the temple sword is that it is specifically a sword for monks.
Why in Shelyn's name would it not be a monk weapon?
It doesn't make any sense to me either, but that is the way that the rules are written.
The knuckle axe, bich'hwa, and temple sword are Monk Special Weapons but are not in the Monk Fighter Weapon Group.
The tri-point double-edged sword, unarmed strike, and urumi are in the Monk Fighter Weapon Group but are not Monk Special Weapons. (But of course unarmed strike doesn't need to be a Monk Special Weapon to flurry.)
The bo staff, brass knuckles, butterfly sword, cestus, dan bong, deer horn knife, double chained kama, double chicken saber, emei piercer, fighting fan, hanbo, jutte, kama, kusarigama, kyoketsu shoge, lungchuan tamo, monk's spade, nine-ring broadsword, nine-section whip, nunchaku, quarterstaff, rope dart, sai, sansetsukon, seven-branched sword, shang gou, shuriken, siangham, tiger fork, tonfa, and wushu dart are all both Monk Special Weapons and in the Monk Fighter Weapon Group.
Check the temple sword, exact weapon we were talking about.Neither are automatically proficient with weapons that fall in to the 'monk' fighter weapon group.To make the matter worse, core was written before some weapons made their way into the game. While the CRB does not list those weapons the weapon's own description does say they are proficient in them.Citation? or did you mean that to be less all encompassing than written.
I just checked the first 2 monk weapons in Ultimate Equipment (Lungchuan Tamo and Jutte) and saw two others on the way (Kyoketsu Shogi and Kusari Gama) and none of them indicate the (chained) monk is proficient with them.
Ah! so less all encompassing than as written then.
Ascetic Form can't include MUSD among the abilities that it can apply to the weapon.
It uses the excact same language as pre-change Feral Combat Training. That pre-change FCT used to have an FAQ that explicitly said that yes, that language applies to the monk's UAS damage progression.
Yes. The feat says you can apply "effects that augment an unarmed strike," and the monk's increased unarmed damage counts as such.
Due to this old FAQ, there can be no doubt that the damage progression applies. Even the author of the feat has stated that as written, it does apply!
Regarding the original question: For most monks, Ascetic Style is mostly just Ki Strike (the damage reduction bypass stuff), and the UAS damage progression, unless you go for more exotic builds. More important is the followup feat Ascetic Form to use the extra attack for 1 ki, and Style Strike, because the extra attack is not an augmentation and Ascetic Style doesn't overwrite the "specific body part" the style strikes have.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
that explicitly said that yes, that language applies to the monk's UAS damage progression
It was uncommon to see a reference to this that matched the developers explanation of that FAQ. It was repeatedly explained that meant you could swap out the UAS damage for the Natural dice, and never that you "increase the Natural X sizes" (which seemed to be the way some liked to interpret.)
I'm new to the forums here, but this is what I believe was intended for the Ascetic Style feet. Everything not in parentheses is straight from the D20PFSRD page for Ascetic Style.
While using this style and wielding the chosen weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, as well as (magic) effects that augment an unarmed strike, as if attacks with the weapon were unarmed attacks.
This interpretation would not allow the damage dice for a Monks unarmed strike to be used, but would still allow some one to use Amulet of Mighty Fists to augment weapons from the Monk Fighter Weapon Group.
This interpretation would not allow the damage dice for a Monks unarmed strike to be used, but would still allow some one to use Amulet of Mighty Fists to augment weapons from the Monk Fighter Weapon Group.
Paizo's interpretation allows for monks unarmed damage. See pre-change feral combat training feat/FAQ with the exact same wording.
pre-change Feat:
"Feral Combat Training
Benefit: Choose one of your natural weapons. While using the selected natural weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike."
pre-change FAQ
"Feral Combat Training and Unarmed Strike Damage: Does this allow me to use my monk unarmed damage with the selected natural attack?
Yes. The feat says you can apply "effects that augment an unarmed strike," and the monk's increased unarmed damage counts as such."
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
One of the reasons FCT was changed (according to Dev posts) was that the FAQ allowing unarmed was taken to mean "x size bumps to your claws" instead of "swap your unarmed in place of your claws."
Ascetic was designed to be like FCT post errata and accidentally left pre errata language that some online interpret differently that expected.
One of the reasons FCT was changed (according to Dev posts) was that the FAQ allowing unarmed was taken to mean "x size bumps to your claws" instead of "swap your unarmed in place of your claws."
Seems an overreaction IMO. A simple line added to the bottom of the FAQ that stated it's a replacement instead of an upgrade was all that's needed. They managed to explain it for Sacred Weapons so why not pre-errata FCT?
Ascetic was designed to be like FCT post errata and accidentally left pre errata language that some online interpret differently that expected.
It's interpreted exactly as it should be: It used pre errata wording and people take that to mean the exact same thing as pre errata feat did, as per the FAQ. it would be odd to see the pre-errata wording and assume it doesn't do what Paizo has already said that wording means.
Again, if it's 'bump' vs 'replace', a simple statement is all that's needed. They JUST have to let us know, then it could be 'read as expected': it doesn't take much to clarify it.
I reeally hope they don't ruin the cool synergies of astaic style.
MOMS Dragon style + Astaic style is a favorite of mine.
This interpretation would not allow the damage dice for a Monks unarmed strike to be used, but would still allow some one to use Amulet of Mighty Fists to augment weapons from the Monk Fighter Weapon Group.Paizo's interpretation allows for monks unarmed damage. See pre-change feral combat training feat/FAQ with the exact same wording.
pre-change Feat:
"Feral Combat Training
Benefit: Choose one of your natural weapons. While using the selected natural weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike."pre-change FAQ
"Feral Combat Training and Unarmed Strike Damage: Does this allow me to use my monk unarmed damage with the selected natural attack?Yes. The feat says you can apply "effects that augment an unarmed strike," and the monk's increased unarmed damage counts as such."
I would be happy to refer to the original post in the FAQ, unfortunately, it is not available. I will instead refer to the Style Path Feat Ascetic Form. According to the d20PFSRD page for this feat "You can use the chosen melee weapon with any class ability that can be used with an unarmed strike, such as an unchained monk’s style strike ability. In addition, you are treated as a monk with a level equal to your character level for the purpose of determining the number of times per day that you can use feats with uses per day that depend upon your monk level, such as the Stunning Fist or Perfect Strike feats." This feat would not exist if Ascetic Style was intended to be as all encompassing as the raw text. Something that I could consider an oversight if they where not both introduced in the same book.
I would be happy to refer to the original post in the FAQ, unfortunately, it is not available.
It's NOT unavailable, I quoted the ENTIRE FAQ in the post you quoted. it's 100% clear how the feat works based on the old FAQ.
PS: In the future, you can find old rules/FAQ by using the wayback machine. Using it, it's sinfully easy to track down things like this old FAQ: feel free to use it to double check my quote of it.
This feat would not exist if Ascetic Style was intended to be as all encompassing as the raw text.
That's a good point for figuring out intent. However, we have the author's own words on intent. This is a rules question in the rules section of the forum though and as such clear RAW trumps RAI. Paizo has said when a "feat says you can apply "effects that augment an unarmed strike" that includes "the monk's increased unarmed damage".
I would be happy to refer to the original post in the FAQ, unfortunately, it is not available.It's NOT unavailable, I quoted the ENTIRE FAQ in the post you quoted. it's 100% clear how the feat works based on the old FAQ.
PS: In the future, you can find old rules/FAQ by using the wayback machine. Using it, it's sinfully easy to track down things like this old FAQ: feel free to use it to double check my quote of it.
This feat would not exist if Ascetic Style was intended to be as all encompassing as the raw text.That's a good point for figuring out intent. However, we have the author's own words on intent. This is a rules question in the rules section of the forum though and as such clear RAW trumps RAI. Paizo has said when a "feat says you can apply "effects that augment an unarmed strike" that includes "the monk's increased unarmed damage".
I should have been more specific. The referenced FAQ is no longer available on the Paizo site. As for the assertion that the FAQ is from the Author himself, The post is not signed. The only thing we know about the author of the post is that he works at the same company. A company that recently had to issue a new entry into the FAQs to retract an official post after someone in their ranks interpreted chained Flurry of Blows into two-weapon fighting despite clear text indicating otherwise in every single description of how that Flurry of Blows works. That said, I acknowledge that by RAW, you are right. There really is not much room to debate that point.
By the way, I asked Mark Seifter about this in his thread, and he provided two additional reasons why Ascetic Style is banned in PFS:
1. It makes unarmed-exclusive options less special (argument against allowing something like the brawling enhancement to apply to a weapon while using Ascetic Style)
2. It has an unfair budget advantage over Amulet of Mighty Fists' users (argument against the featline in general).
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
clear RAW trumps RAI. Paizo has said when a "feat says you can apply "effects that augment an unarmed strike" that includes "the monk's increased unarmed damage".
That old phrasing wasn't clear RAW, the confusion over what the FAQ meant was the reason they errata it to be just feats and not effects.
With the OLD errata, they meant you could swap your dice from unarmed strike for your dice on a natural. They didn't mean "bump my natural up x steps" which some took it to mean.
By the way, I asked Mark Seifter about this in his thread, and he provided two additional reasons why Ascetic Style is banned in PFS:
1. It makes unarmed-exclusive options less special (argument against allowing something like the brawling enhancement to apply to a weapon while using Ascetic Style)
2. It has an unfair budget advantage over Amulet of Mighty Fists' users (argument against the featline in general).
To me, this sounds like "it's banned because monks should be punching things."
As if pummeling style wasn't encoragment enough to punch instead of use weapons.
By the way, I asked Mark Seifter about this in his thread, and he provided two additional reasons why Ascetic Style is banned in PFS:
1. It makes unarmed-exclusive options less special (argument against allowing something like the brawling enhancement to apply to a weapon while using Ascetic Style)
2. It has an unfair budget advantage over Amulet of Mighty Fists' users (argument against the featline in general).
To me, this sounds like "it's banned because monks should be punching things."
As if pummeling style wasn't encoragment enough to punch instead of use weapons.
1. Pummeling Style is crap for Unchained Monk. Dragon Style is where it is located.
2. You don't need to punch things as an UnMonk. Get a ki focus weapon and a bodywrap of mighty strikes and you can use a weapon/unarmed mixed monk that works perfectly fine.
3. I asked Mark about the criteria needed for an option like this to work, and clearly Ascetic Style fell short.
I prefer Jabbing over Dragon on my monks actually.
Also valid but probably better used on Monks without archetype that replaces the bonus feats.
company that recently had to issue a new entry into the FAQs to retract an official post after someone in their ranks interpreted chained Flurry of Blows into two-weapon fightingPlease elaborate.
The source for this is in the Rules FAQ for the Core Rulebook "Monk Flurry of Blows: When I use flurry of blows, can I make all of the attacks with just one weapon, or do I have to use two, as implied by the ability functioning similarly to Two-Weapon Fighting?
You can make all of your attacks with a single monk weapon. Alternatively, you can replace any number of these attacks with an unarmed strike. This FAQ specifically changes a previous ruling made in the blog concerning this issue."
I should have been more specific. The referenced FAQ is no longer available on the Paizo site.
But it is: It's available on an image of it from several years ago: it's just not on the CURRENT site.
As for the assertion that the FAQ is from the Author himself, The post is not signed.
Never said that or inferred that. I said the author gave of intent on how he meant the feat to work: he unfortunately failed to get his intent into the actual rules.
A company that recently had to issue a new entry into the FAQs to retract an official post after someone in their ranks interpreted chained Flurry of Blows into two-weapon fighting despite clear text indicating otherwise in every single description of how that Flurry of Blows works.
You're going to have to elaborate with posts/examples of what you're talking about.
That said, I acknowledge that by RAW, you are right. There really is not much room to debate that point.
that's NOT what it seemed like, but if that's the case then fine. the only other thing I posted about is the availability of the old FAQ: It's simple to find on an image of the official list from years ago.
That old phrasing wasn't clear RAW, the confusion over what the FAQ meant was the reason they errata it to be just feats and not effects.
It was 100% clear that increased monk damage was included in the wording.
With the OLD errata, they meant you could swap your dice from unarmed strike for your dice on a natural. They didn't mean "bump my natural up x steps" which some took it to mean.
I agree but that wasn't my point: it's CLEAR monk damage is included. If there is a debate over HOW you increase the damage, that's a separate issue I wasn't debating.
This is a rules question in the rules section of the forum though and as such clear RAW trumps RAI.
I had always figured that questions along the lines of "I am not sure how to run this" that land in the rules forum are those for which RAI is king since the most important thing the person posing the question can glean from the thread is an understanding of the mechanic in question that works for them. The rules forum exists not simply to dissect rules text, but also to help people run their games.
I would say just run the fixed version on Mr. Augunas's blog. It's a lot easier to understand and causes fewer problems.
This is a rules question in the rules section of the forum though and as such clear RAW trumps RAI.I had always figured that questions along the lines of "I am not sure how to run this" that land in the rules forum are those for which RAI is king since the most important thing the person posing the question can glean from the thread is an understanding of the mechanic in question that works for them. The rules forum exists not simply to dissect rules text, but also to help people run their games.
I would say just run the fixed version on Mr. Augunas's blog. It's a lot easier to understand and causes fewer problems.
I always figured "I am not sure how to run this" is found under the advice section, while "how does this rule work" is under the rules section. RAI only comes out in the rules section where there is an actual question over an ambiguously worded rule and it can be read differently. For instance, the issue James Risner brought up: Bring in RAI to figure out if the unarmed damage is an increase or replacement.
No RAI is needed to figure out that "Paizo has said when a "feat says you can apply "effects that augment an unarmed strike" that includes "the monk's increased unarmed damage"". Bringing RAI into it just muddles things.
As to "the fixed version on Mr. Augunas's blog", that may be good advice if it wasn't in the rules section. If it was in the advice or houserule sections, it would be a great idea in fact. However, it's really BAD advice here as it goes against what's actually written under the feat and gives an incorrect answer based on it. Just looking at the blogs you find the answer: "as written Ascetic Style completely invalidates its subsequent feats." you can follow what he suggests but that's a house rules and that really isn't what the rules section is for it it? Rules. advice and houserules are separated into different areas for a reason right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, what the author intended is completely irrelevant, the feats are as they are printed. The PDT has overruled explicit author intend more than once, proving this. The author himself even said "My original notes don't matter very much, though, because if Ascetic Style is changed it'll be the Paizo team that'll decide how its done."
I would be happy to refer to the original post in the FAQ, unfortunately, it is not available.
You realize that there's a post two above yours containing a link to an archived version, right?
[Ascetic Form] would not exist if Ascetic Style was intended to be as all encompassing as the raw text. Something that I could consider an oversight if they where not both introduced in the same book.
It's not "all encompassing". Ascetic Style does not work for stuff like the Ki Pool extra attack, or Style Strikes. Thus, the current wording of Ascetic Style does not make Ascetic Form obsolete. It does make Ascetic Form obsolete on a single class Monk, but not on other characters.
Dragon Style is where it is located.
At 9th level and above, Jabbing Style > Dragon Style. Or, as I discovered recently, VMC Magus > all.
I would say just run the fixed version on Mr. Augunas's blog. It's a lot easier to understand and causes fewer problems.
The version where he can't even get the name right, get's facts wrong (because the blog version is not the same as post-erratum FCT, and the printed version does not invalidate the later feats), and contradicts an earlier post he made? The version that still doesn't resolve the biggest ambiguity because Weapon Finesse is a feat?
● Stunning Fist
● Ki Pool's DR penetration
● The scaling damage (used instead of the weapon's base damage)
● Dealing full strength on off hand attacks (almost never relevant).
Other things that now work with the weapon:
● Feats that enhance US, e.g. Weapon Focus (Unarmed)
● Feats that have IUS as a prereq, e.g. Hex Striker
● Traits that enhance US, e.g. Bullied
● Items that enhance US, e.g. Amulet of Mighty Fist (multiple enhancement bonuses don't stack, but other magic weapon abilities can be stacked with them)
● Spells that enhance US, e.g. Magic Fang
Monk class features that do not work with Ascetic Style:
● The extra attack from Ki Pool
● Style Strikes
● Ki Blocker, One Touch, and Quivering Palm
● Flurry of Blows (only relevant for tri-point double-edged sword and urumi).
-- All of these are 'unlocked' by Ascetic Form, though.
Thing I'm not sure about:
● The ability to deal nonlethal damage without penalty (on one hand, that basically comes from the general rules for US, but on the other hand, it it explicitly mentioned in the Unarmed Strike class feature)
● Weapon Finesse
● Effects that only apply to natural attacks - the "is treated as (...) a natural weapon [blah]" line does make US better, but only indirectly.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
my point: it's CLEAR monk damage is included. If there is a debate over HOW you increase the damage, that's a separate issue I wasn't debating.
Ok, but every time I've seen you post about old FCT in numerous threads since the ascetic came out, this is never clear to me. It would help, and eliminate me responding if you said "old FCT allowed you to use your unarmed strike dice instead of your natural weapon" which makes it clear it's a swap.
I would say just run the fixed version on Mr. Augunas's blog. It's a lot easier to understand and causes fewer problems.
+1 considering he intentionally used the "new FCT" wording as a template, but somehow accidentally used the old text that had been errata away.
my point: it's CLEAR monk damage is included. If there is a debate over HOW you increase the damage, that's a separate issue I wasn't debating.Ok, but every time I've seen you post about old FCT in numerous threads since the ascetic came out, this is never clear to me. It would help, and eliminate me responding if you said "old FCT allowed you to use your unarmed strike dice instead of your natural weapon" which makes it clear it's a swap.
In the old threads about FCT and the damage increase, I've always been on replace side. As I don't recall any of the same threads for Ascetic Style but my stance would be the same. I feel that it improves the damage much the same as sacred weapon does: by offering an alternate damage that you can replace your base damage with.
So if you see me post anything about FCT or Ascetic Style in the future, you're safe in assuming that I agree with you on the damage debate. If my POV would happen to change in the future, I'll post it.
As to why I don't note my view each and every time I post anything about either feat, I don't really think it's relevant unless I'm specifically talking about HOW the damage increase works. In this case, I was asserting that the old FAQ makes it clear that the wording of the new feat would include "the monk's increased unarmed damage": nothing more or less. I hadn't intended to open up a debate on the mechanics of the increase, just that the increase is included ion the wording.
But it is: It's available on an image of it from several years ago: it's just not on the CURRENT site.
I should have been more specific. The referenced FAQ is no longer available on the Paizo site.
Can you really tell me that you expect anyone just arriving to the site to search the all of the previous version of the Paizo FAQ before making a reply post?
As for the assertion that the FAQ is from the Author himself, The post is not signed.Never said that or inferred that. I said the author gave of intent on how he meant the feat to work: he unfortunately failed to get his intent into the actual rules.
You did when you stated;
That's a good point for figuring out intent. However, we have the author's own words on intent. This is a rules question in the rules section of the forum though and as such clear RAW trumps RAI. Paizo has said when a "feat says you can apply "effects that augment an unarmed strike" that includes "the monk's increased unarmed damage".
That said, I acknowledge that by RAW, you are right. There really is not much room to debate that point.
that's NOT what it seemed like, but if that's the case then fine. the only other thing I posted about is the availability of the old FAQ: It's simple to find on an image of the official list from years ago.
The reason I don't sound like I agree with you is that I don't agree with you position on the purpose of the Rules Forum. Like it or not, Ascetic Style is useless if no one will allow it into play. We can argue RAW V.S. RAI all day but the only way any of it matters is if someone will actually allow the feat in play. Which won't happen if the feat is overwhelmingly powerful. By RAW, this feat is too strong to be allowed into play and requires at least some tweaking to be viable in even 20% of games.
Can you really tell me that you expect anyone just arriving to the site to search the all of the previous version of the Paizo FAQ before making a reply post?
I'm not expecting anything, just pointing out that the smallest bit of effort will allow someone to find the old FAQ. If you couldn't find it, you didn't make an effort to do so or didn't know how. My post showed you how so that you could put in the effort if you wished.
The reason I don't sound like I agree with you is that I don't agree with you position on the purpose of the Rules Forum. Like it or not, Ascetic Style is useless if no one will allow it into play. We can argue RAW V.S. RAI all day but the only way any of it matters is if someone will actually allow the feat in play. Which won't happen if the feat is overwhelmingly powerful. By RAW, this feat is too strong to be allowed into play and requires at least some tweaking to be viable in even 20% of games.
But that position is wrong from the standpoint of the rules section. It's about how a feat works and doesn't CARE if anyone will allow it in a game. I don't know anyone that allows sacred geometry but if someone asks I can tell them how it works. That's what this section is for: to ask and receive info on what rules elements actually do. "overwhelmingly powerful" is meaningless in a rules argument unless it's ambiguous and you have to look at intent. The issue here is that their isn't any ambiguity: the old FAQ makes it abundantly clear how the wording works and the author also comes out and says that's how it works.
Saying it shouldn't work as it's written because it's too powerful is a houserule and is a reply for the houserule or advice sections and not the rules forum.