[ACG] Does Pummeling Style Work With All Weapons?

[Calth]

Kudaku wrote:

I find the attitude people take while debating this feat troubling. It's fine to have an opinion, it's not fine to ridicule others or to call people derogatory names for simply having a different interpretation of a feat. Please reread and consider what you post before hitting the Submit button.

For what it's worth I find the idea that the word "punch" means you can use this style with a headbutt, kick or elbow strike, but not with a punching dagger, knuckle axe, or scizore puzzling. I think that Pummeling Style as it stands is ambiguous (especially since the feat blurb and the feat itself disagrees) and could use a FAQ. Hopefully we'll get one sooner rather than later.

And while we're talking about a possible FAQ, it should be noted that the ACG has feat options with minimal prerequisites that open up Pounce to both animal companions and summoned monsters as early as level 1. I like to think that giving a similar ability to martial characters at the cost of three feats at level 12 isn't entirely out of line.

While I do think the critical strike mechanics should be clarified or limited, I don't think restricting the style to only unarmed strikes is the best solution.

It's not the pounce effect thats broken in my opinion, it's the fact that it's hugely better than pounce. This feat chain change brings back ragelancepounce and then buffs it by letting one crit make all attacks crit. Remember, you are only making a single attack, so you get all the charge bonuses, including lance and mounted combat multipliers, on the whole thing. This cannot be intended.

[Squiggit]

RAW, Works with anything.

RAI, clearly not. Even the table says "pool all your unarmed attacks together". Probably gonna get nerfed into the dirt soon.

Also has some other stupid stuff. Like the fact that Brawlers can't use Brawler's flurry with it.

Or that (if you take "punch" as rules text) you can't use it if you don't have a hand free even though unarmed combat explicitly says you don't need a hand free.

[Chaotic Fighter]

Squiggit wrote:

RAW, Works with anything.

RAI, clearly not. Even the table says "pool all your unarmed attacks together". Probably gonna get nerfed into the dirt soon.

Also has some other stupid stuff. Like the fact that Brawlers can't use Brawler's flurry with it.

Or that (if you take "punch" as rules text) you can't use it if you don't have a hand free even though unarmed combat explicitly says you don't need a hand free.

Actually Brawler's flurry just gives you the two weapon fighting feat line. So it's just a full round attack with two weapon fighting.

[Kudaku]

Calth wrote:

It's not the pounce effect thats broken in my opinion, it's the fact that it's hugely better than pounce. This feat chain change brings back ragelancepounce and then buffs it by letting one crit make all attacks crit. Remember, you are only making a single attack, so you get all the charge bonuses, including lance and mounted combat multipliers, on the whole thing. This cannot be intended.

I absolutely agree that the ragelancepounce aspect is problematic, but I think that's a different issue from "does this only work with unarmed strikes". With feats like Horn of the Criosphinx and Spirited Charge it's not exactly hard to make some pretty obnoxious unarmed strike charge attacks as well.

[Squiggit]

Chaotic Fighter wrote:

Actually Brawler's flurry just gives you the two weapon fighting feat line. So it's just a full round attack with two weapon fighting.

Brawler's Flurry treats you as if you have the TWF line when you make a Brawler's flurry.The text is actually identical to normal Flurry of Blows minus the increased BAB or penalty to hit.

It is clearly its own action (same as Flurry of Blows) and therefore not eligible for Pummeling Style (Since that only works on full attacks and a monk's flurry).

[Arachnofiend]

I've yet to see an argument for why this feat should work with a headbutt and not the cestus.

[Joe M.]

Arachnofiend wrote:

I've yet to see an argument for why this feat should work with a headbutt and not the cestus.

I think that argument would turn on the feat description in the summary table, which explicitly tags unarmed strikes.

[Arachnofiend]

Considering the number of typos in the ACG, it's entirely possible that the feat was originally only going to allow unarmed strikes but they changed their mind and forgot to change the summary in the table.

I think if there's one thing we can agree on, it's that this feat really needs to be addressed by Paizo.

[Magicdealer]

Well, I wouldn't argue that headbutting would be fine. It's not a punch. I WOULD argue though, that pummeling style has to be DELIVERED via a punch. At least, as it's worded.

If there are other attack types other than unarmed strike that specifically reference a punch as the method of delivering your attack, then by all means, use those in place of an unarmed strike.

That seems appropriate to the way it's worded, at least. As far as the intent? Maybe it was meant to be limited to unarmed strikes, or close weapons, or weapons you could flurry with. Until we get feedback though, there are too many different ways the actual intent could go to make a solid argument of one over the other. Not that that will stop anyone from trying :D

[Kudaku]

RAW I think you might be on shaky ground in restricting unarmed strikes to specific limbs based on the term "punch" when you consider the language on other feats like Horn of the Criosphinx, but RAI I can see certainly why you'd rule it that way.

My point is really that people who say things like "Anyone who uses pummeling style with a non-unarmed attack is a shameless munchkin who should not be trusted" (direct quote) really need to take a step back, take a deep breath, and consider the possibility that there is ambiguity in the way the feat is written.

Whatever happens I hope this feat gets a thorough and hopefully fast FAQ. It's problematic on several different levels. In addition to what weapon options the feat allows, I think it would be prudent to clarify (and potentially revise) the way critical hits interact with Pummeling Style.

Since I feel like I'm being overly negative, I have to say I actually quite like Pummeling Charge - I think it's a good thing that there is a pounce-esque option available to other martials than the barbarian, and it solves one of the biggest monk paradoxes - lots of mobility-enhancing abilities coupled with an attack mechanic (flurry of blows) that's 100% reliant on full round actions.

[lemeres]

Kudaku wrote:

Since I feel like I'm being overly negative, I have to say I actually quite like Pummeling Charge - I think it's a good thing that there is a pounce-esque option available to other martials than the barbarian, and it solves one of the biggest monk paradoxes - lots of mobility-enhancing abilities coupled with an attack mechanic (flurry of blows) that's 100% reliant on full round actions.

That is why I am so defensive here. I LOVE pummel style and pummel charge. They allow entirely new ways of using unarmed builds that makes them easier to integrate into 'normal' game play (why bother with AoMF when you could just grab greater magical fang? DR is a non-issue. Grab a Amulet of Natural Armor instead).

With this, unarmed strikes are less of a niche build, and suddenly something that has benefits for a lot of martials (heck, it might even brings in the supremacy of beast totem for barbarians into question- imagine a barbarian with the brawling powers and dragon totem?)

Few people want this feat gone, although there are arguments about how far it should stretch. I am conservative...since I am full of FEAR for its survival.

[Kudaku]

Personally I kind of hope that the Pummeling Style is opened up to allow weapons but they scale back the critical hit function - or barring that, that more pounce options are added in the Advanced Class Origins.

I find the idea that eidolons, synthesist summoners, animal companions and summoned monsters can get pounce at level 1 while non-beast barbarians, paladins, fighters, rangers and cavaliers never get the option depressing.

Back in 3.5 I once had a player jokingly suggest that his fighter should get a class feature that let him treat himself as the druid's animal companion, since it would open up a bunch of options that would make him dramatically more effective. It's sad to say that such a feat would be a no-brainer for most martial classes in Pathfinder as well.

[Joe M.]

Kudaku wrote:

I have to say I actually quite like Pummeling Charge - I think it's a good thing that there is a pounce-esque option available to other martials than the barbarian, and it solves one of the biggest monk paradoxes - lots of mobility-enhancing abilities coupled with an attack mechanic (flurry of blows) that's 100% reliant on full round actions.

^ This.

And I do really hope the clarification at least allows close/monk weapons, for the Brawler's sake. I'd be disappointed with an unarmed-only FAQ (at least without an accompanying FAQ to sort out whether/when/how brass knuckles, cestuses, etc. count as unarmed).

[someweirdguy]

Squiggit wrote:

Chaotic Fighter wrote:

Actually Brawler's flurry just gives you the two weapon fighting feat line. So it's just a full round attack with two weapon fighting.

Brawler's Flurry treats you as if you have the TWF line when you make a Brawler's flurry.The text is actually identical to normal Flurry of Blows minus the increased BAB or penalty to hit.

It is clearly its own action (same as Flurry of Blows) and therefore not eligible for Pummeling Style (Since that only works on full attacks and a monk's flurry).

Actually, if you read Brawler's Flurry, it clearly states "Starting at 2nd level, a brawler can make a brawler’s flurry as a full-attack action." in the first sentence. That wording makes it perfectly viable for Pummeling Style.

[Artanthos]

I am hoping for a FAQ in the next few weeks that clarifies unarmed strike, the obvious RAI. I would not mind this expanding to include close combat weapons.

[Vilsetra]

I'm sure this will be accused of being fluff twice over, but the first page of the feats section has this to say about Pummeling Style:

ACG Page 136 wrote:

Pummeling Style: Seemingly wild and powerful haymaker punches and extended kicks are the hallmark of this style. Deeply rooted in its martial philosophy is the concept that landing one powerful strike in the right area will send an opponent painfully sprawling.

Feat Path: Pummeling Style, Pummeling Bully, Pummeling Charge.

I think Pummeling Style is quite clearly intended to only be used in conjunction with unarmed strikes, or such weapons that are described as dealing an unarmed strike in their text entries, such as Brass Knuckles.

[Joe M.]

Vilsetra wrote:

I'm sure this will be accused of being fluff twice over, but the first page of the feats section has this to say about Pummeling Style:

ACG Page 136 wrote:

Pummeling Style: Seemingly wild and powerful haymaker punches and extended kicks are the hallmark of this style. Deeply rooted in its martial philosophy is the concept that landing one powerful strike in the right area will send an opponent painfully sprawling.

Feat Path: Pummeling Style, Pummeling Bully, Pummeling Charge.

I think Pummeling Style is quite clearly intended to only be used in conjunction with unarmed strikes, or such weapons that are described as dealing an unarmed strike in their text entries, such as Brass Knuckles.

Thanks for adding that text to the discussion. I missed that.

First thought: this may do some work to undercut the idea that PS is a fist-punch, one hand free, etc.

[Kudaku]

Joe M. wrote:

Kudaku wrote:

I have to say I actually quite like Pummeling Charge - I think it's a good thing that there is a pounce-esque option available to other martials than the barbarian, and it solves one of the biggest monk paradoxes - lots of mobility-enhancing abilities coupled with an attack mechanic (flurry of blows) that's 100% reliant on full round actions.

^ This.

And I do really hope the clarification at least allows close/monk weapons, for the Brawler's sake. I'd be disappointed with an unarmed-only FAQ (at least without an accompanying FAQ to sort out whether/when/how brass knuckles, cestuses, etc. count as unarmed).

I agree, though unless they change the critical hit mechanics, the Katar critical hits would be terrifying.

[Tels]

Kudaku wrote:

I agree, though unless they change the critical hit mechanics, the Katar critical hits would be terrifying.

Mother of God...