| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
T sum up my PoV on the issue:
1) Paizo probably intended for Pummelling Style to only work with unarmed strikes. That said, they've FAQed/errated rules in ways that went against what seemed like the dead-certain RAI before.
2) Punch is not a 100% unambiguous term. Not all punches are unarmed strikes, and not all unarmed strikes are punches. Insisting on punch as a strict rules term causes problems with using kicks/headbutts/elbow strikes/etc with Pummelling Style, as well weapons like the punching dagger and brass knuckles.
3) The ACG has its share of typos, goof-ups, and wonky rules. Pummelling Style wouldn't be the only feat/ability in the book that has confused language due to a change at some point in the design process. It is possible the Devs originally intended it for unarmed strike only, but changed their minds later on.
|
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.
I too am afraid this feat might not survive. I mean, this book has been available to subscribers for what, a week? And already there are threads suggesting 2 levels of MoMS for pouncing punches. I hope if this becomes a common option they nerf MoMS instead of pulling another Crane Wing.
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.I too am afraid this feat might not survive. I mean, this book has been available to subscribers for what, a week? And already there are threads suggesting 2 levels of MoMS for pouncing punches. I hope if this becomes a common option they nerf MoMS instead of pulling another Crane Wing.
Oopsie! Was that me?
In my defense, I have advocated/assumed from the start that it be unarmed only and built around that.
prototype00
|
|
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.I too am afraid this feat might not survive. I mean, this book has been available to subscribers for what, a week? And already there are threads suggesting 2 levels of MoMS for pouncing punches. I hope if this becomes a common option they nerf MoMS instead of pulling another Crane Wing.Oopsie! Was that me?
In my defense, I have advocated/assumed from the start that it be unarmed only and built around that.
prototype00
A couple other threads too. And its fine if you do, I mean that was certainly my first thought when I read Pummeling Charge. Then I remembered that this is what happened to Crane Wing.
|
|
Honestly, MoMS NEEDs to be nerfed. Giving access to a level 3 style feat that is designed for 8-12 level at level 2 is not in theme for the archetype and is ridiculously easy to abuse. Style feats are not the problem, MoMS is.
What I'd like to see is them not being able to get the 2nd feat in a chain as a bonus feat until level 6. Maybe give them 3rd at that level too. Honestly, I think its kinda sad that most people only dip into MoMS for 1 style and then pretty much forget about the really cool Fuse Style ability there.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, MoMS NEEDs to be nerfed. Giving access to a level 3 style feat that is designed for 8-12 level at level 2 is not in theme for the archetype and is ridiculously easy to abuse. Style feats are not the problem, MoMS is.What I'd like to see is them not being able to get the 2nd feat in a chain as a bonus feat until level 6. Maybe give them 3rd at that level too. Honestly, I think its kinda sad that most people only dip into MoMS for 1 style and then pretty much forget about the really cool Fuse Style ability there.
The problem is that the MoMS itself is a terrible archetype and has no purpose other than to allow other classes to rob the Monk of his class features. The way I do it in my home game is that the MoMS is out of the game entirely, Fuse Style is a base Monk feature, and any Monk can take a style feat as a bonus feat as long as they meet any Monk level requirements.
The problem is that the MoMS itself is a terrible archetype and has no purpose other than to allow other classes to rob the Monk of his class features. The way I do it in my home game is that the MoMS is out of the game entirely, Fuse Style is a base Monk feature, and any Monk can take a style feat as a bonus feat as long as they meet any Monk level requirements.Honestly, MoMS NEEDs to be nerfed. Giving access to a level 3 style feat that is designed for 8-12 level at level 2 is not in theme for the archetype and is ridiculously easy to abuse. Style feats are not the problem, MoMS is.What I'd like to see is them not being able to get the 2nd feat in a chain as a bonus feat until level 6. Maybe give them 3rd at that level too. Honestly, I think its kinda sad that most people only dip into MoMS for 1 style and then pretty much forget about the really cool Fuse Style ability there.
I like.
|
Honestly, MoMS NEEDs to be nerfed. Giving access to a level 3 style feat that is designed for 8-12 level at level 2 is not in theme for the archetype and is ridiculously easy to abuse. Style feats are not the problem, MoMS is.
Agreed. I was always of the opinion that the real problem with Crane Wing had nothing to do with the feat itself, and everything to do with the fact that there was exactly one archetype that let you use an ability intended for 5-7th level at 2nd level. With MoMS out of the way, all this early access nonsense is removed and things work like they're supposed to.
That being said, since MoMS gives up Flurry, it doesn't synergize that well with Brawling Style and probably isn't as big an issue as it's getting made out to be.
The problem is that the MoMS itself is a terrible archetype and has no purpose other than to allow other classes to rob the Monk of his class features. The way I do it in my home game is that the MoMS is out of the game entirely, Fuse Style is a base Monk feature, and any Monk can take a style feat as a bonus feat as long as they meet any Monk level requirements.Honestly, MoMS NEEDs to be nerfed. Giving access to a level 3 style feat that is designed for 8-12 level at level 2 is not in theme for the archetype and is ridiculously easy to abuse. Style feats are not the problem, MoMS is.What I'd like to see is them not being able to get the 2nd feat in a chain as a bonus feat until level 6. Maybe give them 3rd at that level too. Honestly, I think its kinda sad that most people only dip into MoMS for 1 style and then pretty much forget about the really cool Fuse Style ability there.
MoMS isn't that bad if they pick the right styles. A Dragon/Crane/Tiger style character is pretty damned good Strength!Monk as they add the Power Attack penalty to AC, which is mostly offset by Crane Style and get 1.5 strength on unarmed strikes too.
|
|
MoMS isn't that bad if they pick the right styles. A Dragon/Crane/Tiger style character is pretty damned good Strength!Monk as they add the Power Attack penalty to AC, which is mostly offset by Crane Style and get 1.5 strength on unarmed strikes too.The problem is that the MoMS itself is a terrible archetype and has no purpose other than to allow other classes to rob the Monk of his class features. The way I do it in my home game is that the MoMS is out of the game entirely, Fuse Style is a base Monk feature, and any Monk can take a style feat as a bonus feat as long as they meet any Monk level requirements.Honestly, MoMS NEEDs to be nerfed. Giving access to a level 3 style feat that is designed for 8-12 level at level 2 is not in theme for the archetype and is ridiculously easy to abuse. Style feats are not the problem, MoMS is.What I'd like to see is them not being able to get the 2nd feat in a chain as a bonus feat until level 6. Maybe give them 3rd at that level too. Honestly, I think its kinda sad that most people only dip into MoMS for 1 style and then pretty much forget about the really cool Fuse Style ability there.
I think the real issue is that it breaks the anti-dipping standards Paizo usually holds to in a pretty big way. If you aren't a spellcaster, there's almost no reason not to go MoMS. You get a nice save boost, decent skills, a bunch of free feats, early entry to your choice from a host of strong abilities, and it costs you what? Maybe a point of BAB and possibly a hit point or two?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People please... I honestly don't see the point of this problem.
1) Pummeling Strike requires Improved Unarmed Strike as well as being either a Brawler, a Monk or a Sacred Fist Warpriest, y'know, a class that uses punches and kicks as primary weapons.
2) Yes, the feat says that "you collect all your power into a single vicious and debilitating punch", but the feat doesn't require you to have arms, just like the Punishing Kick feat doesn't require you to have legs. Ok, here's a reference from a famous video game: You know a game called Street Fighter 4? You know the Focus Attack where your character winds it up and smacks your opponent so hard that he or she falls on the ground? THAT's your Pummeling Strike. Some punch, some kick, some smack using weapons (although that doesn't count as a comparison here) and T.Hawk even headbutts. Same thing here. Wanna punch? Good. Wanna kick? Good. Wanna body slam using your chest? Good, because you can.
3) You cannot using it with any manufactured weapon, so no sword, no spear, no mace, no bow, no gun, no nothing... Only unarmed strikes using your fists, feet, elbows, shoulders, knees and head(s) can be used here. No natural attack either, because not only that it doesn't count, but since you cannot make more than 1 attack with it, it's practically worthless. Go for Vital Strike instead.
4) The ONLY way to use Pummeling Strike with weapons is if your character obtains the ability to use abilities that require unarmed strikes while using weapons, such as using Stunning Fist with a nunchuck without having the Ki Focus enhancement or being able to use the Gorgon's Fist feat using a sai.
So far, the brawler, the monk and the sacred fist cannot do so except for damage output.
|
|
People please... I honestly don't see the point of this problem.
1) Pummeling Strike requires Improved Unarmed Strike ***
Note that I agree that it's intended to work with unarmed strikes, but I wanted to point out that the above portion of your quote means nothing at all from a RAI or RAW perspective.
Improved Unarmed Strike is a prerequisite on virtually all Style chains (I think there is now one that technically doesn't have it, but it does have another prereq whose own prereqs include IUAS), regardless of whether they're primarily intended for weapons or UAS. IUAS is basically the feat that says "I have martial arts training", and that's why it's a prereq. It does not in any way reflect on the actual intent of the feat to either include or exclude use with weapons.
People please... I honestly don't see the point of this problem.
1) Pummeling Strike requires Improved Unarmed Strike ***Note that I agree that it's intended to work with unarmed strikes, but I wanted to point out that the above portion of your quote means nothing at all from a RAI or RAW perspective.
Improved Unarmed Strike is a prerequisite on virtually all Style chains (I think there is now one that technically doesn't have it, but it does have another prereq whose own prereqs include IUAS), regardless of whether they're primarily intended for weapons or UAS. IUAS is basically the feat that says "I have martial arts training", and that's why it's a prereq. It does not in any way reflect on the actual intent of the feat to either include or exclude use with weapons.
.
Just like how combat expertise is a prereq for so many combat maneuver feats and other combat feats. It's the prereq saying your smart enough, or practiced enough to learn this.
People please... I honestly don't see the point of this problem.
1) Pummeling Strike requires Improved Unarmed Strike ***Note that I agree that it's intended to work with unarmed strikes, but I wanted to point out that the above portion of your quote means nothing at all from a RAI or RAW perspective.
Improved Unarmed Strike is a prerequisite on virtually all Style chains (I think there is now one that technically doesn't have it, but it does have another prereq whose own prereqs include IUAS), regardless of whether they're primarily intended for weapons or UAS. IUAS is basically the feat that says "I have martial arts training", and that's why it's a prereq. It does not in any way reflect on the actual intent of the feat to either include or exclude use with weapons.
Just for one particularly silly example, Perfect Strike has IUS as a prereq but cannot actually be used with unarmed strikes at all.
The prereq means nothing for RAI.
Honestly, MoMS NEEDs to be nerfed. Giving access to a level 3 style feat that is designed for 8-12 level at level 2 is not in theme for the archetype and is ridiculously easy to abuse. Style feats are not the problem, MoMS is.
That's what people tried saying back in January when Crane Wing was killed off because of MoMS dips being used to ruin level one & two scenarios in PFS. The reasonable solution was to either blanket restrict MoMS ability to grab second and third feats in the chains, or for PFS to ban the MoMS entirely until such time as they stopped writing every single low-level fight the same way.
The only reason MoMS dips haven't seen much abuse outside the Crane chain is that, until now, all the style chains (except Crane for Dex fighters) have been pretty weak.
I fully expect them to nerf Pummelling Style for the second printing. But unless Paizo changes their errata policy (which all the editing mistakes in the ACG may finally force them to do), we won't see any actual text changes for at least two and a half years, maybe longer. What we'll get is a FAQ that says you can punch with a headbutt or an elbow, but not with a katar or gauntlet.
Honestly, MoMS NEEDs to be nerfed. Giving access to a level 3 style feat that is designed for 8-12 level at level 2 is not in theme for the archetype and is ridiculously easy to abuse. Style feats are not the problem, MoMS is.That's what people tried saying back in January when Crane Wing was killed off because of MoMS dips being used to ruin level one & two scenarios in PFS. The reasonable solution was to either blanket restrict MoMS ability to grab second and third feats in the chains, or for PFS to ban the MoMS entirely until such time as they stopped writing every single low-level fight the same way.
The only reason MoMS dips haven't seen much abuse outside the Crane chain is that, until now, all the style chains (except Crane for Dex fighters) have been pretty weak.
I fully expect them to nerf Pummelling Style for the second printing. But unless Paizo changes their errata policy (which all the editing mistakes in the ACG may finally force them to do), we won't see any actual text changes for at least two and a half years, maybe longer. What we'll get is a FAQ that says you can punch with a headbutt or an elbow, but not with a katar or gauntlet.
Not necessarily, we may get a FAQrrata that says something like...
What weapons can I use with the Pummeling Style feat?
The wording on this feat is a little unclear, but the feat is intended to only be used with unarmed strikes.
Change 'attacks' to 'unarmed attacks' in the second sentence of the Benefits section.
This change will be added in the next printing of the Advanced Class Guide.
This is, of course, assuming that it only works with unarmed strikes. If it's meant to work with more weapons than that, then it would be something similar to the above. They've done it before with an issue on recently released books, so this is probably what will happen.
People please... I honestly don't see the point of this problem.
1) Pummeling Strike requires Improved Unarmed Strike ***Note that I agree that it's intended to work with unarmed strikes, but I wanted to point out that the above portion of your quote means nothing at all from a RAI or RAW perspective.
Improved Unarmed Strike is a prerequisite on virtually all Style chains (I think there is now one that technically doesn't have it, but it does have another prereq whose own prereqs include IUAS), regardless of whether they're primarily intended for weapons or UAS. IUAS is basically the feat that says "I have martial arts training", and that's why it's a prereq. It does not in any way reflect on the actual intent of the feat to either include or exclude use with weapons.
The feat requires Improved Unarmed Strike, requires to be in classes that use specifically unarmed strikes and the description is clearly intended for unarmed strikes.
You cannot be any clearer than that.
|
I like.The problem is that the MoMS itself is a terrible archetype and has no purpose other than to allow other classes to rob the Monk of his class features. The way I do it in my home game is that the MoMS is out of the game entirely, Fuse Style is a base Monk feature, and any Monk can take a style feat as a bonus feat as long as they meet any Monk level requirements.Honestly, MoMS NEEDs to be nerfed. Giving access to a level 3 style feat that is designed for 8-12 level at level 2 is not in theme for the archetype and is ridiculously easy to abuse. Style feats are not the problem, MoMS is.What I'd like to see is them not being able to get the 2nd feat in a chain as a bonus feat until level 6. Maybe give them 3rd at that level too. Honestly, I think its kinda sad that most people only dip into MoMS for 1 style and then pretty much forget about the really cool Fuse Style ability there.
Me too. This seems like a good solution.
The feat requires Improved Unarmed Strike, requires to be in classes that use specifically unarmed strikes and the description is clearly intended for unarmed strikes.
You cannot be any clearer than that.
90% of the style feats require Improved Unarmed Strike, including styles that do not focus on making unarmed attacks like Crane Style or Snapping Turtle Style. Improved Unarmed Strike is typically used as the "I have martial arts training"-requirement for styles, and is not a factor.
You do not need a level in either monk or brawler to take Pummeling Style or Pummeling Charge, please reread the prerequisites and note the semicolon. Any class can take Pummeling Style if they have IUS and a base attack bonus of +6.
The description is, as has been noted many times, ambiguous. "Punch" could refer to fist punches only (disallowing a host of other unarmed strike options), unarmed strikes in general (which would include elbow strikes, kicks and headbutts), attacks with a variety of weaponry that relies on punching (such as gauntlets and the cestus), or simply be a flavour term like "blow" or "strike" with no rule effect at all. I find the idea that "punch" is clearly intended to work with headbutts but not with brass knuckles or a punching dagger difficult to comprehend.
If it really is intended to work with only unarmed strikes then that would be extremely easy to clarify, as Tels noted above. That'd probably be a fairly easy way to "make it clearer". Personally I wonder if pummeling style went through revisions where it was changed from between unarmed strikes and close weapons to better accommodate the brawler, and we got an incomplete version of the feat.
And yes, the MoMS is a serious hamper on style feats. It's an easily available and extremely attractive dip option for every martial except the monk - who's meant to be the go-to class for using combat styles. It exasperated the problems with Crane, it's exasperating the problems with Pummeling, and I suspect it's going to keep popping up every time we get a new good style added.
Fine, ask them away... but I'm pretty sure that was intended for unarmed strikes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do the people who advocate an "only punches work" side of the argument also require only hand attacks when using the following feats: Crusader's Fist, Dispelling Fist, Elemental Fist, Gorgon's Fist, Nightmare Fist, One Finger, Stunning Fist, Unblinking Flame Fist?
What about feet attacks and Punishing Kick or Vicious Stomp?
"only punches work" like myself assume only unarmed attacks. that seems to me to be the most natural way to read the feat, is that it applies only to "punches" ie unarmed attacks, unlike most other games pathfinder treats kicks, punches, head butts, as just unarmed attack, and aren't given specific technique bonuses common in other games. as currently written i just can't see the interperatation that it applies to anything other than unarmed attacks.
you could make the argument that it should apply to any weapon that is flurriable, but outside of that i'm not see the case in controversy.
Restricting it to unarmed strikes might stop other punching weapons from being used. Brass Knuckles would not work, while Gauntlets and the Cestus would still work. It feels wrong to exclude weapons like the brass knuckles from pummeling style.
you could make the argument that it should apply to any weapon that is flurriable, but outside of that i'm not see the case in controversy.
I don't see why you'd limit it to 'flurriable'. You can get into the feat with a straight fighter with one feat at 6th level. (Improved Unarmed Strike; base attack bonus +6). No flurry needed. If there was that limitation, the +6 requirement would be unneeded. A close weapon restriction would make more sense if you're trying to emulate a punch.
I can understand someone limiting it in their game to unarmed if they want to go along with the fluff. I just don't see the RAW being that limiting. If they really meant it that way, they really need an FAQ/errata to change "one devastating punch" to 'one devastating unarmed attack'.
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...
Joke aside point taken but it's clear this feat is for unarmed strikes only and if I'm DMing that's how it will be used.
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...Joke aside point taken but it's clear this feat is for unarmed strikes only and if I'm DMing that's how it will be used.
If I had to guess I'd say unarmed and close weapons could easily fit the RAI. Other weapons are less likely.
It's too bad the RAW doesn't back up any possible RAI. Like SO many other things rushed to make Gencon...
So I had a question about pummeling strike and crit.
Do every attack need to have their crit confirmed?
No, one confirm for the whole thing to crit, as worded for now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
other musings on pummeling style/charge
So how does this interact with things like quick dirty trick, where your trade out parts of your full-attack for other affects?
my guess is that it doesn't interact at all. You get no single attacks to trade for the dirty trick. All the rolls and damage are all part of the same full round action and you only have one attack in the end so even is it did work, you'd have to trade out your single attack for a dirty trick so it would be a waste of time.
|
my guess is that it doesn't interact at all. You get no single attacks to trade for the dirty trick. All the rolls and damage are all part of the same full round actionother musings on pummeling style/charge
So how does this interact with things like quick dirty trick, where your trade out parts of your full-attack for other affects?
This.
my guess is that it doesn't interact at all. You get no single attacks to trade for the dirty trick. All the rolls and damage are all part of the same full round action and you only have one attack in the end so even is it did work, you'd have to trade out your single attack for a dirty trick so it would be a waste of time.other musings on pummeling style/charge
So how does this interact with things like quick dirty trick, where your trade out parts of your full-attack for other affects?
I'd agree on that. Pummeling Style is its own special type of action. While you get as many attacks as you would from using a full attack, it's not a full attack, so you can't substitute maneuvers for attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
99 flags! I know it's meaningless, but it'd be nice to hit 100.
:-)
Ok, done. ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does Pummeling Style Work With All Weapons?]101 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pummeling Style 101. I would absolutely take this course in Monk College. :P