[ACG] Does Pummeling Style Work With All Weapons?


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 404 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Metaphorical Punches?

Maybe that's what you're "off-hand" is doing when you are trying to TWF with a Greatsword and a Kick.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rules as written it seems pretty clear that it works with all weapons.

I would argue that rules as intended was that it would be used for flurry, and that it was clearly meant to be used in that fashion rather than with, say, a greataxe. This isn't from the "punch" text, this is from the pre-reqs as well as the flavor of the ability as a whole. I don't think using it with, say, a big weapon will prove to be broken and I might even allow it, but I think it will get most of it's effectiveness with a flurry.


I dunno, all you need is one crit in all the attacks you make with a scythe, and everything you just did for damage is multiplied by at least 4.


You know, combining scythe (or katar) Pummeling Style and a TWF kukri butterfly sting buddy could be interesting. He foregoes a kukri crit to make every roll in your full attack lineup critical hits.

Truth be told I'm kind of hoping they tone down the critical hit mechanics for Pummeling Style. Even if they completely cut out the crit section it's still a great feat chain.


While it does based on RAW let you use any weapon it doesn't seem intended to.

That said this feat is a special kind of powerful if it works with weapons since it gives all classes pounce for 3 feats. (IUAS, PS, Pummeling charge). That's really, really strong.

The pummeling strike feat itself is a bigger issue. If yoou have a 15-20% crit range there is less than a 20% chance when you get the feat that you will not crit. Double damage on average is really broken. Additionally if you can use it with falcata the damage increase is even higher. It gives you nigh vorpal charges. To put this in perspective it effectively makes all weapons lances while flurrying.


There is no reason at all that Pummeling Style should be patently better than Deadshot Deed or Deadly Shuriken.

Let it all stack for a crit but drop all the static bonuses.

Done.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Deadshot Deed is not as good as Pummeling Style because Guns>>>>>Unarmed Strikes. Deadly Shuriken is pretty terrible, granted.

If Pummeling Style is set to Unarmed Only, it will be good as is with the crit section as is. If other weapons with better crit profiles than unarmed strike is allowed, then the feat should be scaled back to match Deadshot Deed.


I really hate when they make feats like this with crap wording that allows exploitation. To be honest I almost think they do it on purpose... However, if only meant for unarmed strikes it's very nice but not overpowering. With improved crit an unarmed strike is only a 19-20 x2 which is not ridiculous and does make the extra mobility of a monk useful. When you start applying weapons with expanded crits.. it gets crazy. That being said.. if you are only looking at monk weapons most of them are crap with damage and crit threat range for(I believe) the same reasons with flurry of blows. To be honest I think this is what they intended and yes, I do think you are a "shameless munchkin" trying to apply it to a lance or some other such weapon. That being said it's your GM's job to use the nerf bat with impunity.


I do think it's amazing that RAW apparently no longer means "Rules As Written" but "those selected parts of the written rules that I feel are the crunchiest."

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's very important to consider the RAI over RAW for niche issues like this.

Yes, by RAW, you can use a Lance with Pummeling Charge. But you're kind of a jerk for doing so, when it's pretty obvious the Intention is NOT that you get to PUMMELLANCEPOUNCE every time you can charge.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:

I do think it's amazing that RAW apparently no longer means "Rules As Written" but "those selected parts of the written rules that I feel are the crunchiest."

No, not really. The issue is there is NO rule for 'punch'. As such, it brings nothing to the table in a RAW argument. Is it bad to point out to the people that make these feats that their wording is bad and needs fixed? (assuming it's actually meant for unarmed attacks) I don't see how.

Seranov: The thing is we don't really know what the RAI is. It seems like it's made for monks and such but does that limit it to unarmed? Monk weapons? Items you can flurry with? Close weapons? It'd be one thing is style feats where only unarmed but they aren't. We really need input from the rules people.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ACG pg. 140 wrote:

Pummeling Style*

Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +6,
brawler’s flurry†, or flurry of blows
Pool all unarmed strikes into a single powerful blow

I personally don't see a problem with extending it to Close Weapons to let the Brawlers have their fun, too, but come on. It's pretty damn obvious that this is the actual intention of the feat.


graystone wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

I do think it's amazing that RAW apparently no longer means "Rules As Written" but "those selected parts of the written rules that I feel are the crunchiest."

No, not really. The issue is there is NO rule for 'punch'. As such, it brings nothing to the table in a RAW argument. Is it bad to point out to the people that make these feats that their wording is bad and needs fixed? (assuming it's actually meant for unarmed attacks) I don't see how.

There's no definition in the rules for a lot of words, which means that the normal English definition is what is meant.

There's certainly nothing wrong with pointing out that something is badly worded. In this case I agree that they probably meant Unarmed Strike, but what they wrote is slightly different than that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

I do think it's amazing that RAW apparently no longer means "Rules As Written" but "those selected parts of the written rules that I feel are the crunchiest."

No, not really. The issue is there is NO rule for 'punch'. As such, it brings nothing to the table in a RAW argument.

Have to agree on this. If we assume punch is strict rules text, it has a bunch of different ways it could be defined.

1) Unarmed Strikes only.

2) Unarmed Strikes with a hand only, no kicks or headbutts.

3) Unarmed strikes with a hand, or any weapon used to punch (Brass knuckles, Cestus, Punching Dagger).

4) Any weapon that can be described as "punching through" an enemy (AKA most of them).

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

It's not JUST punches. It's any unarmed strike. It is poorly worded, and they forgot to put in the part where it actually specifies it, but it's all unarmed strikes.

Allowing more options from the Close Weapons category (the vast majority of which are 20/x2 or 19-20/x2) is hardly going to make the feat ridiculous. But once the Scimitar/Falcata/Katana b~!@&@+$ starts happening, that's when the feat starts to be a little stupid.

Spoiler:
On a vaguely unrelated note, WTB a deity with falcata as a favored weapon.


I still don't see anywhere in the wording that makes it RAW useable with a weapon, It says 'punch' which if I'm going to bring the rules hammer down, I'm saying ONLY the five knuckle variety weapon is usable with the feat. It probably 'should' read unarmed strike, but even then I'm still cool with the feat NEEDING to be an unarmed strike with a 'fist'/'hand' to = punch.


Seranov wrote:
ACG pg. 140 wrote:

Pummeling Style*

Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +6,
brawler’s flurry†, or flurry of blows
Pool all unarmed strikes into a single powerful blow
I personally don't see a problem with extending it to Close Weapons to let the Brawlers have their fun, too, but come on. It's pretty damn obvious that this is the actual intention of the feat.

It's too bad the actual feat doesn't say that. We've gotten plenty of feats that haven't matched the condensed listing. We don't know if the same person made both or which one came first. This makes it extremely hard to say which one is the intention of the final product.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

With the condensed version stating "unarmed strikes" and the long version saying "punch" it's pretty clear what the intention was.

You don't punch people with swords, with axes, with lances. You can use them to punch holes (which is a very different action) in people, but you cannot physically punch with a weapon. The argument you are making may be solid in another language, but in English, punching is the act of using your fist to hit something. Now, of course it's also pretty clear that you are not required to make a Pummeling Style/Charge attack with your hands, but the general intention is pretty clear: you're supposed to be using your body, not a weapon.

I personally have no problem with the feat being left to unarmed strikes and close weapons, which I have houseruled in my own campaign. But if one of my players came up to me and said "can I use a katana with this?" I'd straight out tell them no.

I am mostly worried that Paizo is going to go ahead and completely break Pummeling Style once people start running around in PFS with scythes and scimitars with Pummeling Charge. I would rather unarmed fighters don't get screwed over because of some unclear wording.


Seranov wrote:
(...)but you cannot physically punch with a weapon. The argument you are making may be solid in another language, but in English, punching is the act of using your fist to hit something. Now, of course it's also pretty clear that you are not required to make a Pummeling Style/Charge attack with your hands, but the general intention is pretty clear: you're supposed to be using your body, not a weapon.(...)

You absolutely can "punch" with numerous weapons, both in Pathfinder and in the real world. Brass knuckles, for example. The act of punching involves making a specific motion with your fist - it doesn't matter if your fist is encased in a gauntlet at the time, it's still a punch.

I'm not hugely convinced by the feat blurb argument since there are numerous feats where the feat blurb can be misleading or even flat out wrong as to how the feat works - I've seen this quite a few times when players read the blurb and then only skim the actual feat text. For all we know Pummeling Style was originally meant to be limited to unarmed strikes, then they realized they were shafting brawlers and tried to "open it up" to other weapons, but forgot to change the feat blurb.

What we do know is that the feat is ambiguous as written, so clarification would be awesome - hopefully a FAQ on Pummeling Style is high on the priority list for the FAQ team.


Seranov wrote:
With the condensed version stating "unarmed strikes" and the long version saying "punch" it's pretty clear what the intention was.

Not really. If someone different from the people that made the feat made the condensed feat list they could have just assumed an unarmed strike. As I said above, I've seen many of the condensed feat descriptions be off and get missed in editing.

the only thing I can conclude is that it's completely unclear what they intended. With the ease an actual game term could have been used in the feat (unarmed strikes), it just leaves me wondering what they where thinking.

Shadow Lodge

Out of curiosity, how would one calculate DPR for a pummeling style attack if it worked with all weapons? Would Falchion Fred be better off if he took this and became Scythe Steve?

Dark Archive

Kudaku wrote:

You absolutely can "punch" with numerous weapons, both in Pathfinder and in the real world. Brass knuckles, for example. The act of punching involves making a specific motion with your fist - it doesn't matter if your fist is encased in a gauntlet at the time, it's still a punch.

I'm not hugely convinced by the feat blurb argument since there are numerous feats where the feat blurb can be misleading or even flat out wrong. For all we know Pummeling Style was originally meant to be limited to unarmed strikes, then they realized they were shafting brawlers and tried to "open it up" to other weapons, but forgot to change the feat blurb.

What we do know is that the feat is ambiguous as written, so clarification would be awesome - hopefully a FAQ on Pummeling Style is high on the priority list for the FAQ team.

The whole point is that it specifically wouldn't include weapons like lances, scimitars or other kinds of weapons that don't fall into the category of "things you put on your hands and punch people with". The kind of weapons people would use to make this feat seem absolutely ridiculous (read: anything with a wide crit ranger or a big crit multiplier).

I don't have a single problem with allowing all unarmed strikes and close weapons when using Pummeling Style. But since the RAW doesn't have any such restrictions (due to not specifically stating it needs to use those types of weapons), there are people who will abuse the unclear wording, and go against the intention.

Or are you going to seriously suggest that this feat was designed to be used with greataxes and fachions and such?


Seranov wrote:
Kudaku wrote:

You absolutely can "punch" with numerous weapons, both in Pathfinder and in the real world. Brass knuckles, for example. The act of punching involves making a specific motion with your fist - it doesn't matter if your fist is encased in a gauntlet at the time, it's still a punch.

I'm not hugely convinced by the feat blurb argument since there are numerous feats where the feat blurb can be misleading or even flat out wrong. For all we know Pummeling Style was originally meant to be limited to unarmed strikes, then they realized they were shafting brawlers and tried to "open it up" to other weapons, but forgot to change the feat blurb.

What we do know is that the feat is ambiguous as written, so clarification would be awesome - hopefully a FAQ on Pummeling Style is high on the priority list for the FAQ team.

The whole point is that it specifically wouldn't include weapons like lances, scimitars or other kinds of weapons that don't fall into the category of "things you put on your hands and punch people with". The kind of weapons people would use to make this feat seem absolutely ridiculous (read: anything with a wide crit ranger or a big crit multiplier).

I don't have a single problem with allowing all unarmed strikes and close weapons when using Pummeling Style. But since the RAW doesn't have any such restrictions (due to not specifically stating it needs to use those types of weapons), there are people who will abuse the unclear wording, and go against the intention.

Or are you going to seriously suggest that this feat was designed to be used with greataxes and fachions and such?

Just to point out, close group contains crits of X3 and 19-20 X2. That and two classes can take the base damage for those (max 2d10).


Seranov wrote:

The whole point is that it specifically wouldn't include weapons like lances, scimitars or other kinds of weapons that don't fall into the category of "things you put on your hands and punch people with". The kind of weapons people would use to make this feat seem absolutely ridiculous (read: anything with a wide crit ranger or a big crit multiplier).

I don't have a single problem with allowing all unarmed strikes and close weapons when using Pummeling Style. But since the RAW doesn't have any such restrictions (due to not specifically stating it needs to use those types of weapons), there are people who will abuse the unclear wording, and go against the intention.

Or are you going to seriously suggest that this feat was designed to be used with greataxes and fachions and such?

I'm not sure there is a huge difference between using a greataxe, a falchion, a cestus, a katar or a punching dagger. The latter three are all "punching" weapons, and all have better threat range or critical hit multiplier (Katar is x4!) than unarmed strikes - the close weapon group has plenty of weapons that can make the pummeling style seem 'absolutely ridiculous'. If the feat is intended to be limited to unarmed strikes for mechanical reasons (normal weapons would be OP because of the crit mechanic) then Close weapons should be ruled out as well.

Personally I hope they revisit (and scale back) the critical hit mechanic to simply multiply that hit instead of EVERY hit, but reword the feat to work with close weapons. I also hope they add other ways of getting a similar effect for characters that use other weapons - I'm really tired of seeing every barbarian in existence take the pounce rage power at level 10, or all the other martial classes rely on various crutches like the quick runner's shirt or the stagger-proof boots to move and get full attacks.


I hope they just change it to monk weapons and UAS. Monk weapons at the least should be included because it's otherwise a somewhat narrow style even for monks.


Undone wrote:
I hope they just change it to monk weapons and UAS. Monk weapons at the least should be included because it's otherwise a somewhat narrow style even for monks.

I'd personally rather it be all weapons so that all martials more or less have access to pounce at the later end of their careers.

+1 for taking the crit shenanigans off it though.


Clustered shot mechanic is already pretty cool, I wouldn't mind the crit stuff being changed to work on individual parts.


Scavion wrote:
Undone wrote:
I hope they just change it to monk weapons and UAS. Monk weapons at the least should be included because it's otherwise a somewhat narrow style even for monks.

I'd personally rather it be all weapons so that all martials more or less have access to pounce at the later end of their careers.

+1 for taking the crit shenanigans off it though.

I wouldn't mind giving martials access to pounce at the mid-late game, but I'm not sure Pummeling Style is the best option. If nothing else, IUS as a prerequisite is harsh pill to swallow if you're not planning on using unarmed attacks and the MoMS synergy is yet again going to make the style come online much earlier than it is intended to.

Ideally I'd like to see a separate feat be made explicitly so that martials are able to take advantage of full attacks AND be able to move more than five feet a round. Pounce is a work-around, but it doesn't really solve the underlying problem.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kudaku wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Undone wrote:
I hope they just change it to monk weapons and UAS. Monk weapons at the least should be included because it's otherwise a somewhat narrow style even for monks.

I'd personally rather it be all weapons so that all martials more or less have access to pounce at the later end of their careers.

+1 for taking the crit shenanigans off it though.

I wouldn't mind giving martials access to pounce at the mid-late game, but I'm not sure Pummeling Style is the best option. If nothing else, IUS as a prerequisite is harsh pill to swallow if you're not planning on using unarmed attacks and the MoMS synergy is yet again going to make the style come online much earlier than it is intended to.

Ideally I'd like to see a separate feat be made explicitly so that martials are able to take advantage of full attacks AND be able to move more than five feet a round. Pounce is a work-around, but it doesn't really solve the underlying problem.

So... something like:

Shifting Skirmish
You are adept at moving around a battlefield, unleashing your attacks across multiple targets.
Prerequisite: BAB 6, Mobility

Benefit: For each additional attack you can make in a round, you can take a 5-ft step. These 5-ft steps are in addition to the one you can make if you otherwise haven't moved and can be made at any time, before or after attacks, or even between attacks during a full attack action. Extra attacks granted from wielding multiple weapons or effects such as the haste spell grant additional 5-ft steps as well.

=====================

Such a feat would let people move more during a fight. The more attacks you can make, the more often you can move. So a Monk that flurries would benefit and be able to make multiple steps each round, or a Ranger with TWF, or even a guy who just has a high BAB and haste.


Kudaku wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Undone wrote:
I hope they just change it to monk weapons and UAS. Monk weapons at the least should be included because it's otherwise a somewhat narrow style even for monks.

I'd personally rather it be all weapons so that all martials more or less have access to pounce at the later end of their careers.

+1 for taking the crit shenanigans off it though.

I wouldn't mind giving martials access to pounce at the mid-late game, but I'm not sure Pummeling Style is the best option. If nothing else, IUS as a prerequisite is harsh pill to swallow if you're not planning on using unarmed attacks and the MoMS synergy is yet again going to make the style come online much earlier than it is intended to.

Ideally I'd like to see a separate feat be made explicitly so that martials are able to take advantage of full attacks AND be able to move more than five feet a round. Pounce is a work-around, but it doesn't really solve the underlying problem.

Anyone that wants Pummeling Style can just take Unarmed Fighter 1/(normal monk 1, sacred fist 1, brawler 2) to snag the Pummeling Style/Pummeling Charge at second (3rd for brawler), then build their martial how they want. It's not a harsh pill at all that way.


Tels wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Undone wrote:
I hope they just change it to monk weapons and UAS. Monk weapons at the least should be included because it's otherwise a somewhat narrow style even for monks.

I'd personally rather it be all weapons so that all martials more or less have access to pounce at the later end of their careers.

+1 for taking the crit shenanigans off it though.

I wouldn't mind giving martials access to pounce at the mid-late game, but I'm not sure Pummeling Style is the best option. If nothing else, IUS as a prerequisite is harsh pill to swallow if you're not planning on using unarmed attacks and the MoMS synergy is yet again going to make the style come online much earlier than it is intended to.

Ideally I'd like to see a separate feat be made explicitly so that martials are able to take advantage of full attacks AND be able to move more than five feet a round. Pounce is a work-around, but it doesn't really solve the underlying problem.

So... something like:

Shifting Skirmish
You are adept at moving around a battlefield, unleashing your attacks across multiple targets.
Prerequisite: BAB 6, Mobility

Benefit: For each additional attack you can make in a round, you can take a 5-ft step. These 5-ft steps are in addition to the one you can make if you otherwise haven't moved and can be made at any time, before or after attacks, or even between attacks during a full attack action. Extra attacks granted from wielding multiple weapons or effects such as the haste spell grant additional 5-ft steps as well.

=====================

Such a feat would let people move more during a fight. The more attacks you can make, the more often you can move. So a Monk that flurries would benefit and be able to make multiple steps each round, or a Ranger with TWF, or even a guy who just has a high BAB and haste.

Make this man a designer.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:

I do think it's amazing that RAW apparently no longer means "Rules As Written" but "those selected parts of the written rules that I feel are the crunchiest."

Actually, now, rules do not even need to written, to be RAW.

Seriously.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

I do think it's amazing that RAW apparently no longer means "Rules As Written" but "those selected parts of the written rules that I feel are the crunchiest."

Actually, now, rules do not even need to written, to be RAW.

Seriously.

If the Courageous FAQ thread has taught us anything...@_@


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

I do think it's amazing that RAW apparently no longer means "Rules As Written" but "those selected parts of the written rules that I feel are the crunchiest."

Actually, now, rules do not even need to written, to be RAW.

Seriously.

If the Courageous FAQ thread has taught us anything...@_@

More the metaphorical 'hand' FAQ.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
Deadshot Deed is not as good as Pummeling Style because Guns>>>>>Unarmed Strikes.

Who needs the deadshot deed? Just use Pummeling Style to punch bullets through your target's ribcage.


graystone wrote:
Scavion wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

I do think it's amazing that RAW apparently no longer means "Rules As Written" but "those selected parts of the written rules that I feel are the crunchiest."

Actually, now, rules do not even need to written, to be RAW.

Seriously.

If the Courageous FAQ thread has taught us anything...@_@
More the metaphorical 'hand' FAQ.

[Snark]

It was a metaphor all along. Anything that lets you pummel is stylish. Anything that's stylish allows this feat. Therefor I will allow pummeling time stops on a full attack action.[/Snark]

That said I hope they do FAQ it since it's definitely not RAI that you can pummel outside of possibly monk weapons.


Devil's Advocate wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Deadshot Deed is not as good as Pummeling Style because Guns>>>>>Unarmed Strikes.
Who needs the deadshot deed? Just use Pummeling Style to punch bullets through your target's ribcage.

I have a gunslinger (technically bolt ace) who took it, even though he has deadshoot deed simply because it is straight out better.


Ok maybe this is just me but we need to get an FAQ on this pretty soon.

Personally I would like it to be changed so that only a Monk or Brawler can use it. (Give the monk something nice) and restrict it solely to unarmed damage, Monk weapons, or weapons of the CLOSE weapon group.

Scarab Sages

Frankly, after thinking it over, I want it Unarmed ONLY. Close weapons mean you have expanded crit ranges or multipliers and makes the all attacks crit way too powerful. And then you have the issue of someone with a Cestus in one hand and a Katar in the other for different crit profiles.

Brawlers can use it unamed. Monks can use it unarmed.

If you use it with monk or close weapons, then the crit part of the feat needs to be nerfed, and unarmed fighters need the crit love.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:

Frankly, after thinking it over, I want it Unarmed ONLY. Close weapons mean you have expanded crit ranges or multipliers and makes the all attacks crit way too powerful. And then you have the issue of someone with a Cestus in one hand and a Katar in the other for different crit profiles.

Brawlers can use it unamed. Monks can use it unarmed.

If you use it with monk or close weapons, then the crit part of the feat needs to be nerfed, and unarmed fighters need the crit love.

Or we can let martial characters have nice things.

Silver Crusade

I feel this specifically came to exist purely because of the creation of Brawlers and Sacred Fist Warpriests; and the desperate cries of agony of the Monk class. Thanks for the new Unarmed Pounce!

It should apply only to Unarmed.

Either way, if you take this to a GM, he'll say it's either for Unarmed or Close Range + Unarmed. Everything needs to be within good reason.

Grand Lodge

I too, feel it should have some limit on the weapons that can be used.

Sovereign Court

Shawn k. Reynolds can you please weigh in? I require clarity before Friday's game. Thanks so very much.
Pax

Silver Crusade

SKR no longer works for Paizo.

Grand Lodge

Pax Veritas wrote:

Shawn k. Reynolds can you please weigh in? I require clarity before Friday's game. Thanks so very much.

Pax

That's Sean, and he does not work for Paizo anymore.

Sovereign Court

Sorry for the typo. When/why did he leave? I swear I thought I just saw him last week at GENCON. Was I seeing things?

Grand Lodge

Pax Veritas wrote:
Sorry for the typo. When/why did he leave? I swear I thought I just saw him last week at GENCON. Was I seeing things?

You could have. He still does other things, and shows up to conventions.


Pax Veritas wrote:
Sorry for the typo. When/why did he leave? I swear I thought I just saw him last week at GENCON. Was I seeing things?

He announced his leaving Paizo back in February.


Though SKR might be useful for semi-official response on the matter. He's no longer a Paizo employee, but he was still one of the designers on the ACG so he'd probably be able to contribute something to the discussion, even if it wouldn't be an official FAQ/errata.

Scarab Sages

Undone wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:

Frankly, after thinking it over, I want it Unarmed ONLY. Close weapons mean you have expanded crit ranges or multipliers and makes the all attacks crit way too powerful. And then you have the issue of someone with a Cestus in one hand and a Katar in the other for different crit profiles.

Brawlers can use it unamed. Monks can use it unarmed.

If you use it with monk or close weapons, then the crit part of the feat needs to be nerfed, and unarmed fighters need the crit love.

Or we can let martial characters have nice things.

Having it work with unarmed only IS allowing martials to have nice things.

Pummeling Style with Kurkis is more powerful than allowing Improved Critical and Keen to stack that was nerfed in the change from 3.0 to 3.5.

It's ok for unarmed strikes because they have a terrible crit profile, but if you have a good crit profile, the vast majority of your pummeling style attacks will crit.

If it is allow to work with other weapons than unarmed strikes, then it needs to remove the crit language from the feat and that sucks for unarmed characters.

One thing that might work is to allow it to work with other weapons, but because the style is about wild swings, any weapon used in pummeling style is treated at if it's crit profile was x2 for Pummeling Style attacks.

251 to 300 of 404 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / [ACG] Does Pummeling Style Work With All Weapons? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.