[ACG] Does Pummeling Style Work With All Weapons?


Rules Questions

301 to 350 of 404 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Imbicatus wrote:
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.

Honestly I don't eve care about the crit aspect I just care about the pounce aspect. I'd rather they do away with the crit aspect (it's clunky) and just do monk weapons.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

So where are we with this solution?

My first though was to ask Sean K. Reynolds, well.. because he was awesome and would always pop in to clarify things. Who else is active on the boards these days...

OKAY, here are three options PLEASE VOTE:

Option 1: The feat states punch, but not unarmed strike as most feats do when limiting it to a punch, so the feat is only usable with unarmed strikes.

Option 2: The feat states punch and flurry of blows (punch is just flavor but not specifying unarmed strike) so the feat can be used with any monk weapon that flurrys.

Option 3: No written limit to weapons usable...not even limited to weapon categories.

I'm hoping there's a great GM out there who can give me their vote, and why they think that option is 99% near the Rules As Written/Rules As Intended.

Thanks,
Pax


Option number 2.


What about close weapons Pax.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pax Veritas wrote:

So where are we with this solution?

My first though was to ask Sean K. Reynolds, well.. because he was awesome and would always pop in to clarify things. Who else is active on the boards these days...

OKAY, here are three options PLEASE VOTE:

Option 1: The feat states punch, but not unarmed strike as most feats do when limiting it to a punch, so the feat is only usable with unarmed strikes.

Option 2: The feat states punch and flurry of blows (punch is just flavor but not specifying unarmed strike) so the feat can be used with any monk weapon that flurrys.

Option 3: No written limit to weapons usable...not even limited to weapon categories.

I'm hoping there's a great GM out there who can give me their vote, and why they think that option is 99% near the Rules As Written/Rules As Intended.

Thanks,
Pax

Option 4: "Punch", as ill-defined as it is, is rules text and Pummeling Style works with any weapon that you punch with, including unarmed strikes, cesti, punching daggers, etc. Refer to the Tengu Swordtrained ability, where they are listed as being proficient with all "sword-like" weapons. Sword isn't specifically defined in Pathfinder but the game assumes you know what a sword is (though they're nice enough to give a few examples).


RAI Should be 1 in my opinion. The higher crit weapons really throw this ability out of whack IMO. With unarmed strike it seems fair.

RAW to me appears to be 3.


The crit thing should really get errata'd out. Clustered Shots and Pounce is enough on it's own to make the chain very desirable to any Two-Weapon Fighter. Leave the crit fishing to the kukri slayers.

Silver Crusade

How much do you want to bet that they're not posting a FAQ about this yet because they're letting us come up with all the different "what if" scenarios and their repercussions? That way they get to make sure everything gets thought through as much as possible.

That's what I would certainly do if I were them. Let the vast hive mind of the internet generate all possible outcomes and then just choose the one that seems to work the best. There's bound to be an idea/consequence in a situation like this that will be brought up that a team, no matter how skilled, would overlook.


I vote option 1. Unarmed Strikes only.


The fact that it works with all weapons doesn't bother me as much as the "treat all attacks as one. A single critical multiplies all damage" thing. That seems clunky and somewhat unbalanced... IMO, Pummeling Style should be something like this:

Pummeling Style: Works like Clustered Shots, but for Unarmed Strikes (and possibly natural weapons and monk weapons as well).
Pummeling Bully: When using Pummeling Style, if you hit an opponent with 2 or more attacks, you can attempt a trip or reposition maneuver as a free action.
Pummeling Charge: Pounce.

It would be simpler and more balanced.


I say option 1. As much as I'd like to use it with every melee build I've ever build, I think limiting it to unarmed strikes was the intent. Style feats typically affect unarmed strikes, and punch here likely means "hit with fist". Plus, it keeps the crit-fishing potential to sane levels. Seriously, I'd easily have taken a third feat to get that effect. Not saying combat feats don't need the love, but that's just overkill.


I say Option 1, but Option 2 has validity


I think the intent behind the feat is likely option 1 or 2, but RAW the effect is option 3.

I hope the final version will include Close Weapons but tone back the critical hit mechanics - otherwise the weapon brawler will take a huge hit in the mid game.


RAW is clearly option 4, but RAI is probably option 1.


this sounds amazing to Pair with the Qingong Monk Archetype, though I would agree that making it with UAS seems suitable.

Sovereign Court

I suspect option 1 was intended, but I prefer option 4.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Option 1. The greatest weakness of unarmed monks is the terrible crit profile. I don't want my unarmed monks and brawlers penalized because Kenny Kurki and Sally Scythe want to play with the toys that were intended to be unarmed only.


I vote option 1 with addendum that it also applies to brass knuckles, cestus, gauntlets and punching daggers. I will say RAW is option 3 though.


I'm coming in late to the party and did some skimming, so I'm sorry if this was already covered.

I have a problem with "Punch" being used to identify that this feat must be used with an unarmed strike. RAI, this feat seems to be for Monks and Brawlers (as established). However, Unarmed Strike, as written, states this: "A monk's[brawler's] attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full."

As the feat is written, only a punch can deliver a Pummeling Strike. This seems to mean that if both of your hands are full, you cannot perform a Pummeling Strike. There also comes issues of if you do not currently have hands (lose them, magic nonsense, hands tied up). This seems, in essence, to directly counter both Monks and Brawlers unique ability to fight using their whole body.

Lantern Lodge

FAQed.

As it is written, I'm seeing it as working with any weapon. If this is not the intend, clarification should be made.


Lemmy wrote:

The fact that it works with all weapons doesn't bother me as much as the "treat all attacks as one. A single critical multiplies all damage" thing. That seems clunky and somewhat unbalanced... IMO, Pummeling Style should be something like this:

Pummeling Style: Works like Clustered Shots, but for Unarmed Strikes (and possibly natural weapons and monk weapons as well).
Pummeling Bully: When using Pummeling Style, if you hit an opponent with 2 or more attacks, you can attempt a trip or reposition maneuver as a free action.
Pummeling Charge: Pounce.

It would be simpler and more balanced.

I like yours Lemmy. Especially Pummeling Bully, as that would let me get a Greater Trip / Vicious Stomp build running that doesn't need a manoeuvre master monk dip to get running.


I'm starting to think they just left the "you add all your modifiers once at the end" blurb off to save space or something. That'd about put it in line with other style feats.


First time for me posting on this hot mess, Buuut...here is my 2cp.

I don't see it likely that the developers will nerf the Critical Hit aspect of the Feat so I think it should only apply to unarmed strikes.
If not, then this feat will be complained incessantly.
Because it says "punch" it is probably gonna be limited to unarmed strikes.

So basically i'm saying option 1, no matter how much I would LIKE it to be otherwise. =)


1 unarmed strikes only. Look at the feat table.

Sovereign Court

Yes, I'm thinking Option 1.


My opinion on this: rework the crit clause so it only works with unarmed strikes and make it option 3. This way every class gets access to pounce via Pummeling charge -giving TWF a much needed boost- and monks still get added benefit by pummeling people.


Lemmy wrote:

The fact that it works with all weapons doesn't bother me as much as the "treat all attacks as one. A single critical multiplies all damage" thing. That seems clunky and somewhat unbalanced... IMO, Pummeling Style should be something like this:

Pummeling Style: Works like Clustered Shots, but for Unarmed Strikes (and possibly natural weapons and monk weapons as well).
Pummeling Bully: When using Pummeling Style, if you hit an opponent with 2 or more attacks, you can attempt a trip or reposition maneuver as a free action.
Pummeling Charge: Pounce.

It would be simpler and more balanced.

But it is better than Clustered.

Remember you add 1st attack's damage to seconds damage:

So if you deal 16, then 8: you actually dealt: 16 +24 (16 +8) =42.


Starbuck_II wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

The fact that it works with all weapons doesn't bother me as much as the "treat all attacks as one. A single critical multiplies all damage" thing. That seems clunky and somewhat unbalanced... IMO, Pummeling Style should be something like this:

Pummeling Style: Works like Clustered Shots, but for Unarmed Strikes (and possibly natural weapons and monk weapons as well).
Pummeling Bully: When using Pummeling Style, if you hit an opponent with 2 or more attacks, you can attempt a trip or reposition maneuver as a free action.
Pummeling Charge: Pounce.

It would be simpler and more balanced.

But it is better than Clustered.

Remember you add 1st attack's damage to seconds damage:

So if you deal 16, then 8: you actually dealt: 16 +24 (16 +8) =42.

That's not how it works. Make all of your attack rolls, if you hit, add up all the damage together and total it. If you crit, all of the attacks are crits as well.

I just noticed, Pummeling Style has a slight difference than Clustered Shot, it lacks the words that say you total all the damage before subtracting DR. So, as written, if you hit 5 times, you have to subtract DR 5 times before totaling it. The only difference between a normal full attack and pummeling style is the crit mechanic.

Per RAW, anyway.


Tels wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

The fact that it works with all weapons doesn't bother me as much as the "treat all attacks as one. A single critical multiplies all damage" thing. That seems clunky and somewhat unbalanced... IMO, Pummeling Style should be something like this:

Pummeling Style: Works like Clustered Shots, but for Unarmed Strikes (and possibly natural weapons and monk weapons as well).
Pummeling Bully: When using Pummeling Style, if you hit an opponent with 2 or more attacks, you can attempt a trip or reposition maneuver as a free action.
Pummeling Charge: Pounce.

It would be simpler and more balanced.

But it is better than Clustered.

Remember you add 1st attack's damage to seconds damage:

So if you deal 16, then 8: you actually dealt: 16 +24 (16 +8) =42.

That's not how it works. Make all of your attack rolls, if you hit, add up all the damage together and total it. If you crit, all of the attacks are crits as well.

I just noticed, Pummeling Style has a slight difference than Clustered Shot, it lacks the words that say you total all the damage before subtracting DR. So, as written, if you hit 5 times, you have to subtract DR 5 times before totaling it. The only difference between a normal full attack and pummeling style is the crit mechanic.

Per RAW, anyway.

Nope. It's a single big hit with multiple damage rolls. It's effectively the crit+Clustered shots.


It sure reads to me that you can use it with any weapon, same as Elemental Fist and Punishing Kick. That said since you can attack with multiple weapons with different Crit multipliers the text is incomplete. I think they should have just said something like, If it succeeds, the entire attack is a confirmed critical hit with a x2 multiplier.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ShiroK wrote:
It sure reads to me that you can use it with any weapon, same as Elemental Fist and Punishing Kick. That said since you can attack with multiple weapons with different Crit multipliers the text is incomplete. I think they should have just said something like, If it succeeds, the entire attack is a confirmed critical hit with a x2 multiplier.

I like your addition but it still leaves the door open for 15-20 threat range weapons like the Kukri that more or less guarantee a critical hit when used with Pummeling Strike.

Maybe something like... "Due to the inherently inaccurate form of attack, all attacks made using Pummeling Strike are treated as having a threat range of 20 and a critical hit multiplier of x2"?


Undone wrote:
Tels wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

The fact that it works with all weapons doesn't bother me as much as the "treat all attacks as one. A single critical multiplies all damage" thing. That seems clunky and somewhat unbalanced... IMO, Pummeling Style should be something like this:

Pummeling Style: Works like Clustered Shots, but for Unarmed Strikes (and possibly natural weapons and monk weapons as well).
Pummeling Bully: When using Pummeling Style, if you hit an opponent with 2 or more attacks, you can attempt a trip or reposition maneuver as a free action.
Pummeling Charge: Pounce.

It would be simpler and more balanced.

But it is better than Clustered.

Remember you add 1st attack's damage to seconds damage:

So if you deal 16, then 8: you actually dealt: 16 +24 (16 +8) =42.

That's not how it works. Make all of your attack rolls, if you hit, add up all the damage together and total it. If you crit, all of the attacks are crits as well.

I just noticed, Pummeling Style has a slight difference than Clustered Shot, it lacks the words that say you total all the damage before subtracting DR. So, as written, if you hit 5 times, you have to subtract DR 5 times before totaling it. The only difference between a normal full attack and pummeling style is the crit mechanic.

Per RAW, anyway.

Nope. It's a single big hit with multiple damage rolls. It's effectively the crit+Clustered shots.

Except, the problem is, that it doesn't carry the same rules text that Clustered Shots does to add up all the damage before subtracting DR.

Clustered Shots wrote:
Benefit: When you use a full-attack action to make multiple ranged weapon attacks against the same opponent, total the damage from all hits before applying that opponent’s damage reduction.
Pummeling Style wrote:
Benefit: As a full-round action, you can pool all your attack potential in one devastating punch. Make a number of rolls equal to the number of attacks you can make with a full attack or a flurry of blows (your choice) with the normal attack bonus for each attack. For each roll that is a hit, you deal the normal amount of damage, adding it to any damage the attack has already dealt from previous rolls (if any). If any of the attack rolls are critical threats, make one confirmation roll for the entire attack at your highest base attack bonus. If it succeeds, the entire attack is a confirmed critical hit.

What it does say, is 'deal the normal amount of damage', which DR would apply to. In a normal situation, when you attack a Werewolf, you deal with DR 10/silver, unless you've got weapons that bypass it. So with Pummeling Style, unless your weapons bypass DR/silver, you still subtract the DR from each hit you make.

So it's not quite as good as Clustered Shot+crit, but it's still a fantastic option, as all those attack rolls increase the chance the whole thing crits.


Question, in looking at Clustered Shots vs. Pummeling Style, does anyone else feel the feat could have easily been done with less words? I mean if it had been phrase: "When you use a full-attack action, brawler's flurry, or flurry of blows to make multiple melee attacks against the same opponent, total the damage from all hits before applying that opponent's damage reduction. If any of the attacks are confirmed as a critical hit, then all of the attacks that hit are treated as a critical hit as well." It would have been shorter than what currently exists.

I put them both through a word count and the original Pummeling Style counts as 111 words, while the 'Clustered Shot' version counts as 59 words, basically half the words. I mean, you could even throw in "with unarmed strikes" after 'melee attacks' in the first sentence and still have plenty of room to spare.

I dunno, does Paizo look at shortening word count as a part of their editing process?


Tels wrote:
I dunno, does Paizo look at shortening word count as a part of their editing process?

Probably, but I'm guessing the challenge is more to make everything fit on the page than to save every word they can. Sometimes there's so many things that need to go on the page that they cannibalize whatever they can (Ecclesitheurge), other times they have enough space that they might actually need an extra sentence or two to round out the page.


So, I've had both a GM and a Venture Officer make up a rule in order to prevent me from using this feat as it is written. They claim that because Improved Unarmed Strike is a prerequisite for the feat, it can only be used with an unarmed strike. I brought up Perfect Strike as an example of a feat that requires Improved Unarmed Strike but can't be used with unarmed strikes, but they wouldn't accept that as an example because it specifically calls out what weapons can be used with it. I then used Dervish Dance as a different outside example, asking if I had to use Weapon Finesse in order to use Dervish Dance (which is impossible), at which point they told me that I could either play by their rules or not play at all. I asked them to produce this rule for me, and they refused to (read: couldn't). I eventually conceded for the sake of the table, but how should I approach cases like this in the future? What am I supposed to do when GMs and Venture Officers make up nonexistant rules?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rorrix wrote:
So, I've had both a GM and a Venture Officer make up a rule in order to prevent me from using this feat as it is written. They claim that because Improved Unarmed Strike is a prerequisite for the feat, it can only be used with an unarmed strike. I brought up Perfect Strike as an example of a feat that requires Improved Unarmed Strike but can't be used with unarmed strikes, but they wouldn't accept that as an example because it specifically calls out what weapons can be used with it. I then used Dervish Dance as a different outside example, asking if I had to use Weapon Finesse in order to use Dervish Dance (which is impossible), at which point they told me that I could either play by their rules or not play at all. I asked them to produce this rule for me, and they refused to (read: couldn't). I eventually conceded for the sake of the table, but how should I approach cases like this in the future? What am I supposed to do when GMs and Venture Officers make up nonexistant rules?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the job of the Venture Captain to mediate rules issues in his area in absence of an official ruling from the Paizo Design Team or the PFS Team?

If so, then the ruling of the Venture Captain stands until a higher source overrides him.


Rorrix wrote:
So, I've had both a GM and a Venture Officer make up a rule in order to prevent me from using this feat as it is written. They claim that because Improved Unarmed Strike is a prerequisite for the feat, it can only be used with an unarmed strike. I brought up Perfect Strike as an example of a feat that requires Improved Unarmed Strike but can't be used with unarmed strikes, but they wouldn't accept that as an example because it specifically calls out what weapons can be used with it. I then used Dervish Dance as a different outside example, asking if I had to use Weapon Finesse in order to use Dervish Dance (which is impossible), at which point they told me that I could either play by their rules or not play at all. I asked them to produce this rule for me, and they refused to (read: couldn't). I eventually conceded for the sake of the table, but how should I approach cases like this in the future? What am I supposed to do when GMs and Venture Officers make up nonexistant rules?

While I agree with you it is currently(I suspect it will change) RAW, your playing with one of those cases where you have to expect some table variation. Thats why for PFS I try and use established and clear rules, and I have several builds on delay while I wait for them to clarify rule situations, nearly all having to do with ACG.

When you play with Occam's Razor, sometimes you get cut. I don't know what to tell you, seen it happen to other people before for rulings that are much more clear cut than this one. I'd allow it (for now) because I believe it is currently RAW, maybe they don't read it that way though. My suggestion is use a different PC, choose not to play with those people, or accept their ruling. You most likely will get FAQ'd that weapons don't work with pummeling style anyway.

The only suggestion I can make is save some PA for the future, and for future characters don't use rules that are in the grey areas, or if you do just know there will be table variation.


I wouldn't really have trouble with it if they just said "Hey, these rules are fuzzy, let's go with RAI." Instead, they made up rules, which if followed would change the game as a whole.

Sovereign Court

@Rorrix: You could've seen this coming from a mile away.

At this moment it's not "clear that the RAW differs from the RAI". Right now there's a lot of disagreement on what exactly the RAW means.


Benefit: When using Pummeling Style, you can charge
and make a Pummeling Style attack at the end of your
charge as part of the charge action

When using pummeling style means you have to use the fighting style to get the benefits. The fighting style is punches and kicks

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.

Which leads to the question of what is a pummeling style attack?

Pummeling style: As a full-round action, you can pool all your
attack potential in one devastating punch

The raw and rai are pretty heavily aligned. If you want your pounce, man up and get your knuckled bloody.

You cannot get the benefit of the feat without using the style, baring some other abilities like feral combat training.

Grand Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Benefit: When using Pummeling Style, you can charge

and make a Pummeling Style attack at the end of your
charge as part of the charge action

When using pummeling style means you have to use the fighting style to get the benefits. The fighting style is punches and kicks

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.

Which leads to the question of what is a pummeling style attack?

Pummeling style: As a full-round action, you can pool all your
attack potential in one devastating punch

The raw and rai are pretty heavily aligned. If you want your pounce, man up and get your knuckled bloody.

You cannot get the benefit of the feat without using the style, baring some other abilities like feral combat training.

What are allowed to attack with whilst using Monkey Style?

How about Dragon Style?

I feel that this needs errata, but saying using a style feat restricts what weapons you can use just don't jive with me, and ain't got no RAW support.

Not the way to fight this big guy.

Sovereign Court

blackbloodtroll wrote:

What are allowed to attack with whilst using Monkey Style?

How about Dragon Style?

I feel that this needs errata, but saying using a style feat restricts what weapons you can use just don't jive with me, and ain't got no RAW support.

Not the way to fight this big guy.

It needs errata/FAQ for clarity and to stop the arguments, sure enough. But I think the intent is clear enough;

Pummeling Charge wrote:
...when using pummeling style...
Quote:

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.

Scarab Sages

And page 140 is especially clear: "Pool all unarmed strikes into a single powerful blow".


We know there is disagreement between the table and the feat itself, but we don't know which of the two is the intended effect. For example the feat could have been modified to make it less restrictive and also work with Close weapons, then the editor forgot to change the table or didn't realize the feat blurb had a tighter restriction than the new feat. It's a very easy mistake to make.

Adding to that there's the general rule that text trumps table. There are numerous feats that have misleading descriptions if you go by the table quote alone - Vital Strike for example.

I'm not saying the Pummeling Style is intended to work with weapons for sure (though that is how I interpreted the feat when I first read it), but there's certainly plenty of ambiguity to go around. Since it's already popped up in PFS we can only hope it gets FAQed fast.

Sovereign Court

Imbicatus wrote:
And page 140 is especially clear: "Pool all unarmed strikes into a single powerful blow".

Well, I think the RAI is pretty much clear by now.


Ascalaphus wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
And page 140 is especially clear: "Pool all unarmed strikes into a single powerful blow".
Well, I think the RAI is pretty much clear by now.

I'll admit, I'd be pretty surprised if the FAQ came down as anything other than unarmed strike. There are several mentions of unarmed strikes in secondary text, and Pummeling Style itself makes no mention of allowing weapons.

That said, some FAQs have been very surprising.


This is another example of everyone reading fluff and trying to make it rules. The feat works with Florry no matter what you flurry with. Now yes they may have meant for it to be with unarmed strikes and if thats the case they will put a FAQ out on in. As far as society and RAW goest it works with Flurry.

Sovereign Court

I'm suspicious about people who can perfectly determine where crunch stops and fluff starts. Some people do that right in the middle of a sentence. Is there a part of the rules that tells us clearly how to do that, or is it just the interpretation of the reader?

As far as I can determine, the words "crunch" and "fluff" have no official meaning. And the word "flavor" is only used in the CRB when discussing food.

Most of the time, when people use a crunch v. fluff argument, it's to justify that RAW does something other than RAI. That's another reason I'm very suspicious about those arguments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

RAI is intended to be unarmed or unarmed and punching weapons (Cestus comes to mind)

RAW is everything due to the writers needing higher English degrees.


Quote:

What are allowed to attack with whilst using Monkey Style?

How about Dragon Style?

Is this really a question? Probably not but I'll bite.

You can attack using any weapon you want with any style, but the amount of benefit that you will get varies.

301 to 350 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.