| 3 people 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.
I'm pretty sure they have them.
They also seem to have faith in their audience reading fairly, impartially, and without trying their damnedest to deliberately misinterpret something until they can squeeze a mechanical advantage out of it.
|
I'm pretty sure they have them.They also seem to have faith in their audience reading fairly, impartially, and without trying their damnedest to deliberately misinterpret something until they can squeeze a mechanical advantage out of it.
But that's been around since 1'st ed. They should be used to it by now.
|
|
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.
Read the whole thing.
I truly feel this feat needs errata/FAQ, but I am not going to stand by as anyone claims that using a Style restricts the available weapons.
So, you can use Pummeling Style, attack with a Longsword, but never really benefit from the Pummeling Style feats.
You don't have "drop" Pummeling Style, to attack with a different weapon.
|
The issue is, pure RAW, this still works with weapons like Punching Daggers and Brass Knuckles. See why: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.
As a full-round action, you can pool all your attack potential in one devastating punch.So, what does Punch mean? Well, if you look through the books, Punch is not a weapon listed anywhere. However, it defines several weapons.
A punching dagger's blade is attached to a horizontal handle that projects out from the fist when held.
These close combat weapons are designed to fit comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch.
Although most punching daggers boast a single long, thick blade, the tri-bladed dagger features a fan of three splayed razor edges.
All of these make it perfectly clear that you punch with it RAW. But, the Punching Dagger and Katar would both be scores ahead of unarmed strikes with the better critical multiplier.
As far as houserules, I personally am fine with the suggestion Kudaku made making all weapons do 20/x2 damage, and letting it work with all weapons. I mean, it solves a huge martial problem, moving 10+ ft(not perfectly, sometimes there aren't charge lanes, but still a fix is a fix), and gives melee clustered shots, while also bringing Punching Polly to the point where she can compete with Nodachi Ned, Scythe Sally, Falchion Fred, and Kukri Carrie in terms of crits.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to see AM do a RAGINGLANCEPUMMEL before it gets errata'd away.
Flurry of blows have monk weapons(wich include some polearms) backed in and still doesnt make any sense.
does it have the semicolon meaning you only need one of the three? otherwise you need BAB 6 AND one of either brawler flurry or flurry for it, unfortunately.
|
I have a question for all the people saying that, by RAI, it should only work with unarmed strikes: The Brawler's Flurry works not only with unarmed strikes, but also with weapons of the Close group and with shields. Pummeling strike lists "flurry of blows OR brawler's flurry" in its prerrequisites. Considering the brawler's flurry has weapon attacks baked in, how can it be that RAI doesn't include weapons?
1 Pg. 140
2. Brawlers get reduced damage with close weapons than they do with unarmed strikes. ignoring crit profiles and ease of enchanting weapons, Brawlers do more damage unarmed than they do armed. Brawlers, like monks are designed to be an unarmed class. Brawlers just get more options when using a weapon than monks do, but the primary focus is still unarmed. It's why close combat mastery doesn't kick in until level 5.
does it have the semicolon meaning you only need one of the three? otherwise you need BAB 6 AND one of either brawler flurry or flurry for it, unfortunately.Prerequisite(s): Improved Unarmed Strike; base attack bonus +6, brawler's flurry class feature, or flurry of blows class feature.
sweet.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you look up Pummeling Strike in the table on page 140, you'll see the following:
Pool all unarmed strikes into a single powerful blow.
As such, I think it is clear that the RAI is that you only use it with unarmed strikes.
The main entry for the feat is vague, but the summary table isn't. So when you wonder "what does the main entry of the feat mean exactly?", I think you should use that table entry to answer that.
You can't always rely on those tables; sometimes they're less precise than the actual feat, or leave out some restriction. However, in this case it's more precise and quite specific.
If you think we should just ignore that table, can you prove that it is wrong? Or are you just selecting which things you consider rules and which ones you think aren't - and if so, what are you basing that on? Is there a rule somewhere that tells you how to distinguish crunch and fluff? Because without such a rule, distinguishing crunch and fluff is NOT the exact process people often make it out to be, but just a matter of opinion and what happens to be a convenient interpretation at the time.
|
Since this text hasn't been mentioned in a while, I'll add it in in case it helps the ongoing conversation.
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.
If you look up Pummeling Strike in the table on page 140, you'll see the following:
Pool all unarmed strikes into a single powerful blow.As such, I think it is clear that the RAI is that you only use it with unarmed strikes.
The main entry for the feat is vague, but the summary table isn't. So when you wonder "what does the main entry of the feat mean exactly?", I think you should use that table entry to answer that.
You can't always rely on those tables; sometimes they're less precise than the actual feat, or leave out some restriction. However, in this case it's more precise and quite specific.
If you think we should just ignore that table, can you prove that it is wrong? Or are you just selecting which things you consider rules and which ones you think aren't - and if so, what are you basing that on? Is there a rule somewhere that tells you how to distinguish crunch and fluff? Because without such a rule, distinguishing crunch and fluff is NOT the exact process people often make it out to be, but just a matter of opinion and what happens to be a convenient interpretation at the time.
About all that can really be said against the table entry being RAI is that it's possible the feat was changed at some point in development. Which strikes me as a pretty thin case.
Is is possible that at some in development the devs decided to rewrite Pummeling Style to allow weapons in a very vague way, and didn't update the table? I suppose. But RAI being for it to only be for unarmed strikes seems a lot more likely.
Pool all unarmed strikes into a single powerful blow.As such, I think it is clear that the RAI is that you only use it with unarmed strikes.
Nice catch, never noticed that before! I've always said I think RAI is unarmed strikes only (and I think based off the math people have done it should be) but RAW appeared to be all wespons to me. We should have the FAQ pretty shortly to clear it up but I suspect based on this find it will go to unarmed only. Good job!
that sorta shoots the close weapon group (lots of punching things, the entire brawler class) and monk weapons in general in the foot though--as well as anyone taking it who is neither a monk or brawler (since you only need one of the flurries or BAB +6).
i mean there's making it good for monks, and then there's making it good only for a very specific subset of monks (landing them in the same boat with tetori/ZA as "the only good monks", and addressing none of the issues with the class at large).
The crit thing gets ridiculous once you start throwing weapons into it, even a 19-20 and improved critical. That math just doesn't add up on making it feasible to allow. Considering there are several x3 and 19-20 weapons in the monk and close groups, plus nearly any weapon can be added with crusaders flurry, its really the only right move to make. That or drop off the crit multiplier part, which seems less likely in an FAQ, but may happen.
Table text is sample description not rules text at all, Not saying you can't see what they intended from it. I think RAI is clear it was supposed to be unarmed strikes. Thats why we are asking for a FAQ, b/c RAW is it works with all weapons. The line from the table is changed in the rules text to: "pool all your attack potention into one devestaing punch."
I think they will either errata the word "punch" to "attack" Or add a sentence saying it only works with unarmed strikes. As deuxhero stated though "punch" does not exist in the rules. I mean if Bob the Monk uses pummeling style but gets caught by the enemy and they cut off both arms before he is saved can he no longer pummel because he can't "Punch" Poor Bob :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would just build a suli master of many styles 2 then what ever later just so I can twf falcon punch at lvl 2 might throw in dust knuckles filled with gunpowder for fun then even though that's not a thing. Since masters get any style feat they want at lvl one and its enhancement at lvl 2.
FALCON PUNCH
FALCON KICK
Hilarity then ensues. Would be interesting if it mixes with dragon style.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they errata it, I'd prefer to see it restricted to weapons you can flurry with, not just unarmed strikes.
The trouble is, with the right class or ability, that is all weapons.
oh right about the punch in the first line.
Boots of Elvenkind
Aura faint transmutation; CL 5th
Slot feet; Price 2,500 gp; Weight 1 lb.DESCRIPTION
These soft boots are partially made out of living leaves and other natural materials.
They enable the wearer to move nimbly about in virtually any surroundings, granting a +5 competence bonus on Acrobatics checks.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Craft Wondrous Item, creator must be an elf; Cost 1,250 gp.
This does not remove difficult terrain issues but the flavor text and the mechanical benefits are separated by a comma.
If they errata it, I'd prefer to see it restricted to weapons you can flurry with, not just unarmed strikes.The trouble is, with the right class or ability, that is all weapons.
even if it was unarmed-strike specific, wouldn't martial versatility do the exact same thing to make it applicable to any weapon?
I still think the best solution would be to let it work with unarmed strikes and Close weapons, but put in a note saying something like "due to the inherently inaccurate nature of the haymaker approach to combat, all attacks are resolved as though the user has a threat range of 20 and a critical hit multiplier of x2".
Pummeling Style is still a viable combat option for other weapons than just unarmed strikes - ie Brawlers are not hosed - but you avoid the shenanigans that is the 17-20 cestus or the 19-20 x4 tri-bladed Katar combined with pummeling critical hits.
Well, either that or completely rewrite how the critical hit mechanics work.
I still think its just going to be unarmed strikes, 1 because that would require the least change in the actual ability, 2 because that would only require adding one word to the count by changing punch to unarmed strike, and 3 it wont require rewriting the table as well. Now i would prefer close weapons and weapons with the monk property(avoids weird stuff like archery be used by zan archer with it), but i don't see that working out.
even if it was unarmed-strike specific, wouldn't martial versatility do the exact same thing to make it applicable to any weapon?If they errata it, I'd prefer to see it restricted to weapons you can flurry with, not just unarmed strikes.The trouble is, with the right class or ability, that is all weapons.
That would still restrict it to just close weapons, wouldn't it. (And require you to be a 4th level human fighter or equivalent.)
That would still restrict it to just close weapons, wouldn't it. (And require you to be a 4th level human fighter or equivalent.)even if it was unarmed-strike specific, wouldn't martial versatility do the exact same thing to make it applicable to any weapon?If they errata it, I'd prefer to see it restricted to weapons you can flurry with, not just unarmed strikes.The trouble is, with the right class or ability, that is all weapons.
well the brawler could pull that off for close weapons at least.
Oh thank heavens you've arrived Pathfinder Design Team! Whatever would we do without you! *swoon*
prototype00
Yaaayy.
I must admit, I was surprised that it didn't work with Close Weapons... poor Brawler's got shafted. At least Monk's have a style that will seriously help them out!
Can't Brawlers, y'know, just use unarmed strikes like the rest of us? Too good for the sweet science eh?
prototype00
I'm glad it was answered, but I think it's a shame that close or monk weapons don't qualify. It shafts weapon brawlers, and could have been balanced easily.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FAQed.Does Pummeling Style work with all weapons?
No, Pummeling Strike is intended to work with only unarmed strikes. Add the line. “You can only use Pummeling Style with unarmed strikes”. This will be reflected in future errata.
Hmm so this means this works with martial versatility
I truly feel this feat needs errata/FAQ, but I am not going to stand by as anyone claims that using a Style restricts the available weapons.So, you can use Pummeling Style, attack with a Longsword, but never really benefit from the Pummeling Style feats.
You don't have "drop" Pummeling Style, to attack with a different weapon.
100% confirmed to be the case. You can be in pummeling style, attack with a longsword but get no benefit.
|
|
Hmm so this means this works with martial versatilityFAQed.Does Pummeling Style work with all weapons?
No, Pummeling Strike is intended to work with only unarmed strikes. Add the line. “You can only use Pummeling Style with unarmed strikes”. This will be reflected in future errata.
Kensai + Weapon Finesse + Fencing Grace + Martial Versatility
3-4 chances to crit with spellstrike at 7th level.
I'm pretty sure that's not how martial versatility works.
Hmm so this means this works with martial versatilityFAQed.Does Pummeling Style work with all weapons?
No, Pummeling Strike is intended to work with only unarmed strikes. Add the line. “You can only use Pummeling Style with unarmed strikes”. This will be reflected in future errata.
And Feral Combat Training. (:<
|
|
And Feral Combat Training. (:<Hmm so this means this works with martial versatilityFAQed.Does Pummeling Style work with all weapons?
No, Pummeling Strike is intended to work with only unarmed strikes. Add the line. “You can only use Pummeling Style with unarmed strikes”. This will be reflected in future errata.
I thought of that.
It should work.
|
Hmm so this means this works with martial versatilityFAQed.Does Pummeling Style work with all weapons?
No, Pummeling Strike is intended to work with only unarmed strikes. Add the line. “You can only use Pummeling Style with unarmed strikes”. This will be reflected in future errata.Kensai + Weapon Finesse + Fencing Grace + Martial Versatility
3-4 chances to crit with spellstrike at 7th level.
It is good for spell strike but it doesn't work with spell combat as both are separate full round actions, you'd have to use quickened spells.