It's just your normal attacks all rolled into one.
1) You attack at the normal too hit for each attack (any modifiers that apply to all attacks will apply to all attacks, a modifier that only applies to the first will only apply to the first attack),
2) then for each hit you do normal damage, that is if sneak attack applies to each hit, it applies to each hit, if it would normally (for some reason) only apply to the first hit then it only applies to the first hit. same for any other modifiers.
3) then combine all the damage dealt into one total that resolves as a single strike.
simples ;)
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
If you're making multiple attack rolls, it counts as multiple attacks for things like chill touch and the like. So yes, you make all the attack rolls separately, and then just resolve them as a single strike for things like Damage Reduction, etc, which means you'd get to add several instances of chill touch to the damage.
Another funky situation is if you were to, say, attack a Swashbuckler who has the parry and riposte deed. He/she would be able to parry and riposte some of your pummeling attacks, but you'd still add the ones that hit together at the end and resolve them as one attack.
The Pummeling Strike feat chain needs rewritten, if you ask me. It just creates way too many corner cases in the rules.
|
|
You need to ask your DM, Mathius, with a full list of questions. Unfortunately, written as RAW this ability is Hella quirky, is certainly beyond powerful, and provides an ample amount of corner cases. RAI is so much different.
Paizo must be hiring contractors of contractors to have such a poorly written book.
My Opinion:
1. If I use stunning fist with a PS does my first attack roll have to hit (many attacks) or any of the rolls (One attack)
You roll all of your attacks separately. One of those is your Stunning Fist. In order for Stunning Fist to work after the Pummeling Style, it does have to meet/beat their AC like normal. Otherwise, it fails and that attack did not deliver. Also, they still get the Fort save when you deliver the final punch.
2. If combined with Horn of the Criosphinx do I get 2x str on only the first attack roll (Many hits) or all attack rolls (One hit)
I would see this as doubling your STR bonus at the end when you actually deliver the Falcon Punch. If you have 4 attacks that landed, each with a STR bonus of 5, the final attack should land 40 total damage as opposed to the normal 20 or the 1-1/2 of 30. It does classify it as "one big Punch" upon delivery, afterall. Also, you would need Pummeling Charge for this combo.
3. Either way has ramifications. If it is many hits then sneak attack or ability damage should be able to be done many times. If it is one hit then effect that effect only one attack get used on all attacks.
Since it's all of your normal attacks, just rolled separately and combined, you should have sneak attack damage on each attack as normal.
4. For that matter do all of the attack rolls get +2 to hit from charge?
Yes.
First off, it's resolved as a single attack so two weapon rend wouldn't apply.You don't 'actually' hit with both weapons. The attacks rolls are just a mechanic to determine the outcome of the 'one devastating punch'
It clearly states 'roll normal damage' and that really cannot be ignored. that means for each hit you add elemental damage dice/sneak attack etc.
Stunning fist works as normal - you declare it on one of your attack rolls, if it hits you stun, if it doesn't you don't.
It's not weird, it's not badly written, it's really quite straight forward. 1) roll to hit as normal, 2) roll damage as normal, 3) add it together and apply it as single attack. Anything else is reading more into the feat than actually exists.
Chill Touch as a spell I'm not 100% sure of the rules on, but IF your wiz with BA +6/+1 could attack twice with the spell on a full attack, then you can do exactly the same with Pummelling style.
(actually all that said I have though of one thing that I'm not clear on, one that reinforces my opinion this only works with unarmed strikes, is what happens when attacking with 2 weapons with different crit ratings)
|
|
First off, it's resolved as a single attack so two weapon rend wouldn't apply.You don't 'actually' hit with both weapons. The attacks rolls are just a mechanic to determine the outcome of the 'one devastating punch'
It clearly states 'roll normal damage' and that really cannot be ignored. that means for each hit you add elemental damage dice/sneak attack etc.
Stunning fist works as normal - you declare it on one of your attack rolls, if it hits you stun, if it doesn't you don't.
It's not weird, it's not badly written, it's really quite straight forward. 1) roll to hit as normal, 2) roll damage as normal, 3) add it together and apply it as single attack. Anything else is reading more into the feat than actually exists.
Chill Touch as a spell I'm not 100% sure of the rules on, but IF your wiz with BA +6/+1 could attack twice with the spell on a full attack, then you can do exactly the same with Pummelling style.
(actually all that said I have though of one thing that I'm not clear on, one that reinforces my opinion this only works with unarmed strikes, is what happens when attacking with 2 weapons with different crit ratings)
I'm inclined to agree with you.
Although, I can't see a Touch Spell applying to every single attack. I only see it applying to One attack at the end, just as Stunning Fist would. The spell disperses after it is used, on the first actual touch. Of course if they can do multiple charges during a full attack, I could see that working out just fine.
Chill touch doesn't discharge after you hit - you can chill touch up to 1/level - but whether you can use either weapons or weapon-like spells with this feat is a whole 'nother argument that I was trying to avoid by working on the base assumption you could :)
|
|
Chill touch doesn't discharge after you hit - you can chill touch up to 1/level - but whether you can use either weapons or weapon-like spells with this feat is a whole 'nother argument that I was trying to avoid by working on the base assumption you could :)
Oh! Well that certainly changes that around. I didn't realize it was 1/level!
Miss chance and deflection get one chance, after you resolve your total damage - it's a single attack.
Critical hit riders only trigger once - it's a single attack.
In exactly the same way that you only get one roll to confirm a critical threat - because it's a single attack.
Try not to get hung up on the fact that you make multiple attack rolls, for all intents and purposes (guess what) it's still only a single attack.
I kind of see it like this
I mean it's basically a melee version of Cluster Shot
Maybe it's clearer to state that the damage resolves as a single attack, but you work out your damage and effects by using your normal full attack.
Truestrike would only apply to the first 'normal attack'.
Dragon style likewise.
Stunning fist to only one attack in your sequence of your choice.
So, you roll your normal full attack exactly as you would without the feat. Take a note of the damage and effects you would deal, but don't apply it yet. Note if you threaten a critical, but don't roll to confirm yet. After that add all your damage together. Apply all your effects. Roll to confirm a critical if even 1 of your attacks threatened (only roll once even if you threatened more than once). Now apply the total damage, now your foe gets to save against any effects.
hope that helps.
It seems to work like a martial clustered shots to me. You actually make several attacks, but the damage is combined into one pool.
I kind of see it like this
I mean it's basically a melee version of Cluster Shot
I weep that you didn't reference the original Hokuto No Ken
It seems to work like a martial clustered shots to me. You actually make several attacks, but the damage is combined into one pool.
Actually that makes ALOT of sense. I guess for seeing what goes with it and how often, just look to cluster shot to see.
I do not see it that way at all. I think it one giant hay maker or round house not a bunch quick attacks.
If it was like those then you could get many touch spells into it but I do not think that is what is intended. I do not think it is like clustered shots.
Actually you are correct. I should have checked the rules. It says "one devastating punch".
edit: I misremembered and the word "pummeling" which to me means more than one attack did not help. I am personally avoiding this feat until they fix it.
The name and effect are not harmonious.
The rules are clear. Even if the fluff is a little discordant. Whether you flavour it as a single punch or a 'flurry' doesn't really change how the rules work.
According to the wording, several things are being overlooked in most of these posts:
1. This is a single attack roll, regardless of the number of times a d20 is being rolled. It clearly states that you are making a number of rolls EQUAL to the number of attacks, not making multiple attack rolls. Each roll that "hits" is qualifying an amount of damage the attack will ultimately do. This explains why a single confirmed critical roll will confirm all the successful damage segments, but will not make any missed segments do any damage.
2. As a result of this, the only way the attack misses is if none of the damage segments are successful. So an ability like stunning fist would activate if any part of the hit connects because stunning fist states that "any foe damaged by your unarmed attack must make a saving throw in addition to any damage received."
3. This also means that True Strike would effect all rolls made as part of this attack. According to the wording and the flavor of both abilities. True Strike gives you insight into the immediate future. Thus, it would give your entire next devastating punch an extremely high chance of qualifying all of its damage as well as allowing the entire attack to avoid the miss chance due to concealment.
Not quite how I read it. All those individual rolls are at "your normal attack bonus". All of your damage is individually calculated to deal your "normal amount of damage". That means choose one roll for stunning fist to apply to as you normally would. Likewise true strike only applies to your first roll as it normally would.
I see little reason to treat them as not being attack rolls considering the language used to adjudicate them. If they aren't attack rolls, what constitutes a "hit"? It never says to compare them to the armor class of the opponent.
I have to go with the duck test on this one since there's no real reason not to. Furthermore, since there are multiple other abilities that use multiple attack rolls for one attack, I see no reason not to treat them similarly up to the points where one specifically contradicts the other.
|
Well the language seems confusing at least. Some lines imply they are "rolls" some lines imply that they are "attack rolls". Only one line implies its "one punch" but thats probably just fluff text
: 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. You can only use Pummeling Style with unarmed strikes (see errata at right).
|
I see little reason to treat them as not being attack rolls considering the language used to adjudicate them. If they aren't attack rolls, what constitutes a "hit"? It never says to compare them to the armor class of the opponent.
I have to go with the duck test on this one since there's no real reason not to. Furthermore, since there are multiple other abilities that use multiple attack rolls for one attack, I see no reason not to treat them similarly up to the points where one specifically contradicts the other.
The reason not to see them as attack tools, but as rolls with the same bonuses/penalties as an attack roll is simple:
So as not to have someone with an ability that triggers on attack roll trigger multiple times.
P.e. dazing assault.
In almost all tables, this is of no consequence because ya, you can talk about it. But in places where only raw rules (pfs) it is important.
No matter the final ruling, you are going to have abilities or feats that will become more powerful.
Multiple Hits = triggered abilities and touch spells with multiple charges.
Single Hit = entire attack sequence modified by feats that only apply to a single attack (Dragon Style, Horn of the Criosphinx)
|
|
I see little reason to treat them as not being attack rolls considering the language used to adjudicate them. If they aren't attack rolls, what constitutes a "hit"? It never says to compare them to the armor class of the opponent.
I have to go with the duck test on this one since there's no real reason not to. Furthermore, since there are multiple other abilities that use multiple attack rolls for one attack, I see no reason not to treat them similarly up to the points where one specifically contradicts the other.
The reason not to see them as attack tools, but as rolls with the same bonuses/penalties as an attack roll is simple:
So as not to have someone with an ability that triggers on attack roll trigger multiple times.
P.e. dazing assault.
In almost all tables, this is of no consequence because ya, you can talk about it. But in places where only raw rules (pfs) it is important.
No matter the final ruling, you are going to have abilities or feats that will become more powerful.
Multiple Hits = triggered abilities and touch spells with multiple charges.
Single Hit = entire attack sequence modified by feats that only apply to a single attack (Dragon Style, Horn of the Criosphinx)
Because of the existance of true strike i think its best to assume its many attack rolls for the time beign
I see little reason to treat them as not being attack rolls considering the language used to adjudicate them. If they aren't attack rolls, what constitutes a "hit"? It never says to compare them to the armor class of the opponent.
I have to go with the duck test on this one since there's no real reason not to. Furthermore, since there are multiple other abilities that use multiple attack rolls for one attack, I see no reason not to treat them similarly up to the points where one specifically contradicts the other.
The reason not to see them as attack tools, but as rolls with the same bonuses/penalties as an attack roll is simple:
So as not to have someone with an ability that triggers on attack roll trigger multiple times.
P.e. dazing assault.
In almost all tables, this is of no consequence because ya, you can talk about it. But in places where only raw rules (pfs) it is important.
The general case has been addressed in the last few posts.
For dazing assault: it doesn't trigger off of attack rolls. It penalizes attack rolls but applies its effect to attacks. So -5 to all the rolls, but only one shot at dazing the target.