Pummeling Charge no longer legal


Pathfinder Society

Lantern Lodge

I am curious why this was cut from availability in the latest AR update. Was it due to perceived power, or due to ongoing debate about whether it can be used with weapons or unarmed strikes only, or perhaps both?

Sczarni 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because of this and this

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Awww.. I know there's some ambiguity and cheese about this, but monks have needed pounce for years now.

Known exploits/needed clarifications

dipping master of many style/sacred fist to get pounce at level 3

Using weapons: not only lets you do more damage but lets you crit fish with an 18-20 then hammer it home with an X 4

One hit or many? Some things only work on your first hit in a round, like dragon style adding 1.5X to your strength. some people wanted that to work with all the pummeling attacks.

It was good enough that EVERY monk would pick it up. I don't know if that means that its overpowered or the exact size and shaped patch the ss monk needed.

Lantern Lodge

Carla the Profane wrote:
Because of this and this

Sure, but then would this logic not also apply to leaving barbarians with beast totem pounce legal?

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Awww.. I know there's some ambiguity and cheese about this, but monks have needed pounce for years now.

Known exploits/needed clarifications

dipping master of many style/sacred fist to get pounce at level 3

Using weapons: not only lets you do more damage but lets you crit fish with an 18-20 then hammer it home with an X 4

One hit or many? Some things only work on your first hit in a round, like dragon style adding 1.5X to your strength. some people wanted that to work with all the pummeling attacks.

It was good enough that EVERY monk would pick it up. I don't know if that means that its overpowered or the exact size and shaped patch the ss monk needed.

I can appreciate the cheese concerns. There are quite a few things that simply need clarified, FAQ'd, or just plain have their mechanics changes at the moment.

That said, I personally believe that spreading pounce-like options throughout the ranks of the various martial classes would go a long way to shore up their balance vs. ranged and spellcasting. I would prefer that they were not full on charge + full attack options, as after you start tacking on things like HotC and rhino hide plus entourage, it gets crazy. Something that offered some mobility with multiple attacks without charging would be ideal.

As it stands though, I personally believe removing the feat from legality hurts overall game balance rather than promotes it. If it was removed for a reason other than game balance, then I suppose that would be a separate conversation.

5/5

Lormyr wrote:
Carla the Profane wrote:
Because of this and this
Sure, but then would this logic not also apply to leaving barbarians with beast totem pounce legal?

Beast Pounce doesn't come online until level 10 at least. I am more surprised to see eidolon and wild shape pounce left if it is such an issue.

Lantern Lodge

andreww wrote:
Lormyr wrote:
Carla the Profane wrote:
Because of this and this
Sure, but then would this logic not also apply to leaving barbarians with beast totem pounce legal?
Beast Pounce doesn't come online until level 10 at least. I am more surprised to see eidolon and wild shape pounce left if it is such an issue.

The pre-req skipping of style feats is a problem mechanic in my opinion, so I can agree with the sentiment there. There are numerous magical means to acquire pounce prior to 10th level, however. I thought of this feat as something of an equalizer across the board. Not only between martial classes, but caster to martial as well.

Edit: At least in the low-mid range game play in terms of combating enemies. There isn't much to say about bending reality on a high level caster.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Lormyr wrote:
That said, I personally believe that spreading pounce-like options throughout the ranks of the various martial classes would go a long way to shore up their balance vs. ranged and spellcasting.

Definitely. That move or damage dichotomy is what makes archers and pets function so far above their payscale.

Quote:
I would prefer that they were not full on charge + full attack options, as after you start tacking on things like HotC and rhino hide plus entourage, it gets crazy. Something that offered some mobility with multiple attacks without charging would be ideal.

If the feat interactions were ruled more conservatively it might get back in?

Quote:
As it stands though, I personally believe removing the feat from legality hurts overall game balance rather than promotes it. If it was removed for a reason other than game balance, then I suppose that would be a separate conversation.

you don't just have to balance martial vs spellcaster: you also need to worry about martial vs martial. As it is a martial with this blows any other martial out of the water.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think they (being the developers) realized that the feat needed some hands-on attention to specify/clarify the interaction with various feats and effects. Currently it is probably in discussion with the developers, but the extent may be so far as to require re-wording the (Pummeling) feat. If the feat wording changes, then the feat will only resurface in its new form when the ACG goes into its second printing; and will possibly become PFS legal again then.

So (by my guess) the feat is currently in review with the Paizo team to be either FAQ'd into balance or reworded into balance. If it will be FAQ'd then we can expect to hear about it in the next 2 to 12 weeks; otherwise the next edition of the ACG may be 1 or 2 years off.

In the interim it is just prudent to remove it from PFS play.

For my money: Pummeling Style should get addressed, specifically special riders should only apply on the first attack roll/damage roll. But it is more important to also fix the master of many styles. The style follow-up feats should only be prerequisite-free from level 6 onwards (though basic style feats would be available without prerequisites from the start). To compensate for this grant an additional style feat at levels 4 and 8 (only basic style feat, not follow-ups). This also ensures a master of *many* styles, not a master of *one-style-completed-by-level-3*.

Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Yeah, I think it would be good to fix up the MoMS. This newest patch will hold for now, but we'll have the same problem with the next book with style feats. There'll always be at least one that would be OP if you can get it with way early access.


I'm glad to see it gone, but I'd like to see Pounce nerfed as well. This would require a straight-up rules change. Pounce could be limited to the specified natural attacks in each ability's entry (so instead of generically "Pounce" it would be "Pounce: 2 claws and 1 bite").

The reason for this is that I don't think PFS benefits from making the game *more* rocket-tag. Does there need to be an even greater focus on Initiative? If new material gives PCs Pounce much more often, it's also going to seriously disadvantage the older scenarios in which foes don't have this capability. Also, making enemies' "move+attack" have an opportunity cost gives martials some "stickiness," which I think is a good thing; this was the original reason for limiting "move+attack" in 3E.

IMO, Vital Strike hits the balance point for "move+attack" better than does Pounce, since it ends up being better than a single attack, but not as good as a full attack. For a low-op core Ftr6, VS is about 80% the damage of a full attack (compared to ~60% for single attack vs. full). (20 Str, WF/WS/WT1, PA, +1 sword, vs. AC 20.) Full attacks are nice, but fighters are not crippled without them. Haste greatly magnifies the single vs. full attack gap, but the majority of my L5+ fights in PFS have *not* had Haste. Still, would be nice if Haste allowed an extra move action OR an extra attack on a full attack.

I know I am in the minority here; these boards generally love "move+full attack" and think everybody should have it. I think that would make the game less enjoyable and more rocket-tag.

And finally, I agree that MoMS is more of problem than any particular style feat. If MoMS is revised, I doubt we would see the return of old Crane Wing, although I think that feat was balanced for its expected level of acquisition.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Vital strike is just useless for the vast majority of melee (the hungry hungry hippo build being an exception). A few extra D6s simply do not scale with all the strait +s people have to damage. Without move+ full attack you just watch the archers with envy.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Vital strike is just useless for the vast majority of melee (the hungry hungry hippo build being an exception). A few extra D6s simply do not scale with all the strait +s people have to damage. Without move+ full attack you just watch the archers with envy.

Archers have been broken for ages. They don't have to deal with terrain and flying creatures like meleers do. They don't have to move to full-attack like meleers do. And they don't have to put themselves in harms way like meleers do. The only down side is a rather restrictive and monochromatic feat tree that is pretty much a requirement for all archers. Quite frankly I would prefer playing an archer if it was less effective combat-wise but did not require the restrictive feat tree.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

trollbill wrote:


Archers have been broken for ages. They don't have to deal with terrain and flying creatures like meleers do. They don't have to move to full-attack like meleers do. And they don't have to put themselves in harms way like meleers do. The only down side is a rather restrictive and monochromatic feat tree that is pretty much a requirement for all archers. Quite frankly I would prefer playing an archer if it was less effective combat-wise but did not require the restrictive feat tree.

Are archers supposed to be performing like melee or are melee supposed to be performing like archers? Pounce puts it towards the latter.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

BigNorseWolf wrote:
trollbill wrote:


Archers have been broken for ages. They don't have to deal with terrain and flying creatures like meleers do. They don't have to move to full-attack like meleers do. And they don't have to put themselves in harms way like meleers do. The only down side is a rather restrictive and monochromatic feat tree that is pretty much a requirement for all archers. Quite frankly I would prefer playing an archer if it was less effective combat-wise but did not require the restrictive feat tree.
Are archers supposed to be performing like melee or are melee supposed to be performing like archers? Pounce puts it towards the latter.

Personally, I'd prefer the former. But that is just my opinion.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Vital strike is just useless for the vast majority of melee (the hungry hungry hippo build being an exception). A few extra D6s simply do not scale with all the strait +s people have to damage. Without move+ full attack you just watch the archers with envy.

I am well aware of the math. For a low-op core Ftr6, Vital Strike closes the gap from a single attack doing 62% the damage of a full attack to it doing 78-80% (longsword vs. greatsword). Str20, WF/WS/WT, PA, +1 sword, vs AC 20. That is far from "useless." And yes, increasing static bonuses to damage make Vital Strike relatively less effective. The low-op fighter above is either 2d6+17 or 1d8+13 at level 6.

Low-op is the level the feat was written for. That is the level the pregens are at, and most PFS scenarios are written for. It is also closer to what I have seen around me in most PFS games than the high-op expectations that seem more common on forums in general. When you speak of the Hungry Hippo build I get the sense that you are talking more about theorycraft rather than actual PFS gameplay, but perhaps your local PFS experience is vastly different than mine. I don't usually see such high-op builds around me.

I have also not experienced the dominance of archers in actual games to the extent that theorycraft predicts. Could have to do with adventure design, enemy defenses, or PC placement. For whatever reason, archers have been useful but not overpowering. And so I don't see a need to let all melee get full attacks every round.

5/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston

I would say I have seen archery fighters do extreme amounts of damage. That said I have generally seen that well built fighters in general do quite well. Then again telekinetic charge is a favored spell in the area I play. I have heard players say "Its better than fireball." Which is actually something I like, it is always good to see a group cooperate with one another.


Aldizog wrote:
I have also not experienced the dominance of archers in actual games to the extent that theorycraft predicts. Could have to do with adventure design, enemy defenses, or PC placement.

Are there a lot of PFS scenarios that involve long range fights? So far the ones I've played have all been short range - as in, less than 60' and usually less than 30'. I would expect that to have a big impact.

Silver Crusade

If more NPCs had adequate gear, like wind wall and fickle winds scrolls, the archers wouldn't seem so great. Even simple obscuring mist shuts down most archers that I have seen because they are too cheap to buy the Goz Mask.

Also, sundering the main bow works well. NPCs need more adamantine weapons to make this happen as well. Because monsters with huge STR can already do it. In fact, I would totally have a scenario with some sunder thugs with adamantine weapons backed up by something like snooze witch as a higher or mid level encounter.

Basically, NPCs need PC wealth and you would see the worm turn quite a bit in some of these combats. In my homebrew, I frequently have NPCs with MORE wealth than the PCs.

Shadow Lodge

Off Topic:
David Bowles wrote:
In my homebrew, I frequently have NPCs with MORE wealth than the PCs.

But since the PCs (presumably) win, aren't you giving them far more treasure than they should earn per fight? Wouldn't that just make the problem worse?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mystic Lemur wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

loot scheme:
Often time the NPCs will not have equipment that his superior to what the PCs have, or they will have very specific items that the PCs don't need. I make cashing out magical items a non-trivial process and so they are not converted to cash in a straightforward way. It's all designed to keep things interesting for classed NPC antagonists.
5/5

David Bowles wrote:
If more NPCs had adequate gear, like wind wall and fickle winds scrolls, the archers wouldn't seem so great.

This. Works on gunslingers, too. Not every scenario, of course, but there are few scenarios that penalize ranged characters.

Maybe a custom item like a brooch of shielding[/i which works on physical projectiles, or one-use items that could activate a [i]wind wall or similar defense. (hmm... adds ideas to the RPG Superstar file...)

Silver Crusade

At this point, the Aspis Consortium would have to be brain dead to not issue anti-archer and anti-animal tech to every group of agents. It's like they never learn from loss after loss to Zen archers and large cats.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
At this point, the Aspis Consortium would have to be brain dead to not issue anti-archer and anti-animal tech to every group of agents. It's like they never learn from loss after loss to Zen archers and large cats.

Unfortunately, none of them came back to headquarters to inform them about that. =)

Silver Crusade

Scrying is a thing, you know.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Aspis Investigator: "Dear gods. look whats left of bob! He's stripped naked, full of feathers... lead and... cat fur? Do you know what this means?"

Aspis mook: "Eyup. Them pathfinders got gunslinger gryphons. Knew I should have listened to mom and taken up pottery"

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know, that makes me think. Maybe we should dual societies. Maybe we should have an Aspis Society as well and the convention events could be pvp.

The Exchange 5/5

David Bowles wrote:
You know, that makes me think. Maybe we should dual societies. Maybe we should have an Aspis Society as well and the convention events could be pvp.

Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding....

Silver Crusade 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
You know, that makes me think. Maybe we should dual societies. Maybe we should have an Aspis Society as well and the convention events could be pvp.

PVP is a very very bad idea, table variantion alone would ruin it.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I absolutely hate the power creep that archery has become. My Eyes of the Ten outing went horribly due to it.

Spoiler:
Here I was, looking for a challenging adventure since it's a capstone and all. Was happy when I saw the GM put out lots of minis. Ooh, this will be fun. As the archer took out 4-6 targets every round, it became much less fun. Even with my flying pouncing alchemist, I could only take out 1 target a round. The absolute worst was when the archer went charging after the noise (when the sword was being taken). He opened the door where there were 6 archers w/ readied actions to shoot him. Improved snapshot meant that he took 6 AoOs (one on each of them), and killed 4 of them before they even got their shots off.

I spent a bunch of prestige retraining my alchemist into Beastmorph in order to get pounce finally at like level 10. But Pounce is still nowhere near as good as archery is in the scenarios. You can still only hit like 1-3 targets max on a pounce (and only if they're adjacent). Whereas with archers, you can shoot 360 at multiple targets w/ no feat necessary.

Granted, I think another reason that archery is so powerful is because one of its counters (cover) is often overlooked in the cases of dim light. And then you also have the exploit that I have seen people use with mirror image/seeking (and to some degree, seeking in general).

All in all, I don't think that Pounce (or pummeling charge in this case) should be banned when it is only somewhat putting melee on par with ranged.

Silver Crusade

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
You know, that makes me think. Maybe we should dual societies. Maybe we should have an Aspis Society as well and the convention events could be pvp.
PVP is a very very bad idea, table variantion alone would ruin it.

It would have to be conducted in such a way as to be an actual tactical combat game, with no judgement calls at all from GMs. Likely impossible. Still, the Aspis needs to gather some credibility somehow.

5/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston

I am not sure that would in any way be what people want. Especially given the lukewarm at best reception for the massed combat rules.

Lantern Lodge

Criik wrote:

I absolutely hate the power creep that archery has become. My Eyes of the Ten outing went horribly due to it.

** spoiler omitted **

I spent a bunch of prestige retraining my alchemist into Beastmorph in order to get pounce finally at like level 10. But Pounce is still nowhere near as good as archery is in the scenarios. You can still only hit like 1-3 targets max on a pounce (and only if they're adjacent). Whereas with archers, you can shoot 360 at multiple targets w/ no feat necessary.

Granted, I think another reason that archery is so powerful is because one of its counters (cover) is often overlooked in the cases of dim light. And then you also have the exploit that I have seen people use with mirror image/seeking (and to some degree, seeking in general).

All in all, I don't think that Pounce (or pummeling charge in this case) should be banned when it is only somewhat putting melee on par with ranged.

What balanced archery in previous additions (noticeably less damage) is an absent factor in Pathfinder. In particular, Clustered Shots and Deadly Aim are notable culprits in the theft of that balance.

Sure, a single arrow will not equal a two-handed fighter hit - but if your options are 2 greatsword swings at 2d6+19 with movement complications, or almost always full attacking with 4 effective shots (rapid + many) for 1d8+12 apiece, the lesser damage per hit seems less and less problematic.

Silver Crusade

Most classes who do archery have to mess with cover until 11th level. There are exceptions to this, the most notable being Zen Archer. Yeah, archer rangers can too, but I don't feel they are as strong as fighter archers or Zen archers.

Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover aka Hayato Ken

Hehe, here´s a bunch of people looking forward to the player companion ranged combat toolbox :D

You can still do some things to archers, good positioning is one of them.
Don´t forget, the new guide gave you some freedom.

The Exchange 5/5

David Bowles wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
You know, that makes me think. Maybe we should dual societies. Maybe we should have an Aspis Society as well and the convention events could be pvp.
PVP is a very very bad idea, table variantion alone would ruin it.
It would have to be conducted in such a way as to be an actual tactical combat game, with no judgement calls at all from GMs. Likely impossible. Still, the Aspis needs to gather some credibility somehow.

heck, I could see playing in a "Shadow Campaign" - clearly just a home game - where the PCs are Aspis agents. With adventures where we go in after those Murder Hobos have ripped thru the area, leaving death and distruction behind.

Could be fun... and many of our maps are already drawn. How in the world do we recover from a smear campaign like Severing Ties?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Criik wrote:

I absolutely hate the power creep that archery has become. My Eyes of the Ten outing went horribly due to it.

Im almost entirely sure I played in the same eyes group.

Aside:
If Im correct, yeah the archer was entirely singleminded in his devotion to killing things. But he also had a +3 will save (Yes, really) and was left sidelined in at least two fights. The real person who I felt sorry for was the lore warden. He barely got to do anything, and I dont think that would have changed archer or no.

I spent my career as a would be summoning cleric. I can probably count on one hand the number of times I actually got to summon before everything was annihilated, but I'd just go on hoping next game It'd be my time to shine.

All in all archery is probably a bit too easy, its just been given too many legs up (seeking, weapon blanches, deadly aim, cluster shot, rapid/multishot, snap shot, often early access improved precise shot). But two wrongs dont exactly make a right. Archery being strong doesnt mean we need to proliferate the overpowerdness. Leave pummeling charge out as it stands.


David Bowles wrote:
Most classes who do archery have to mess with cover until 11th level. There are exceptions to this, the most notable being Zen Archer. Yeah, archer rangers can too, but I don't feel they are as strong as fighter archers or Zen archers.

THere is slayers too. Not sure how good archer they are though.

Silver Crusade

I don't know either, because sneak attack is an epic fail at range.


David Bowles wrote:
I don't know either, because sneak attack is an epic fail at range.

Sniper goggles + 1 level of Wave Oracle with see through fog and fog cloud would like to have a word with you. Have a regular PFS player using this and its a pretty useful offensive and defensive trick. Not game breakingly so, but it gets the job done.

Silver Crusade

While that combo is effective, I still consider ranged sneak attack a fail since it requires a 20K item and a level dip to make it "pretty useful".

5/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston

I feel the need to point out for Eyes of the Ten

Eyes of the Ten:
The scenario you are bringing up was designed to be a kill box for archers, so yes archers do well in that scenario. Just be glad you did not run into a Succubus with that will save, or a first level wizard with color spray. My group had a Shadow Dancer, the section that is a kill box for Shadow Dancers was actually amusing.

Also I should point out that the archery path is also very demanding, to the point it actually makes a fighter start straining for combat feats. Without those feats archery as a back up way of fighting is not useless, but it can also be like an acid flask against a hell wasp swarm. You have a solution for swarms, just not enough of one.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

We had an archer too. He killed a certain enemy 3 times over.

Yeah, archers can be like that. I don't mind though, since being the only person playing a melee character meant that I wouldn't be able to act much anyway.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Muser wrote:

We had an archer too. He killed a certain enemy 3 times over.

Yeah, archers can be like that. I don't mind though, since being the only person playing a melee character meant that I wouldn't be able to act much anyway.

and THATS why i think they need pummeling charge.

Mend it don't end it!

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Hey, those times I needed to act the magical/toxophilic(ahaha) onslaught generally meant the enemy let me, so to say, pass under the radar.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Pummeling Charge no longer legal All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.