Martial Versatility: Choose one combat feat you know that applies to a specific weapon (e.g., Weapon Focus). You can use that feat with any weapon within the same weapon group.
Martial Mastery: Each combat feat you have that applies to a specific weapon (e.g., Weapon Focus) can be used with all weapons in the same weapon group.
Do these feats allow you to use style feats that usually only work with unarmed strikes with other weapons?
No, you can't use Pummeling Style with anything other than Unarmed Strikes. It specifically states it only works with Unarmed Strikes. That is different than 'This feat works with this, but it could also have worked with this, this or this, if you had chosen.' It's highly restrictive wording intentionally.
Yes, and that is exactly what these feats do, allow you to use a feat that is designed SPECIFIC for a weapon to be used with any weapon of the same group.
"Choose one combat feat you know that applies to a specific weapon"
Combat Feat = Checked
Specific Weapon = Checked
I posted no because of the obvious but to see if the question have been adressed before and if the devs have commented if Martial Versatility/Mastery work only when feats that you CHOOSE a weapon or if it is really as it is written "one combat feat that applies to a specific weapon", if the description is right, if there is no errata, then there is no reason to not be able to use any style feat restricted to unarmed strikes with other weapons in the unarmed style group.
It doesn't work because it's not a Feat that applies to one specific weapon, like Weapon Focus, or Improved Critical. It only works for unarmed strikes, the same as Feral Combat Training only works for unarmed strikes. It's not a 'Choose a weapon this works with' Feat, it's a 'This only works one way, that's it,' Feat.
The example given in the feat is weapon focus, which you choose a specific weapon to grant to bonus to. Pummeling style is not a "choose a weapon" feat, but grants a bonus to a specific weapon (unarmed strike).
I'll post what I posted before about this, I don't believe it works. Things like Pummeling Style don't "apply to a specific weapon", they are "restricted to a certain weapon". It's not the same thing.
Well, I guess I will have to wait to official wording because this is a case of exploiting wording. Of course I know this is how it should, as much as EVERYONE knew the feat could only work with unarmed strikes even before the errata, but the only real rule in RPGs is: squeeze a sentence until it produces the juice you need.
I completely agree with everybody here, I KNOW that's how it is.
But the question is that the wording allows. There is no term that classify "feats with specific weapons" and "feats restricted to weapons", so as much as I know that it is designed to feats like Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, etc, the text itself doesn not specify it and there are no general rules that separate feats in such categories so I will try to exploit it.
IMO the text should say something like: "Pick a feat you know in which you choose a specific weapon..." but instead it says "Choose one combat feat you know that applies to a specific weapon..."
We could argue about what apply means, well, we can argue about a lot of things, but I will just use the text the way it benefits me (and the GM usually buys it)
the styles aren't being applied to your unarmed strikes. the styles are to you as a character, and some of that changes how your unarmed strikes work. I don't see any way you can twist the words to get what you want from them. Feats with specific weapons use that wording in the feat.
Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.
Well, Slashing Grace and Feral Combat Training, should still work.
Chess Pwn wrote: I don't see any way you can twist the words to get what you want from them. Feats with specific weapons use that wording in the feat. Except that I did and it worked =)
As I previously stated, yeah I know, I know it is wrong. I do also know that the feat specifies, it is all in the pretty obvious category. The thing is that there is no category of feat called "specific weapons feat", I mean, yeah it exists, but it is not separated or named like that in the books. So as much as I, you and everybody else understands what the text is about, if it is not "hardcoded" in the rules then we can use common sense, and common sense wise, if you ask someone that never played a game before, if something that you can only do with a certain weapon may be classified as a feat of an specific weapon, the person will most likely say yes, because wording-wise you can say that.
Again, I know it is not, I know what is the meaning of applying in the book, but as there is no such category of feats in the game, officially, "mechanically", then hell yes I can (and could) use the words to get what I want.
However I really hate people who do optimized builds, they make my life difficult, as the limitations on pummeling style are there so that people can't abuse critical among other things.
Role playing wise, there is no reason for someone to be able to train to do a punch with all their strength and not be able to do the same with a cestus or a punching dagger, it is insane.
I could not care less about critical and damage output, I was just focusing on a character that sacrificed numbers for sheer power, even if the damage output stays the same, but as in all RPG rules, the ones trying to do something interesting concept wise pay the price of the ones that try to make builds with 50 str or 2000 damage per round.
I could go Mythic Vital Strike, less trouble, but I have to wait until someone gets in the mood of mythic adventures.
Except your "interpretation" doesn't work so you didn't.
I should have said, I don't see any way you can twist the words to get what you want from them and think you're using English properly. If the feat doesn't have the word SPECIFIC in it then it's not for a specific weapon.
It's like a shield bash, you don't choose shields and bash with them, a shield bash is limited to shields, and you couldn't use versatility to make a shield bash with something that wasn't a shield.
It's like shield master, it is a feat that modifies shield attacks while two-weapon fighting. It isn't a feat with a specific weapon, no use of the word specific. Thus it's not one you can use martial versatility with.
You didn't get it, I did because it worked with my GM, and AFAIK that's all that matters.
And since the beginning I completely agree with you. But you fail AGAIN to understand that it is not game mechanics, it is our knowledge of the game mechanics.
"If the feat doesn't have the word SPECIFIC in it then it's not for a specific weapon." - Is this written in the feat? No. So it doesn't matter if it is right, and we all know it is right. If this was written I surely could not get what I wanted.
"It's like a shield bash, you don't choose shields and bash with them, a shield bash is limited to shields, and you couldn't use versatility to make a shield bash with something that wasn't a shield." - Yeah, yeah, I get it. Again, we all know it is how it works BUT in the feat description it does not say it like that.
By the way, say what you want, this kind of reading I do get me things not only in RPGs but also in real life, so I'm gonna stick to it, it works. I don't really need everybody to agree or believe me I just need the one person that have what I want to do so, in this case was the GM not you.
Raoni Luna wrote: You didn't get it, I did because it worked with my GM, and AFAIK that's all that matters.
And since the beginning I completely agree with you. But you fail AGAIN to understand that it is not game mechanics, it is our knowledge of the game mechanics.
"If the feat doesn't have the word SPECIFIC in it then it's not for a specific weapon." - Is this written in the feat? No. So it doesn't matter if it is right, and we all know it is right. If this was written I surely could not get what I wanted.
"It's like a shield bash, you don't choose shields and bash with them, a shield bash is limited to shields, and you couldn't use versatility to make a shield bash with something that wasn't a shield." - Yeah, yeah, I get it. Again, we all know it is how it works BUT in the feat description it does not say it like that.
By the way, say what you want, this kind of reading I do get me things not only in RPGs but also in real life, so I'm gonna stick to it, it works. I don't really need everybody to agree or believe me I just need the one person that have what I want to do so, in this case was the GM not you.
Generally, discussions in the rules questions forum are for discussing the rules as written and what they specifically mean. This is often done to ensure understanding of what the rule is before making a house rule. As you said, what's written doesn't matter if your GM doesn't follow it.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
