Is it legal?
|
Yes, having the feat Martial Versatility and the feat Pummeling Charge are both legal to have while on a mount..
If you mean can you pummeling charge with a weapon that is not your fist, then no. You can't do this because pummeling charge does not have a choice like Weapon Focus or Exotic Weapon Proficiency.
It is legal, but you cant use martial versitility with pummeling charge to use pummeling charge with a weapon other than unarmed strikes, as unarmed strikes are their own category i believe.
Actually I take that back. They are considered light weapons.
Though the FAQ says : “You can only use Pummeling Style with unarmed strikes”. This will be reflected in future errata.
So I dont know if you get to count Pummeling style as a feat that applies to a weapon for the purpose of the versatility feat.
Well if unarmed strike is in the monk category, and taking crusader's flurry with lance.. Would that not extend pummeling charge to lances?
Well if unarmed strike is in the monk category, and taking crusader's flurry with lance.. Would that not extend pummeling charge to lances?
No. Pummeling Charge/Style is specified only to work with Unarmed Strikes. The only possible way to make it work would be Martial Versatility. However, since Pummeling Style isn't a feat that you choose a weapon to work with, it just happens to be restricted to unarmed strikes only, I don't think that works either.
You can make a pummeling charge while mounted, but you can't use a lance.
Well if unarmed strike is in the monk category, and taking crusader's flurry with lance.. Would that not extend pummeling charge to lances?
No. Pummeling Charge/Style is specified only to work with Unarmed Strikes. The only possible way to make it work would be Martial Versatility. However, since Pummeling Style isn't a feat that you choose a weapon to work with, it just happens to be restricted to unarmed strikes only, I don't think that works either.
You can make a pummeling charge while mounted, but you can't use a lance.
Actually it just says "a feat that applies to a specific weapon." And pummeling strike applies specifically to unarmrd strikes. It does not have to be a feat you choose a weapon with. So this might work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually it just says "a feat that applies to a specific weapon." And pummeling strike applies specifically to unarmrd strikes. It does not have to be a feat you choose a weapon with. So this might work.Well if unarmed strike is in the monk category, and taking crusader's flurry with lance.. Would that not extend pummeling charge to lances?
No. Pummeling Charge/Style is specified only to work with Unarmed Strikes. The only possible way to make it work would be Martial Versatility. However, since Pummeling Style isn't a feat that you choose a weapon to work with, it just happens to be restricted to unarmed strikes only, I don't think that works either.
You can make a pummeling charge while mounted, but you can't use a lance.
Shield slam works only with shields. You can't use martial versatility to change shield slam to work with longswords.
The proof is in the example provided. The example shows it is for abilities which you choose a specific weapon for. Abilities that work only for a specific weapon get no benefit from martial versatility.
Then go ahead and take shield master with longswords. That should work too right?
@Tarantula: So from "Choose one combat feat you know that applies to a specific weapon (e.g., Weapon Focus)." you concluded "Abilities that work only for a specific weapon get no benefit from martial versatility."?
Pummeling Style is a combat feat and it applies to a specific weapon (unarmed strikes). You can argue that it isn't balanced for use with other weapons and I'd probably agree with that. But there's nothing in martial versatility that states the feat has to be one in which the weapon choice is initially optional. That's just inventing rules for the sake of balance. Weapon Focus as an example doesn't cut it. I doubt the feat was intended to be so restrictive, and it isn't worded as such.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.
The example given is weapon focus. Weapon focus has you choose a type of weapon.
Benefit: 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 versatility expands your weapon selection to the weapon group instead.
why wouldn't it make sense if your interpretation is correct? If it works for some it should work for all.
Or you go with the interpretation that only when a feat says it applies to a specific or selected or some other word indicating a choice of weapon does martial versatility lets you use those feats within the weapon group.
And the feats in question don't "apply" to a specific weapon. They can only be used with a specific weapon. That's the difference. Pummeling strike doesn't apply to unarmed strikes. Pummeling strikes can only be done with unarmed strikes. That's the difference and that is what lets you determine if it will work or not.
It states "specific weapon" not "specified weapon", I think the obvious intent was to allow feats like quarter staff master to apply to weapons like the Orc double axe (makes sense) or the whip mastery feats to apply to spiked chains ( again makes sense), though there are some discrepancies like noxious bite applying to shield bashes (makes no sense as it relies on the idea of a biological power becoming a natural power)
The idea that you can go down the twf tree, the lance tree, and be a moms monk with pummeling style and janni style and make all of your attacks legally is annoying but hilarious
I honestly think it's legal because pummeling style applies to unarmed strike, which is considered a weapon in the monk or close weapon style... Most people would not argue against the use of this feat with a shield bash (close), or natural attack but when it applies to the monk weapon group the concept of doing this with a katana is frightening
Just remember that it takes at least four feats to make this happen and fighter level four so a player would have to be at least level five to actually do it, then there's the issue of the mount, which would take class levels or two more feats (animal ally/sylvan heritage if allowed/ect)
So there's a lot to digest for this
Otherwise it's legal and tough
|
I think it's technically legal, but obviously not the intent of the feat. Using Weapon Focus as an example suggests to me that what the author meant was for any weapon choice to apply to all weapons in that weapon group.
That's still rather sloppy rule-making though; it should have allowed you to use the feat with all weapons in that group that you could have legally chosen with the feat.
|
|
I honestly think it's legal because pummeling style applies to unarmed strike, which is considered a weapon in the monk or close weapon style...
Then why did you ask?
You asked a question.
Nearly everyone said no. Even the sole person to not say no said basically "maybe".
Then you disregard what everyone said and say that you think yes.
I'm not saying that you're not free to do so. But why did you bother asking?
|
|
It's a fair way to ask. When I bring up rules questions I try to keep my opinion on it out of the first post. That way the conversation can merely be on the rules and not telling me whether I'm right/wrong.
Heck, it took like 40 or so posts for someone to convince me that Infernal Healing was actually a healing spell and that was just because neither I nor the other first 40 posts had realized it actually had the healing sub-type. But I kept my opinion out of the first post and the let the question do the asking.
I really don't see how it's confusing, the idea that you can apply principals of one weapon (tripping staff let's say) to another similar weapon (any double weapon within reason) sounds like the actual reason for this feat, I think they chose weapon focus because it applies to a specific weapon of your choice, but there is no statement of it being required to be a chosen weapon, only a specific weapon. Whip mastery specifically states whip, noxious bite specifically states bite, the dueling sword feats all specifically cal for dueling swords, dervish dancer is scimitar, ect
This feat does not apply to feats with effects such as "when you hit with an axe" or anything that affects more than one weapon, so any effect relating to say a shield bash, since multiple types of shields exist, would not be usable.
Now the funny thing is that this feat has so much controversy even though you can take most of these actions with catch off guard via using one weapon as an improvised version of another weapon to fuse both styles at dm discretion
I honestly think it's legal because pummeling style applies to unarmed strike, which is considered a weapon in the monk or close weapon style...Then why did you ask?
You asked a question.
Nearly everyone said no. Even the sole person to not say no said basically "maybe".
Then you disregard what everyone said and say that you think yes.
I'm not saying that you're not free to do so. But why did you bother asking?
I've misstated this question so I apologize for having problems understanding logic in the common understanding of martial versatility and pummeling strike on their own, let alone how they interact with each other
My understanding is that if unarmed strike is a monk weapon
And pummeling strike only works with unarmed strike specifically
Then martial versatility would allow pummeling strike to be used by all weapons that share the monk weapon group with unarmed strike.
Now if crusader's flurry adds one weapon to the monk weapon group
Then tha weapon has all the effects and modifiers specifically granted to weapons in that group
This is my train of thought, can somebody clearly and concisely explain to me the flaw in this logic?
That's all I want, I'm not instigating or denying you, I was explaining I can not comprehend the common understanding therefore do not yet believe it
It doesn't work. The reason it doesn't is Pummeling strike doesn't apply to a specific weapon. Pummeling strike is it's own combat attack thing, which can only be done with unarmed strikes.
Only working with a specific weapon != applying to a specific weapon.
Pummeling strike is doing nothing to modify, change, boost, or harm unarmed strikes. If you were to make an unarmed strike, you wouldn't need to reference this feet at all. If it applies to a basic standard attack, then it maybe works with martial versatility. If it doesn't apply to a basic standard attack, then it's most likely not martial versatility potential.
It doesn't work. The reason it doesn't is Pummeling strike doesn't apply to a specific weapon. Pummeling strike is it's own combat attack thing, which can only be done with unarmed strikes.
Only working with a specific weapon != applying to a specific weapon.
Pummeling strike is doing nothing to modify, change, boost, or harm unarmed strikes. If you were to make an unarmed strike, you wouldn't need to reference this feet at all. If it applies to a basic standard attack, then it maybe works with martial versatility. If it doesn't apply to a basic standard attack, then it's most likely not martial versatility potential.
I like your line of reasoning, and I think given the FAQ on pummeling strike, the RAI for this particular case is clear. But this is the rules forum and right now I'm not seeing any written basis in the rules for your line of reasoning.
The rules are very clear on the requirements, and they are simply that the feat must apply to a specific weapon. Apply means "to be pertinent, suitable, or relevant" - Dictionary.com. If a feat is only pertinent, suitable, or relevant to a kind of weapon, then that feat applies to that weapon. By its very definition, if something can only be used with a certain weapon type, then said feat can, by definition, only apply to that weapon type (with the only other option being that it applies to no weapon types, which makes little sense).
Pummeling strike applies to unarmed attacks as no other form of weaponry is pertinent, suitable, or relevant to pummeling strike. The same applies to dervish dance or weapon focus(something). They each apply, or are suitable and relevant, to use with a specific weapon.
You have some feats (like weapon focus) that are very general, which can be taken and, based on the character's selection, apply to a specific weapon. Then there are feats such as pummeling charge or dervish dance that are the more specific instance of the above, and only apply to a specific weapon regardless of the player's choice.
Simply because the enhancement isn't a straightforward numerical one does not mean that the feat doesn't "apply" (as the kind of enhancement or benefit is never mentioned in the feat). In this case the enhancement allows you to do new things with that weapon. For example slashing grace allows you to fight with your weapon in an alternate fashion, using dexterity and agility to be an effective combatant (though you don't have to make use of it all the time). In the same way pummeling strike allows you to use your unarmed attacks in an alternate fashion (though you don't need to use it that way all the time).
The main issue though, aside from those previous things, is that any line of reasoning other than what is specifically stated in the rules, say only allowing feats if they apply to a basic standard attack or if they aren't "combat type things," departs RAW. Each of those things serve only to add on additional restrictions and take the decision about what applies out of the realm of rules and into the realm of table by table decisions and individual interpretation (which again, while not wrong, is not the purpose of this forum).
In order to have a RAW answer (regardles of RAI) you can only take exactly what you are given in the text of the rule, and cannot introduce outside assumptions. Whether or not RAW is right for actual play though, is an entirely different question.
A final thought, and one that I leave for last as is least based in RAW. The text of the feat says that "You broaden your study of weapons to encompass multiple similar weapons." While the rules as to how the feat works imply that you, in your study of weaponry, have learned how to apply techniques that normally work with one weapon, to a weapon of a different kind. Someone mentioned earlier that shield bash made no sense because you aren't bashing with a shield. My counterpoint to this is that when you take the feat it is no longer a shield bash, but a (insert new weapon type here) bash. Your PC has learned how to apply the principle of a shield bash to some other similar weapon. It is this same concept that allows martial versatility to work for other feats.