So I want to make a character that is a throwing character and I am wondering if this will work, A character takes 1 level in cleric 1 level in master of many styles martial artist monk and the rest in brawler Winding Path Renegade.
So
would the combination of pummeling style to make all attacks into 1
then use crusaders furry to make pummeling style work with monk weapons and crusaders furry to make my trident count as a monk weapon. BTW I worship Gozreh whose favored weapon is a trident
would this let me use pummeling style with my thrown trident?
|
Not gonna work.
Martial Versatility works with things that have you choose a single weapon, like Weapon Focus, Dazzling Display, or Slashing Grace.
If a feat just has an effect, that states it explicitly applies to a certain weapon, like Dervish Dance, or, in this case, Pummeling Style, then it doesn't work.
Why don't you just go Far Strike Monk, and Flurry with Tridents?
You can even nab Two-Handed Thrower, for x1.5 Strength to damage.
Pummeling style only works with unarmed attacks. I'm pretty sure Crusader's Flurry does nothing to bypass the unarmed limitation on Pummeling Style.
Pummeling Style is not only exclusive to unarmed strikes, there is a FAQ, just to remind people of that.
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1gw#v5748eaic9sfs
Here it says only Unarmed. What faq am I missing? Itd make me very happy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pummeling Style is not only exclusive to unarmed strikes, there is a FAQ, just to remind people of that.FAQ.
Here it says only Unarmed. What faq am I missing? Itd make me very happy.
Um, that's what I said.
Um, that's what I said.Pummeling Style is not only exclusive to unarmed strikes, there is a FAQ, just to remind people of that.FAQ.
Here it says only Unarmed. What faq am I missing? Itd make me very happy.
Um, what you said was that it isn't exclusive to unarmed strikes, did you mean the opposite?
Martial Versatility works with things that have you choose a single weapon, like Weapon Focus, Dazzling Display, or Slashing Grace.
If a feat just has an effect, that states it explicitly applies to a certain weapon, like Dervish Dance, or, in this case, Pummeling Style, then it doesn't work.
where the he hell did you get that idea?
Um, what you said was that it isn't exclusive to unarmed strikes, did you mean the opposite?
The phrase BBT used is common in English, and understood to mean, "Not just A, but more than A."
Not, "Not only A, but also possibly B."
As in: Superman is not only a super hero, he is the strongest super hero in existence.
Or: Giving a felon a gun is not only a crime, it is a major felony itself.
He is emphasizing that in addition to being only usable with unarmed strikes based on the feat text itself, there is also an official FAQ.
where the he hell did you get that idea?Martial Versatility works with things that have you choose a single weapon, like Weapon Focus, Dazzling Display, or Slashing Grace.
If a feat just has an effect, that states it explicitly applies to a certain weapon, like Dervish Dance, or, in this case, Pummeling Style, then it doesn't work.
There have been Dev posts about the intention of the feat.
I agree it doesn't actually read that way, to me, either.
Um, what you said was that it isn't exclusive to unarmed strikes, did you mean the opposite?Um, that's what I said.Pummeling Style is not only exclusive to unarmed strikes, there is a FAQ, just to remind people of that.FAQ.
Here it says only Unarmed. What faq am I missing? Itd make me very happy.
He *said* the opposite. It's just phrased weirdly.
Right, I get what you mean. However, quite sure that sentence is still missing something and as read it means theopposite. /latenightgrammarderails
Shame because it would be good to use it with monk weapons at least. BBT does have the most straight forward suggestion in Far Strike Monk.
where the he hell did you get that idea?Martial Versatility works with things that have you choose a single weapon, like Weapon Focus, Dazzling Display, or Slashing Grace.
If a feat just has an effect, that states it explicitly applies to a certain weapon, like Dervish Dance, or, in this case, Pummeling Style, then it doesn't work.
There have been Dev posts about the intention of the feat.
I agree it doesn't actually read that way, to me, either.
on Pummeling Strike or Martial Versatility?
Not gonna work.
Martial Versatility works with things that have you choose a single weapon, like Weapon Focus, Dazzling Display, or Slashing Grace.
If a feat just has an effect, that states it explicitly applies to a certain weapon, like Dervish Dance, or, in this case, Pummeling Style, then it doesn't work.
Why don't you just go Far Strike Monk, and Flurry with Tridents?
You can even nab Two-Handed Thrower, for x1.5 Strength to damage.
the caricter idea is that instead of throwing a lot of tridents he throws one trident so he can have a magical trident.
So the reason this doesn't work is because weapon versatility won't work with pummling style?
Ok so how it was spoked to work is that:
Weapon versatility malkes pummling style not only work on fists, but also for monk weapons. Because unarmed strikes are in the monk weapon cadigory
Then crusaders flurry makes the trident a monk weapon
So trident = unarmed strike
on Pummeling Strike or Martial Versatility?
Martial Versatility
on Pummeling Strike or Martial Versatility?where the he hell did you get that idea?Martial Versatility works with things that have you choose a single weapon, like Weapon Focus, Dazzling Display, or Slashing Grace.
If a feat just has an effect, that states it explicitly applies to a certain weapon, like Dervish Dance, or, in this case, Pummeling Style, then it doesn't work.
There have been Dev posts about the intention of the feat.
I agree it doesn't actually read that way, to me, either.
Even if there is, there is no FAQ to make it official. We're in the rules section after all. Without an alteration/addendum/FAQ/Errata to Martial Versatility, I see little difference between using the feat for weapon focus (unarmed) and Pummeling Style as they both are a "combat feat you know that applies to a specific weapon". If that isn't their intent, they need to do more than a random (and unofficial) forum post.
Weapon Versatility is not Martial Versatility. Two different feats.
Tridents and Unarmed Strikes, are not even in the same Fight Weapon Group.
How are you even changing the Fighter Weapon Group the Trident belongs in?
He is interpreting Crusader's Flurry as adding the chosen weapon to the Monk Weapon Group, which also contains IUS.
|
|
Seriously, how the heck are you changing the Fighter Weapon Group?
Crusader's Flurry doesn't change it's Fighter Weapon Group.
Why not just go Far Strike Monk, and nab Clustered Shots?
You are never going to get anything, other than a Natural Weapon, with Feral Combat Training, to work with Pummeling Style.
The errata adds the line “You can only use Pummeling Style with unarmed strikes”.
So, that's what you have.
Okay, let's see if I understand your logic. Step by step:
1. Pummeling Style only works with unarmed strikes.
2. Martial Versatility: Pummeling Style means you can now use Pummeling Style with any weapon in the Close, Monk and Natural weapon groups.
3. Crusader's Flurry lets you use your deity’s favored weapon as if it were a monk weapon". Since it is 'a monk weapon' it qualifies as a weapon in the monk weapon group.
4. You can now use Flurry of Blows and Pummeling Style with a trident.
...I wouldn't want to bring this character to PFS. Both the martial versatility ruling and the weapon group jump argument is on very shaky ground.
The errata adds the line “You can only use Pummeling Style with unarmed strikes”.
That errata is EXACTLY what makes it a "combat feat you know that applies to a specific weapon". It now applies to a specific weapon (unarmed strikes) which was unclear until they made an errata to clarify it.
Now to the rest, I'm a fan of the Far Strike Monk and it most likely would have less issues with it (and far easier to boot). That's really a separate issue from the legality of "curesaders furry + pummeling style + martial versatility" though.
The iffy part of the logic is adding trident to monk weapons. THAT is a minefield. Going by the FCT FAQ, adding a weapon to flurry works "as if it were a monk weapon" for things like "flurry of blows attacks, us[ing] it to deploy special attacks that require you to use a monk weapon". Now we have to figure out which monk weapons we're talking about (the weapon group, weapons with the monk quality, weapons a monk is proficient in, ect). This is the maybe part for me as it jumps into the monk weapons grey area with both feet.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Crusader's Flurry still doesn't change the Fighter Weapon Group it belongs to.
The Monk weapon feature, and the Monk Fighter Weapon Group, are not the same thing.
Did you know, there a weapons, in the Monk Fighter Weapon Group, that do not have the Monk weapon feature, and as such, cannot be used in a Flurry?
The Monk weapon feature, and the Monk Fighter Weapon Group, are not the same thing.
True
|
I made a build that abused the wording
general concensus is that it does not work, however that depends on how you interpret the RAW language of martial versaility.
RAI however it does not work as the author of martial versatility has stated that the feat is not meant to let you bypass restrictions, however authors have been proven wrong on the past by the PDT
Crusader's Flurry still doesn't change the Fighter Weapon Group it belongs to.
The Monk weapon feature, and the Monk Fighter Weapon Group, are not the same thing.
Did you know, there a weapons, in the Monk Fighter Weapon Group, that do not have the Monk weapon feature, and as such, cannot be used in a Flurry?
The issue comes in when something just says monk weapon[s]. There is NO way to know if it's talking about the weapon group, weapons with the weapon feature or general monk proficiencies. As the FCT FAQ says "us[ing] it to deploy special attacks that require you to use a monk weapon". So which monk weapon is it as they already went over flurry earlier and the monk weapon feature only covers flurry ["Monk: A monk weapon can be used by a monk to perform a flurry of blows"].
To further illustrate, look at the far strike monk. It can flurry with thrown weapons. Is this weapons from the fighters weapon group 'thrown weapon' or is it just weapons that can be thrown? As is often the case in pathfinder, the same word/phrase can mean multiple things with little to no way to know which is right.
|
|
Context.
A weapon requires the Monk weapon feature, to Flurry with it.
Crusader's Flurry, allows you to treat your Deity's Favored Weapon, as if it had the Monk weapon feature.
If the feat allowed you to treat it as if it was in the Monk Fighter Weapon group, you still could not Flurry with it, as it would still not have, or count as having, the Monk weapon feature.
Context.
A weapon requires the Monk weapon feature, to Flurry with it.
Crusader's Flurry, allows you to treat your Deity's Favored Weapon, as if it had the Monk weapon feature.
If the feat allowed you to treat it as if it was in the Monk Fighter Weapon group, you still could not Flurry with it, as it would still not have, or count as having, the Monk weapon feature.
For context:
FCT says "Special: If you are a monk, you can use the selected natural weapon with your flurry of blows class feature."This was further explained in the FAQ to mean:
1) you can use it as one of your flurry of blows attacks
2) use it to deploy special attacks that require you to use a monk weapon
3) apply the effects of the natural weapon (such as a poisonous bite) for each flurry of blows attack
4) So on...
Now #1 is fully 100% covered by the Monk weapon feature. #2 isn't. So "as if it were a monk weapon" means more than just what's listed under the Monk weapon feature or #2 is talking about a different monks weapon.
|
|
That doesn't change the Fighter Weapon Group it belongs in either.
I am talking about the difference, between the Monk weapon feature, weapons treated as Monk weapons, and the Monk Fighter Weapon Group.
The Monk Fighter Weapon Group, even has weapons, that are not Monk weapons.
It an entirely separate thing from Monk weapons.
That doesn't change the Fighter Weapon Group it belongs in either.
I am talking about the difference, between the Monk weapon feature, weapons treated as Monk weapons, and the Monk Fighter Weapon Group.
The Monk Fighter Weapon Group, even has weapons, that are not Monk weapons.
It an entirely separate thing from Monk weapons.
To clear this up, I 100% understand that there is a difference between these groups.
THIS DOES NOT change the fact that saying monk weapon could mean ANY of the groups. #2 may change the group. I don't know because the meaning of monk weapon is up in the air. They are clearly adding to what "as if it were a monk weapon" means to make it more than what the monk weapon feature says.
So again to be clear: Monk weapons could mean the weapon group, the weapon feature or the proficiencies gained by monks.
"The Monk Fighter Weapon Group, even has weapons, that are not Monk weapons.": This isn't factually true. The weapon group DOES have weapons that don't have the weapon feature. It's a group of monk weapons (the group) that may not be monk weapons (the weapon feature).
Once more to be totally clear: There is NO indication of a singular definition of monk weapon. A weapon with the monk weapon feature isn't called out as a monk weapon. Again, it's NOT a defined term.
If I said spear weapon, would you be surprised that I looked at the spear weapon group? In the Green Faith, when it says Favored Weapon [Druidic weapons] don't you look at the class to see it's weapon proficiencies? So why is it odd to think that a monk weapon just might mean one of those things instead of a weapon with the monk feature? This especially true when it points out abilities the monk weapon feature doesn't have...
|
This is really a simple argument: does this combo let you use things other than Unarmed Strikes with Pummeling Style? Then it's pretty clearly against RAI.
The feat combination is NOT designed to let you throw one trident and treat it as multiple tridents, it does not magically give you the equivalent of a blinkback belt, and it certainly doesn't get around the intention that Pummeling Style is supposed to be one big punch or kick or elbow or headbutt or whatever.
That doesn't change the Fighter Weapon Group it belongs in either.
I am talking about the difference, between the Monk weapon feature, weapons treated as Monk weapons, and the Monk Fighter Weapon Group.
The Monk Fighter Weapon Group, even has weapons, that are not Monk weapons.
It an entirely separate thing from Monk weapons.
To clear this up, I 100% understand that there is a difference between these groups.
THIS DOES NOT change the fact that saying monk weapon could mean ANY of the groups. #2 may change the group. I don't know because the meaning of monk weapon is up in the air. They are clearly adding to what "as if it were a monk weapon" means to make it more than what the monk weapon feature says.
So again to be clear: Monk weapons could mean the weapon group, the weapon feature or the proficiencies gained by monks.
"The Monk Fighter Weapon Group, even has weapons, that are not Monk weapons.": This isn't factually true. The weapon group DOES have weapons that don't have the weapon feature. It's a group of monk weapons (the group) that may not be monk weapons (the weapon feature).
Once more to be totally clear: There is NO indication of a singular definition of monk weapon. A weapon with the monk weapon feature isn't called out as a monk weapon. Again, it's NOT a defined term.
If I said spear weapon, would you be surprised that I looked at the spear weapon group? In the Green Faith, when it says Favored Weapon [Druidic weapons] don't you look at the class to see it's weapon proficiencies? So why is it odd to think that a monk weapon just might mean one of those things instead of a weapon with the monk feature? This especially true when it points out abilities the monk weapon feature doesn't have...
The bolded is untrue.
Monk: A monk weapon can be used by a monk to perform a flurry of blows (see Chapter 3).
The book clearly refers to weapons with the monk special weapon feature as monk weapons in the definition of the monk special weapon feature. Seems like it is a very good indication of the definition of a "monk weapon"(a weapon with the monk special weapon feature). If monk weapon!=weapon with the monk special weapon property, then the monk special weapon feature is not defined, because the book only defines what monk weapons are(weapons that can be used in a monk's flurry), not weapons with the Monk special feature(despite the definition for monk weapon being under the Monk special weapon feature).
I find it is always helpful to go double check the relevant rules before claiming *anything*. It solves so many problems.
Totally out of the Blue, depending on the rest of the group i Might allow this to work. But i agree that it dosent within the rules as it is now. But if it will make a guy with bare chest run around and throw his trident at folks i, just migth allow it:)
Martial Versatilityon Pummeling Strike or Martial Versatility?
show me a link
show me a linkMartial Versatilityon Pummeling Strike or Martial Versatility?
Here you go! :)
Here you go! :)show me a linkMartial Versatilityon Pummeling Strike or Martial Versatility?
I was asking for a developer ruling that dervish dance and simular feats did not function with martial versatility
I am aware of the feat
I was asking Samasboy1 for a link to his claim
There have been Dev posts about the intention of the feat.
I agree it doesn't actually read that way, to me, either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am disappointed that this thread is not about how to give a healer's familiar style feats.
|
|
I am disappointed that this thread is not about how to give a healer's familiar style feats.
Go Furry Force!
show me a link
So it was the author.
So you get people saying you can't apply it to Dervish Dance, and other feats that apply to a particular weapon, because they are choose-one-weapon feats, based on this.
Again, I do not think the feat reads in a way that prevents you from doing so, and I was only explaining where people like BBT get the idea.
Jason Nelson doesn't really state a ruling one way or another; he outlines the different interpritations and his preference of the two, even stating thast it is his opinion. Hardly a Dev ruling.
Basically, Martial Versatility is intended as a "feat multiplier" not as a "requirment bypass". Any sane ruling on martial versatility would require the "new" weapon to be a valid choice for the original feat in the first place.
"sane ruling" - ?
Tell my why, after a three feat investment, it isn't "sane" to allow me to use a longsword with Dex to hit and damage.
|
|
"sane ruling" - ?
Tell my why, after a three feat investment, it isn't "sane" to allow me to use a longsword with Dex to hit and damage.
Slashing Grace, more or less, already does that.
Of course, without a level in Swashbuckler, or Daring Champion Cavalier, you will need an Effortless Lace.
I get what you are saying though.
My point is; RAW it works (you can't get a more specific weapon than only one weapon in the entire game), I've yet to see an application that is OP, and none of the Devs have put their foot down and said "no, it doesn't work that way."
I just don't understand why a feat expanding on character options, and isn't gasmebreaking is such an issue for some people. Even if the usage of said feat is outside of the original vision Paizo had.
|
|
Well, the addition of the extra line puts a special restriction.
Pummeling Style is a style feat, in addition to being a combat feat.
They require a Swift Action to activate, and cannot be used with other style feats, without special abilities/feats.
When you use Pummeling Style, you are using the style, in a addition to what are using the feat for. So, when you activate Pummeling Style, you can use the options in the Pummeling Style feat, along with the Pummeling Charge, and Pummeling Bully feats, if you have them.
The additional line in Pummeling Style, basically let's you know the options allowed in the Style(not just the feat), are exclusive to unarmed strikes.
So, it's not as simple.
I think that a "sane ruling" is one that does not allow Weapon versatility to treat Harpoon as one handed weapons (net adept), does not allow to threaten 10 feat and pin opponent with a morning star (whip mastery chain) and does not let you use pummelling charge with a 18-20 crit weapon (urumi).
But then, everybody has his own concept of "broken" and "sane", so it's up for debate.
My point is; RAW it works (you can't get a more specific weapon than only one weapon in the entire game), I've yet to see an application that is OP, and none of the Devs have put their foot down and said "no, it doesn't work that way."
I just don't understand why a feat expanding on character options, and isn't gamebreaking is such an issue for some people. Even if the usage of said feat is outside of the original vision Paizo had.
I had a brawler player who took Martial Versatility to use pummeling style/charge with a three-bladed katar. At level 8 he had five attacks each round (with haste) and his damage was about 1D8+15. His average crit was about 300 damage, with his top shot being closer to 450. While that wasn't problematic for my campaign, I can see how it could be considered game-breaking for a different GM. Putting aside whether or not it is gamebreaking, it does lead to some really wonky situations when you use it to pick up feats that are only intended to work with some of the stranger weapons out there.
All that said, the 'open-minded' reading of Martial Versatility does wonders for opening up some of the pointlessly restricted options in the game such as fencing grace, dervish dance, or quarterstaff master.
|
|
I think that a "sane ruling" is one that does not allow Weapon versatility to treat Harpoon as one handed weapons (net adept), does not allow to threaten 10 feat and pin opponent with a morning star (whip mastery chain) and does not let you use pummelling charge with a 18-20 crit weapon (urumi).
But then, everybody has his own concept of "broken" and "sane", so it's up for debate.
Weapon Versatility, is not Martial Versatility.
Those are two different feats.
Jason Nelson doesn't really state a ruling one way or another; he outlines the different interpritations and his preference of the two, even stating thast it is his opinion. Hardly a Dev ruling.
I think you understate what he said. He specially says it was not intended to work with feats like Dervish Dance.
Having said that, even if he was a Dev and not the author, a post on the forum wouldn't be any more "official" until I it was put into the errata or FAQ.
And to reiterate, I actually agree with you. I was just providing the source you asked for when you said "where the heck did you get that from" when BBT said it didn't work.
I think that a "sane ruling" is one that does not allow Weapon versatility to treat Harpoon as one handed weapons (net adept), does not allow to threaten 10 feat and pin opponent with a morning star (whip mastery chain) and does not let you use pummelling charge with a 18-20 crit weapon (urumi).
But then, everybody has his own concept of "broken" and "sane", so it's up for debate.Weapon Versatility, is not Martial Versatility.
Those are two different feats.
Yes they are, I confused the names. The point still stands.