Let's take another feat as an example of your proposition; Shield Slam will do nicely. Here's what it says:
By the logic of flavor text serving as intent, Shield Slam would require special positioning, such as flanking, or being above (or below) the opponent; hell, even being inside the square could be "in the right position," because that's "supposedly" the feat's intent.In the right position, your shield can be used to send opponents flying.
Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: Any opponents hit by your shield bash are also hit with a free bull rush attack, substituting your attack roll for the combat maneuver check (see Combat). This bull rush does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Opponents who cannot move back due to a wall or other surface are knocked prone after moving the maximum possible distance. You may choose to move with your target if you are able to take a 5-foot step or to spend an action to move this turn.
It could also be read as meaning "by holding your shield in the correct position your shield can send opponents flying." I.e. not a position based ability but a way you hold the shield lets you make free bull rushes when you shield slam with it.
Saying the intent is for it to work with any weapon, when the description is: "Your unarmed strikes are as precise as they are powerful, but they leave you open and you can pursue foes with blinding speed." is big reach. Yes its how it was written. Its a weak position to say it wasn't intended to apply only to unarmed strikes.
Sure it can, if you add text that isn't there, in either the benefit section or the flavor text, which is what we're doing in relation to the CMD bonus and Power Attack/Swift Movement options of the Tiger Style feats. We're adding the "with unarmed strikes" clause to them, even though the actual text doesn't even have it (or has other qualifiers that are irrelevant to unarmed strikes).
The point is that, with the feat description of Shield Slam, it does nothing to note how "in the right position" has any bearing on what the feat benefits are written.
The same argument applies here, but in truth, it's actually much more defensible here than there. Why? Because the feat already quantifies what is limited to unarmed strikes, as per the sentence that states what happens if you hit with an unarmed strike or succeed at a combat maneuver (which people are so gladly disregarding the factor that either qualification works, and doesn't mean that you must succeed at a combat maneuver WITH an unarmed strike, like everybody assumes it means, which is physically impossible by the rules).
There's also the matter of what constitutes "unarmed combat" for the purposes of utilizing these feats, like everybody is proposing Style Feats are meant for. Does that mean you can't use armor or shields? Does that mean you need Monk levels and have to be some discount-wuxia-wanna-be in order to use style feats? Does that mean you can't have or use any weapons other than unarmed strikes (meaning natural weapons are likewise disbarred from possession)?
And no, a "varies from style" answer is bull%#!^. It truly is. Because that's moving goal posts from "All Style Feats," as you're claiming, to "Some Style Feats," in which case, the "Some Style Feats" answer would result in an "Unarmed when it says so" precedent, which is precisely what the RAW does.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The flavor text of all 3 feats, and the mechanics of the previous 2 disagree with you.
+1
But I'm not certain whether or not it is intended to be limited, but it could have been. So I wouldn't object to any GM saying it's limited.
Like you can believe it's supposed to be limited. But you could also believe that fort +4 is fort +6. Doesn't make your belief the rules.
That type of argument has failed many times in the past. The most recent example is Sneak Attack with a ranged weapon on flanking. Many insisted that "the RULES" allow it. But it that ignores the context.
ranged flanking never worked, flanking has always been melee only. This one is clear as flanking that the benefits aren't limited to US.
They nor the feat said unarmed combat.
Your unarmed strikes are as precise as they are powerful, but they leave you open and you can pursue foes with blinding speed.Unarmed Strikes are an actual, specific thing in Pathfinder.
And in each of the feats in the chain, the feat benefits already clarify how your unarmed strikes are enhanced, but the text does more than simply enhance unarmed strikes, it enhances other things too. You even acknowledge this, and say you disagree with how it functions like that, simply because it's supposed to be an unarmed combat style.
So yes, the problem (more precisely, yours and several others' problem) is with Style Feats, as written, not being tied solely to unarmed combat, either in a general sense, or in specific senses of the ideal, in which case, the issue is with Style Feats as a whole, and not with this specific feat chain.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So yes, the problem (more precisely, yours and several others' problem) is with Style Feats, as written, not being tied solely to unarmed combat, either in a general sense, or in specific senses of the ideal, in which case, the issue is with Style Feats as a whole, and not with this specific feat chain.
Generally I think it's considered bad form to try to tell someone what their 'real' problem is. Especially when it doesn't even make sense.
Not really. This thread could've been about several other style feats. Lets look at some examples.
Crane Style says:
Your unarmed fighting techniques blend poise with graceful defense.
Prerequisites: Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +2 or monk level 1st.
Benefit: You take only a –2 penalty on attack rolls for fighting defensively. While using this style and fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you gain an additional +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class.
So, why isn't there a thread about whether the fighting defensively benefit applies only with unarmed strikes? I mean, the flavor text clearly states that it's in relation to unarmed fighting, so it should be only while fighting defensively with unarmed strikes, right? And by Rysky's argument of the description of one feat affecting all feats in the chain, wouldn't that also mean you can only utilize Crane Wing and Crane Riposte through unarmed strikes as well?
Another example is Monkey Style, and it says:
Your unarmed fighting style is nimble and unpredictable, full of ground rolls and short leaps.
Prerequisites: Wis 13, Improved Unarmed Strike, Acrobatics 5 ranks, Climb 5 ranks.
Benefit: You add your Wisdom bonus on Acrobatics checks. While using this style, you take no penalty on melee attack rolls or to AC while prone. Further, you can crawl and stand up from lying prone without provoking attacks of opportunity, and you can stand up as a swift action if you succeed at a DC 20 Acrobatics check.
Normal: You take a –4 penalty on attack rolls and AC against melee attacks while prone. Standing up is a standard action that provokes attacks of opportunity.
Why isn't there a thread about whether the Acrobatics, prone, and standing up/crawling benefit only apply while unarmed (or performing unarmed strikes) if the flavor text clearly indicates that the style feat is meant solely for unarmed combat?
And yet another example is Snapping Turtle Style, and it says:
Snapping Turtle Style (Combat, Style)
Your deft unarmed style allows you to shield your body from harm.Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +1 or monk level 1st.
Benefit: While using the Snapping Turtle Style feat with at least one hand free, you gain a +1 shield bonus to AC.
Why isn't there a thread about Snapping Turtle requiring that the wearer be unarmed to receive the benefit of this feat? The subsequent feats in the chain have a similar construction of flavor text not matching up to the language, and the text clearly indicates the wielder is unarmed.
And that's just a handful of style feats in Ultimate Combat alone, not even considering Style Feats from other books (not Weapon Style Feats, they're different and don't fall under the same paradigm or restrictions).
Call it "bad form" all you want; at the end of the day, we're really just fighting fire with fire here.
|
I would have to read it over but while I lean towards needing unarmed attacks for Crane, fighting defensively and power attacking aren't the same thing.
With Monkey Style you're just being disingenuous, being armed or not has absolutely no bearing on acrobatic checks, or standing up or falling down.
With Snapping Turtle it says "unarmed Style" but also calls out needing one hand free.
And again, these are different than Tiger Style, with the first 2 feats explicitly in the mechanics requiring unarmed strikes and then the 3rd which says "when using Tiger Style"
it applies to all weapons because power attack is chosen at the start of the turn if you use AC, you can't suddenly have it not applied to AC. Basically it's all weapons because limiting it to US is messy and an inelegant solution.
|
|
it applies to all weapons because power attack is chosen at the start of the turn if you use AC, you can't suddenly have it not applied to AC. Basically it's all weapons because limiting it to US is messy and an inelegant solution.
Fair point, but I still believe that Tiger Pounce is only for when you're using Power Attacks with Unarmed Strikes.
I would have to read it over but while I lean towards needing unarmed attacks for Crane, fighting defensively and power attacking aren't the same thing.
With Monkey Style you're just being disingenuous, being armed or not has absolutely no bearing on acrobatic checks, or standing up or falling down.
With Snapping Turtle it says "unarmed Style" but also calls out needing one hand free.
And again, these are different than Tiger Style, with the first 2 feats explicitly in the mechanics requiring unarmed strikes and then the 3rd which says "when using Tiger Style"
Mechanically, they are. They impose penalties to your attacks for a bonus to either damage or AC, and both require you to attack in order to make use of them.
If your argument is that the Power Attack effects are meant only for unarmed strikes, the same exact argument likewise is applicable to Fighting Defensively, and in all respects, I might add. Bandw2 already exposed the intent behind my current argument(s), so it either should be very easy to implement as a limitation (and wasn't), or is too messy to implement as a limitation, and as such serves as a very strong deterrent of the "flavor text" serving as "intent."
There's also the matter of why the AC bonus doesn't apply only while unarmed, if the "intent" is that you have improved unarmed defenses (and not just defenses in general as the feat benefit currently says it applies to), but the former issue is more than enough to demonstrate my point.
Wait, what? I don't see how it's being disingenuous, as that's quite a hypocritical stance you just posed there in regards to Monkey Style, saying that being armed or unarmed has nothing to do with whether Acrobatics or Prone benefits apply, even though you're using that same exact argument and reasoning to say that the entire Tiger Style feat chain benefits (most specifically, the Power Attack, CMD, and Swift Action Movement benefits) are exclusive to unarmed strikes/unarmed combat. In fact, that hypocrisy is the same exact argument I made to you about the entire Tiger Style feat chain only applying certain benefits except what was noted in the "Benefits" section, to which you said that it was never the case. Never. Not "Once before, but not anymore," not "Wasn't, but currently could be," but never. Do you see how silly that sounds?
Doesn't matter if it has an additional qualifier. Your claim was that Tiger Pounce's extra movement can only be done with an unarmed strike or a combat maneuver performed with an unarmed strike, so the mention of a free hand in the case of the Snapping Turtle style is irrelevant in that same vein.
I suggest you clarify your stance, wholly, in regards to Style Feats as a whole, the Tiger Style Feat chain, and probably the extra Style Feats I listed (as a starting point), before we continue this discussion, as the answers you've given me seem to be all over the place. I mean, from what I've gathered so far; in one instance, you're using "flavor text" to justify your argument (not a judgement thing, but serving as a starting point), in another, you're giving a different answer in regards to an identical argument that you answered in the prior instance, you outright contradict yourself in another instance, and in the last one you try and say that there's an additional qualifier which takes precedence, an argument which I gave for a certain subject's argument, that you decided was irrelevant because it didn't follow the flavor text clause of "unarmed strikes" in some manner that, in several circumstances, is impossible to enforce. Do I have that right so far?
|
|
What I mean regarding Tiger Style has been clear, you're the one bringing up different style feats and abilities not similar to TS from all over the place and saying they're all the same, and thus my answers to those are "all over the place."
In Monkey Style saying you have to use Unarmed Strikes to use acrobatics checks or stand up or fall down is ridiculous. How do you Unarmed Strike an Acrobatics Check?
What I mean regarding Tiger Style has been clear, you're the one bringing up different style feats and abilities not similar to TS from all over the place and saying they're all the same, and thus my answers to those are "all over the place."
In Monkey Style saying you have to use Unarmed Strikes to use acrobatics checks or stand up or fall down is ridiculous. How do you Unarmed Strike an Acrobatics Check?
If you think that requiring unarmed strikes/combat for an Acrobatics check bonus is ridiculous, how do you unarmed strike a Swift Action for Movement, Combat Maneuvers like Bull Rush, Overrun, Grapple, Steal (sample qualifiers for the former), a bonus to CMD, and the Power Attack adjustments? You say they're possible, but you haven't properly explained how that's the case outside of referencing flavor text that may or may not have any bearing on what the "Benefits" section says.
Again, how are they not similar? Each of them require unarmed combat to function, because that's what the flavor text says. That's the argument you're using to justify your stance (the flavor text, anyway), so if the claim is that flavor text tells us the intent, then it's not unreasonable to claim that certain benefits or activities require either being unarmed, or performing unarmed strikes.
Let me expand upon that further with the examples I've previously listed. With your flavor text claim, we can apply the following "adjustments" to the benefits section of the Crane Style feat chain to better reflect how the flavor text impacts the benefits section of the feat.
Your unarmed fighting techniques blend poise with graceful defense.
Prerequisites: Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +2 or monk level 1st.
Benefit: While unarmed, you take only a –2 penalty on attack rolls for fighting defensively with unarmed strikes. While unarmed, using this style, and fighting defensively with an unarmed strike or using the total defense action while unarmed, you gain an additional +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class.
Next, Crane Wing:
You move with the speed and finesse of an avian hunter, your sweeping blocks and graceful motions allowing you to def lect melee attacks with ease.
Prerequisites: Crane Style, Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +5 or monk level 5th.
Benefit: When unarmed and fighting defensively with at least one hand free, you gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC against melee attacks. If you using the total defense action while unarmed instead, you can deflect one melee attack that would normally hit you. An attack so deflected deals no damage and has no other effect (instead treat it as a miss). You do not expend an action when using this feat, but you must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed.
Lastly, Crane Riposte:
You use your defensive abilities to make overpowering counterattacks.
Prerequisites: Crane Style, Crane Wing, Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +8 or monk level 7th.
Benefit: While unarmed, you take only a -1 penalty on attack rolls for fighting defensively with unarmed strikes. Whenever you deflect an opponent's attack using Crane Wing or lose the dodge bonus from Crane Wing because an attack missed you by 4 or less, you can make an attack of opportunity with an unarmed strike against the attacker after the attack misses.
Adjustments bolded for ease of reference. This demonstrates several key things.
1. Adjustments such as the kind I've made above can be applicable to several style feats that contain flavor text reliant on or subjected to unarmed strikes and/or unarmed combat. This means all feats with that flavor text are identical in that fashion, which you claim are different, but as I've demonstrated above, can be done quite easily to all of them to implement the intent the flavor text claims that should be there.
2. If the developers needed to include things like the Power Attack penalty to AC, the bonus to CMD, the Swift Action movement, and so on, to the unarmed strike/combat paradigm, they would've implemented clauses identical or similar to the ones I've posed, IF the intent was that those things were to apply only to unarmed strikes, or unarmed combat as a whole. It's not like I added entire sentences or absolutely changed the core mechanics of the feats; at best, a couple 2-4 word phrases, with grammatical corrections to accommodate the flavor text's "intent."
3. When these adjustments are made, there will most likely be FAQ/Errata threads posted that would question what constitutes as being "armed" for the purposes of benefiting from feats, such as I've described, and when that answer is released, Could probably result in Style Feats being largely incompatible with a lot of things; at least, with Paizo's balance ideals and track record, it's very easily a possibility.
I could make these adjustments to the other feat chains if you'd like, but I believe this more than properly conveys my point across.
**EDIT** Applied a band-aid to this post's wall-of-text syndrome. Hopefully it helps...
**EDIT #2** Engrish is hard...
You use Bull Rush in place of an attack, and Overrun in place of a charge (which is also an attack). It's actually getting hard to parse what all you're going on about as you keep piling things on, whether relevant or barley tangental.
Bull Rush claim is outright false in relations to doing so in place of making any attack. Relevant text:
You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack.
Overrun is broken and doesn't function per the current wording, since spending a Standard Action to perform the maneuver stops whatever movement you were making (the same as trying to attack during movement), and the charge clause doesn't discount the factor that you're still spending a Standard Action on top of the Full Round Action needed to perform a Charge.
As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square.
Even the RAI is a little murky, since it's questionable whether you can move as part of the standard action or not, or if you have to have enough movement with whatever Move Action you spend.
In either case, it doesn't mean you're using an Unarmed Strike to perform the maneuvers in question, which is the main point I was making there.
|
|
... what?
It outright says it in what you quoted.
"You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack." you can Bull Rush as a Standard Action, or at the end of the charge.
And Overrun is not that bad, either move then Overrun, or Overrun as part of a charge.
A charge is an attack, you can use Unarmed Strike at the end of a charge, same as any other weapon.
overrun is probably using improper english, it's probably supposed to be written as
"As a standard action taken during your move, or as part of a charge" instead it seems to require you make a standard action during a charge, which is a full action.