| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because I'm playing an armed combatant? : )
Well, if I'm playing an armed combatant and the game will get to 12th level or so I would consider outslug style, since it offers similar ability to full-attack people who are not adjacent (especially now that we can get polearms in the close weapon group.)
Even with the erratas it recieved, if you had to choose one style to persue, why would you ever choose anything but pummeling?
Everything else just feels secondary considering it fixes so many problems unarmed combatants deal with.
Not really.
An Amulet of Mighty Fists can do the first Pummeling Style feat benefits, except better (unless you're facing DR/-, which isn't too common, and even then, +5 to hit and damage is still really good to have).
The second feat isn't that great, since reposition/trip are crappy maneuvers, don't work on most enemies, and provokes if you don't have the Improved Combat Maneuver feat, which is difficult to acquire for numerous martials. It really only serves as a feat tax.
The third feat is perhaps the only one worthwhile of the three, but there are some other classes that can get access to pounce sooner, and with more benefits than I've described above (Barbarians via Beast Totem, Druids via Wildshape, etc). It's also more restrictive (unarmed strikes only), whereas the others have more options to choose from.
That being said, there are still other style chains that are good, but each style chain is extremely niche, due to Improved Unarmed Strike requirements, and them generally being bad as a whole.
it only really seems useful to Brawlers doing unarmed and chained monks maybe? do they have some other way of getting pounce?
it only really seems useful to Brawlers doing unarmed and chained monks maybe? do they have some other way of getting pounce?
It's also useful for my Sap Master Guide, and combined with Medusa's Wrath, you're unleashing more attacks than a Hasted Full BAB martial, most of which are at your highest BAB.
The more you know
a thing to note is that you don't need the tripping one to get the good pounce one
a thing to note is that you don't need the tripping one to get the good pounce one
Huh. That's always been the theme with style feats, they're in chains of 3, and you have to have the prior feat in the chain to take that one.
I'd chalk that up to a typo that may be fixed in an upcoming reprint, but I suppose right now, you can just skip that bad feat. Interesting (and useful).
|
a thing to note is that you don't need the tripping one to get the good pounce oneHuh. That's always been the theme with style feats, they're in chains of 3, and you have to have the prior feat in the chain to take that one.
I'd chalk that up to a typo that may be fixed in an upcoming reprint, but I suppose right now, you can just skip that bad feat. Interesting (and useful).
Pummeling strike and its errata came out more then 5 years ago, if they wanted to change it they would have done so by now.
Pummeling strike and its errata came out more then 5 years ago, if they wanted to change it they would have done so by now.a thing to note is that you don't need the tripping one to get the good pounce oneHuh. That's always been the theme with style feats, they're in chains of 3, and you have to have the prior feat in the chain to take that one.
I'd chalk that up to a typo that may be fixed in an upcoming reprint, but I suppose right now, you can just skip that bad feat. Interesting (and useful).
There are many features that came out since Pathfinder's release that are only just now getting changes. Ammunition and Shield Master come to mind in that regard.
What changed about ammunition?
What changed about ammunition?
Probably the recent FAQ stating that the projectile weapon's enhancement bonus only affects ammunition against DR/magic but not the other special material or alignment damage reduction. If a ranged weapon specifically is aligned (like from a spell or holy enhancement) then the ammunition would gain that alignment as well.
to the OP.
with the unchained monk's flying kick i find that a lot of the charm from pumnmeling is off. at level 12 my gm had me rework my JABBING style & master, monk since he was outclassing anyone in the damage department it was redicilus. (what with medusa's Wrathe in a circle kick or elbow smash for extra attacks i was doing betwin 26-32 extra d6 each full attack,throw in cold ice strike later on and nothing lasted a full round attack.)
THEN when i moved to crane style instead when i remade him and hit ac 60~ easy. he again asked me to lower the ac somewhat to give the enemies a chacne to hit me (we are playing rise of the runelord, so most mobs attacks are set. i left it at 49 to make him happier).
so yea. pummleing style might have it's merits with chained monk. but it's nothing really to an unchained monk. unless you really have to charge for your whole speed X 2 distance, which is rare.
|
what with Medusa's Wrath in a circle kick...
Well, aside from the fact that that combo doesn't work, I still feel people overlook medusa's wrath. You can use headbutt or stunning fist, or any number of things really, to provide 2 extra attacks per round. Must be the two crappy feats as pre-requisites, which the monk doesn't really have to worry about.
the spin kick (sorry not circle kick) should work fine with medusa's wrath as long as the extra attack IS the spin kick and that it comes after a normal unarmed strike attack. look at the words:
and (looking at the uncunnay dodge part to learn the case where there is no uncanny dodge)
i repeat - if they have uncunny dodge they "cannot be caught flat-footed by this style strike" meaning that targets without uncunny dodge ARE cought flat footed with this attack - so it qulify as an extra attack for medusa's wrath. it is an unarmed attack made against a falt-footed target.
yes that mean to use it twice in a round to get both 2 extra attack s of the medusa's wrath one must be level 15+, but untill then you at least can get one for sure.
i did say medusa's wrath in a circle kick (ment to write spin kick). not AND then.
Spin Kick doesn't make them flat footed, it just allows you to make an attack against their flatfooted AC. Medusa's Wrath needs them to actually be flatfooted so I don't think that technically works.
That said I could be wrong, and if it works in your home game then this conversation is immaterial so far as how your character works.
I designed a Monk that would use Jabbing style then switch to Snake style with combat style master and had similar AC to that which you mentioned, then on his turn would switch back to Jabbing, his trigger for Medusa's Wrath was stunning fist, it wouldn't always work but its kinda overkill anyway.
as i mantioned.
the extra attack\s in medusa's warth need to be made against flat footed (or otherwise disabled,look at list) enemy, in spin kick , if you continue reading beyond the line that state you attack thir flat-foot ac, it state that enemies who have uncunny dodge are not flat footeed aginst it -which mean if they lack it they are flat footed against the spin kick only. explain to me why doesn't this work? the spin kick itslef is the extra attack of medusa's wrath.
i agree that it doesn't keep them falt footed against the rest of your attack (unless you use another spin kick at level 15+) but against the spin kick itself, how are they not falt footed?
...
yes that mean to use it twice in a round to get both 2 extra attack s of the medusa's wrath one must be level 15+, but untill then you at least can get one for sure.
..
said so earlier. up to 15 you get one for sure. more if you can get the enemy debuffed in some other way. at level 15+ can get both in as spin kicks.
as i mantioned.
the extra attack\s in medusa's warth need to be made against flat footed (or otherwise disabled,look at list) enemy, in spin kick , if you continue reading beyond the line that state you attack thir flat-foot ac, it state that enemies who have uncunny dodge are not flat footeed aginst it -which mean if they lack it they are flat footed against the spin kick only. explain to me why doesn't this work? the spin kick itslef is the extra attack of medusa's wrath.i agree that it doesn't keep them falt footed against the rest of your attack (unless you use another spin kick at level 15+) but against the spin kick itself, how are they not falt footed?
Because Medusa's Wrath requires that the enemy possesses those conditions, even if they are selective (such as Shatter Defenses, making the enemy flat-footed against you for a limited duration).
Targeting a sub-set of AC (flat-footed), which just so happens to have the same name as a condition, due to a special ability, does not mean that they possess the relevant condition for other purposes and effects, compared to another ability (Shatter Defenses) that does.
you seem to do the same mistake as the guy above.and ignore what im writing. so lets be clear.
my proof is not from the words "The monk makes his attack against the foe’s flat-footed AC" which as you say, and i agree, has yet to proove that the enemy is flat footed.
my proof is from the line that follows " Creatures with the uncanny dodge class feature or a similar effect cannot be caught flat-footed by this style strike." (notice it didn't say, "can not be atacked at their flat footed ac" as above. rather the specific condition of flat footed is used here)
lets break this logicly.
if craeture A has uncanny dodge(or an ability of sikmilar effect) and it is being attacked by a monk using spin kick then _ he is not "caught flat footed by this style strike".
there go if the craeture does not have uncanny dodge(or similar ability) then he DOES get caught flat footed by this style strike.
this does not talk about falt footed ac. rather the flat footed conditon, same condition needed for the extra attack in medusa's strike.
medusa's strike extra attack must be made against a flat footed target. spin kick used against an enemy without uncanny dodge(or similar ability) is cathing him flat footed and there for being done to a flat footed target.
if you want to continue arguing please refer to this specific line and prove me wrong, not the previus one which i also admit is not enough to prove that the target is flat footed.
I know what you were using as proof; the intent of that line is simply referring the general rules regarding uncanny dodge, and basically means that if they possess such a feature, you don't target their flat-footed AC like you normally would with the style strike. (AKA, uncanny dodge creatures are immune to the effects of the attack.)
In other words, it's written poorly (actually more-or-less copy-pasted from the Uncanny Dodge feature), because I highly doubt the style strike is designed to let you benefit from targeting flat-footed AC, or treating enemies as flat-footed, for anything other than the style strike attack. If it was, it'd be written as such.
So, even if you do argue that the creature is considered flat-footed, he stops being flat-footed once that attack is executed, meaning you have no window in which you can benefit from Medusa's Wrath.
"or treating enemies as flat-footed, for anything other than the style strike attack"
but that i my entire point. the two exrta atacks ARE the style feats. not the attacks that follow, and as we both agree do not target a flat footed target.
i get an extra attack if i attack a flat footed target. and that extra attack IS the spin kick, which attack a flat footed target. done and done. i dont need him to stay flat footed for the other attacks, only for the extra ones.
once im level 15+ i get a 2nd style strike in a full round action and can benefit from the 2nd spin kick.untilll then ether get some other way to make them ff or debuffed or just get one extra attack via the spin kick.