7 or 8?
It is a style designed to counter almost all of the problems faced by unarmed styles- it groups all the damage together so it blasts through DR (which means it is also more realistic to use magic fang spells as your attack/damage boost, rather than the troublesome amulet) and it provides pounce that works well with the TWF style commonly used by unarmed strikes.
I list it as this score because it is GOOD, but not REQUIRED.
1. The common unarmed classes usually have their own answers to these problems- monks and brawlers have various anti-DR solutions (sometimes not optimal for all DR at a given level, but it covers enough), and unchained monks have that flying kick thing.
2. There are other styles that also have fantastic abilities. Outslug style is a fine example- it turns your 5' step into a 10' step, and provides penalty free lunge. That means you can easily full attack anything within 20', and that is BEFORE you look at enlarge person and the like.
Overall, if you feel you HAVE to play something like an unarmed fighter... pummeling style is a great way to cover up some of the problems of the style. Sure, you have to wait until later levels since you don't get the monk short cut on prereqs, but it still comes in that mid range window when many classes get pounce options.
It should be noted that you don't need to be in the stance for Pummeling Style to function, so you could stack it on top of a different style chain. That doesn't work for Pummeling Charge, of course.
For Brawler or cMonk, I rate it as 10 (due to Pummeling Charge) - I'd never build an unarmed one without it. Not that I would build one with it, but that's not the topic. If Pummeling Charge isn't needed, I'd say it's a 7 (higher if your campaign contains a lot of damage type based DR, lower if your GM doesn't like DR).
Never seen a Pummeling Style discussion before. Is there some reason
"As a swift action, you can enter the stance employed by the fighting style a style feat embodies. Although you cannot use a style feat before combat begins, the style you are in persists until you spend a swift action to switch to a different combat style."
Doesn't apply to Pummeling Style? Like I can see how you might pull that interpretation out of the wording if you were looking for it, but it doesn't seem that cut and dry to me.
|
It should be noted that you don't need to be in the stance for Pummeling Style to function, so you could stack it on top of a different style chain. That doesn't work for Pummeling Charge, of course.
For Brawler or cMonk, I rate it as 10 (due to Pummeling Charge) - I'd never build an unarmed one without it. Not that I would build one with it, but that's not the topic. If Pummeling Charge isn't needed, I'd say it's a 7 (higher if your campaign contains a lot of damage type based DR, lower if your GM doesn't like DR).
I'm afraid i don't follow. I've always been under the impression that Snake Style, Pummeling style, Crane style all that. You have to be in combat and you have to spend a swift action to get the benefits. Are you saying that's no the case?
Well most of them specify that to use the gateway feat, you have to be in the stance. Pummeling style does not, which is where I assume this argument stems from, but I feel the bit I quoted above covers that, although I can see some wiggle room.
Tbh I’d probably allow it to be used that way anyhow.
Is there some reason
"As a swift action, you can enter the stance employed by the fighting style a style feat embodies. Although you cannot use a style feat before combat begins, the style you are in persists until you spend a swift action to switch to a different combat style."
Doesn't apply to Pummeling Style? Like I can see how you might pull that interpretation out of the wording if you were looking for it, but it doesn't seem that cut and dry to me.
Oh, it does apply. That text simply doesn't say that you need to be in that style to get the benefits. What you've quoted only talks about how you enter a style/stance, not what entering a style does. That's covered in the next sentence: "You can use a feat that has a style feat as a prerequisite only while in the stance of the associated style." Emphasis mine, They could have said "a style feat or a feat that has a style feat as a prerequisite", but they did not, they worded it so that it only applies to followup feats.
Most style feats (51 out of 66) contain the words "while using this style" or similar wording, thus making everything following those words only active after you've spend a swift action to enter that style. Now, on some feats this might be considered reminder text, but then there are feats (like Snake Style or Crane Style) where that line shows up in the middle. It makes absolutely no sense to put it in the middle if it's supposed to apply to the whole description!
Simply put, Ultimate Combat (mostly quoting the CRB) says the benefits section of feats is "What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description) to do." (pg. 89), and there is nothing in the style feat description that overrules this (for the style feat itself). The way the rules work, unless something overrides the general feat rules, they're what counts.
@Malik Gyan Daumantas: You realize that we had that discussion here, right?
I expect most GMs won't allow a style feat to be used if you aren't in the style. I am fairly confident that if this was every clarified by Piazo they would rule in that direction.
Regardless, that has little to do with the topic of this thread.
In my opinion, you can't judge the value of pummeling style in a vacuum.
The first, and most important factor is the nature of the campaign. If you are going to be fighting a lot of demons or robots, pummeling style will be useful a lot most likely. If you are fighting humanoids, it probably won't matter so much.
The next is your build itself. How versatile you are matters. If you are a good grappler was well as a good puncher, you might be able to deal with DR heavy things by grappling them for example. Or you might only be a little worse off if you switch to a weapon and are able to overcome DR that way.
Lastly is the composition of the rest of the party. If you are really the only damage dealer, being able to overcome DR all the time, even if it is rare, is pretty important. Conversely, if your party contains a couple of other strikers as well, not being able to do much, if any, damage once in a while isn't the end of the world, especially if the feats you would have used for pummeling style could be used to overcome some other problem the party would have difficulty dealing with.
Between those factors, I can see pummeling style ranging from 'must have' to 'not important at all'.
I expect most GMs won't allow a style feat to be used if you aren't in the style.
Sure, a GM is able to do that. A GM could also say that Wizards can only cast spells that start with an "e". Both of these would be houserules with absolutely no basis on actual rules.
I am fairly confident that if this was every clarified by Piazo they would rule in that direction.
Maybe. Maybe not. The author of the Sohei didn't intend flurry to work while wearing armor, but the PDT ruled that it works as written. The author of the Invulnerable Rager intended that the Improved Damage Reduction works for the archetype, but the PDT ruled that the very literal interpretation of the wording is the correct one.
Meanwhile, the authors of Snake Style et al. put the "while in this style" part in the middle, which, to me, shows that they intended it to only be true for the part that comes after (especially since that parts before it are generally numeric bonuses). And that is more than enough proof for me that those authors presumed that there was no general rule that style feats require the style to function at all.Seriously, we're talking about one of the weakest fighting styles in the game, on some of the weakest classes in the game. Are those unarmed Brawlers and cMonks so game breaking that you have to make up rules to nerf them? And then people wonder why so many play carbon copy builds of two-handed martials or archers.
|
|
I expect most GMs won't allow a style feat to be used if you aren't in the style.Sure, a GM is able to do that. A GM could also say that Wizards can only cast spells that start with an "e". Both of these would be houserules with absolutely no basis on actual rules.
I am fairly confident that if this was every clarified by Piazo they would rule in that direction.Maybe. Maybe not. The author of the Sohei didn't intend flurry to work while wearing armor, but the PDT ruled that it works as written. The author of the Invulnerable Rager intended that the Improved Damage Reduction works for the archetype, but the PDT ruled that the very literal interpretation of the wording is the correct one.
Meanwhile, the authors of Snake Style et al. put the "while in this style" part in the middle, which, to me, shows that they intended it to only be true for the part that comes after (especially since that parts before it are generally numeric bonuses). And that is more than enough proof for me that those authors presumed that there was no general rule that style feats require the style to function at all.Seriously, we're talking about one of the weakest fighting styles in the game, on some of the weakest classes in the game. Are those unarmed Brawlers and cMonks so game breaking that you have to make up rules to nerf them? And then people wonder why so many play carbon copy builds of two-handed martials or archers.
Trust me i get how frustrating it is,I'm trying to make a sacred fist warpriest work despite knowing the standard war priest is just so much better combat wise. Problem being I REALLY want that monk vibe for this character or i fear it wont make much sense combat wise.
How about unMonk 1/Warpriest X instead of Sacred Fist?
Yeah that's pretty much what I was expecting re: Pummeling style not requiring stance. I find that interpretation dubious. Not technically false, but based entirely on what has gone unsaid when the way the rules are used with other feats pretty strongly implies the expectation that you can't use any style feat without being in stance. Beastmaster style, for instance, also doesn't include a line to say that you need to be in-stance, but does include the line "Special: You cannot use this style if you are mounted on your animal companion." It doesn't say "you cannot use this feat," so if I can use the feat without being in the stance, does the exclusion not apply to the feat that carries the exclusion? That would be very strange.
So yeah, I agree that the words are arranged in such a way as to make that reading of them legitimate. I find it highly dubious though.
But then, like I said before, I'd probably go ahead and allow it depending on the player's build. I wouldn't allow it on... any of the unarmed characters I've made, but I've done some scary unarmed builds.
Edit: Rather, my difficulty with it would be that unarmed characters have DR troubles early on, but can scale into pretty solid damage dealers at higher level, especially when you look at multiclass options, at which point Pummeling style being available constantly starts to look unbalanced.
Well, disregarding the rules debate, I think we can generally agree that it is a rather good style- early DR breaking for monks, late DR breaking for nonmonk unarmed builds, and it is a pounce option.
It is good, but not "beast totem" level of "you have to have it".
I find that interpretation dubious. Not technically false, but based entirely on what has gone unsaid when the way the rules are used with other feats pretty strongly implies the expectation that you can't use any style feat without being in stance.
It's the only interpretation actually supported by the rules.
Unless someone shows me some rule text that actually says that you need to have entered the style to gain the style feat's benefits, any such limitation implemented by the GM is a houserule, per definition. I also see you didn't address my point about how feats like Snake Style strongly indicate the lack of even the intention a general rule.The author of Beastmaster Style seemes to have presumed a general rule, I agree. But not only was that feat released six years after the rules we're discussing... well, do I really need to say anything about UW's total lack of content editing?
But hey, I hear you, I do. Imagine what would happen if unarmed martials would apply DR only once per round, for the cost of a single feat, without tax feats as prereqs. That would surely break game balance! No one would ever again play any other martial, and it would even bump casters from their throne! Wait. S&!@!
I'm not convinced of the actual scariness of your unarmed builds, but whatever.
It is good, but not "beast totem" level of "you have to have it".
Wait, pounce plus DR penetration for two feats is less of a "must have" than pounce plus some AC for 3 rage powers? How come?
I'm not convinced of the actual scariness of your unarmed builds, but whatever.
It is good, but not "beast totem" level of "you have to have it".Wait, pounce plus DR penetration for two feats is less of a "must have" than pounce plus some AC for 3 rage powers? How come?
Because none of the totems match up to "pounce plus AC", while some styles do.
I listed outslug style- it isn't as good at the initial approach, but it still allows you to attack at a fair area of the combat after everyone has approached combat range. The 10' step of outslug also serves a defensive option (you can move far enough away that the enemy might have to waste a move action to reach you) and tactical options (it is much easier to get into flank position).
Additionally, one of the main "unarmed classes", the unchained monk, gets its own separate pounce style ability at a earlier level without investment. In which case, you might as well pick any useful style (pummeling is still a good option for DR, but it might be a single feat spent to get the option while you go for another 'main' style, much like how a great sword user might golf bag a hammer for when skeletons show up).
So you have options that serve a similar purpose, which are fairly comparable. Barbarian totems do not really have that (at best, there is a 'fly plus more DR' option from dragon totem, from the ones I remember). So beast totem is a 'must have'. Additionally, since you can only have a single totem, there is less room to play around with side options with totem.