Style feats and swift actions


Rules Questions

Grand Lodge

Someone claimed on an advice post about certain style feats and that you don’t have to enter into them as a swift action. Particularly, pummeling style and jabbing style. The poster claimed that while you do need to use a swift action to enter into the style at the beginning of combat to use subsequent feats like pummeling charge, the base feats are passive and can even be used while in other style feats.

My understanding is that is incorrect, because they are listed as “style” feats, similar to “combat” feats, and there are specific rules to use any style feat- you must use a swift action to enter into a style and benefit from that feat chain, and unless you’re a MoMS or something similar, you can only be in one style at a time.

Unless I’m missing something?


You do need to use a swift action to do things like Pummeling Charge, although you still use the charge action in that case.

You do require the use of a swift action to benefit from most functionality of the style feats, although some have passive benefits that exist without being "in the style".

You can only ever be in one style chain, unless you are a Master of Many Style or have a similar ability (I don't know of any).

An example of some style feats which have passive benefits is Snake Style, which gives you a +2 bonus to sense motive and makes your unarmed strikes deal piercing damage. It also has other benefits when actually using Snake Style.


'As a swift action, you can enter the stance employed by the fighting style a style feat embodies.'

i.e. a style feat embodies a fighting style and its stance. A reasonable inference from the above is that you need the swift action to use the style feat. I think this is so, but it's not made more explicit that I know of.


To clarify:
You must use a swift action to enter a "style stance". This unlocks the benefit of feats in a style line. Some style feats, like Snake Style, have benefits that do not depend on "being in the stance".

You can only be in once "style stance" at a time unless you have an ability like that of the Master of Many Styles.

Grand Lodge

Claxon wrote:

You do require the use of a swift action to benefit from most functionality of the style feats, although some have passive benefits that exist without being "in the style".

...

An example of some style feats which have passive benefits is Snake Style, which gives you a +2 bonus to sense motive and makes your unarmed strikes deal piercing damage. It also has other benefits when actually using Snake Style.

Okay, I can see that with Snake Style. Specific wording lends to a pretty clear conclusion that the first sentence is passive while the rest of the feat requires a swift action to enter into the style:

Snake Style wrote:
You gain a +2 bonus on Sense Motive checks, and you can deal piercing damage with your unarmed strikes. While using the Snake Style feat, when an opponent targets you with a melee or ranged attack, you can spend an immediate action to make a Sense Motive check. You can use the result as your AC or touch AC against that attack. You must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed.

(bolding mine)

However, when looking at Snake Style next to Pummeling and Jabbing style, the wording does not suggest there is a passive effect on either of the latter two; It is a style feat and the general rule for style feats requires a swift action to enter into it in order to benefit from the feat chain.

Pummeling Style wrote:
Whenever you use a full-attack action or flurry of blows to make multiple attacks against a single opponent with unarmed strikes, total the damage from all hits before applying damage reduction. This ability works only with unarmed strikes, no matter what other abilities you might possess.

and

Jabbing Style wrote:
When you hit a target with an unarmed strike and you have hit that target with an unarmed strike previously that round, you deal an extra 1d6 points of damage to that target.

So if a regular Monk had Snake Style, Pummeling Style, and Jabbing Style feats, they would always be able to deal piercing damage with their unarmed strikes and always have the +2 to Sense Motive. They can take a swift action to enter into any of the three styles but cannot benefit from anything else from the other two feats. Does that sound right?


Incorrect, pummeling and jabbing lack the "While using the {x} feat" wording, therefore their effects are passive and always on.

As a houserule, I wouldn't let them work without being in that style, but the way they're worded is otherwise RAW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Syries wrote:

However, when looking at Snake Style next to Pummeling and Jabbing style, the wording does not suggest there is a passive effect on either of the latter two; It is a style feat and the general rule for style feats requires a swift action to enter into it in order to benefit from the feat chain.

Pummeling Style wrote:
Whenever you use a full-attack action or flurry of blows to make multiple attacks against a single opponent with unarmed strikes, total the damage from all hits before applying damage reduction. This ability works only with unarmed strikes, no matter what other abilities you might possess.

and

Jabbing Style wrote:
When you hit a target with an unarmed strike and you have hit that target with an unarmed strike previously that round, you deal an extra 1d6 points of damage to that target.

Right, I wasn't trying to imply these particular feats did.

I was just explaining how the feats generally worked, and provided an example of an exception, Snake Style.

With regard to willuwontu's post, I will have to disagree. The fact that that the feats don't specify "while you are using the style" doesn't mean it's an always on passive effect. That context is only created by Snake Style (and possibly some other feats). The lack of "while you are using the style" doesn't mean anything if there are no otherwise indicated passive abilities. Both feats require active use of the style.

It's important to remember that human beings wrote these, different people too. Not the same person each time, so you have to look at context. Snake Style represents the exception by breaking up it's benefits into passive and active components by saying "while using this style". Without that line being present, and based on the preface to style feats in general, the only conclusion is that Jabbing Style and Pummeling style benefits require you to actively be using the style stance.


Agreed. Both have clear activated abilities based on clear activated actions. Swift action to gain those abilities.

Grand Lodge

willuwontu wrote:

Incorrect, pummeling and jabbing lack the "While using the {x} feat" wording, therefore their effects are passive and always on.

As a houserule, I wouldn't let them work without being in that style, but the way they're worded is otherwise RAW.

I find that suspect considering it's labeled as a style feat without any obvious indicator that there is a benefit when not being in the style stance.

style feat rules wrote:
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.

You can't use a style stance outside of combat, and your style persists for the duration of the combat after spending a swift action to enter into the stance

There wouldn't have to be the wording "while in x style" because the general rule of having to enter in a style stance as a swift action is inherent to style feats. Other feats in the chain, like Jabbing Style, would have that wording to make clear that it is part of the style chain.

@Claxon I know, I just wanted to spell it out so I could get confirmation if I was on the right track. Thank you!


Re "passive" benefits like Snake Style's +2 on Sense Motive:

Darth Blaster wrote:

Dear MarkI have a rule question about crane style

It says:
" 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 whether" –2 penalty on attack rolls for fighting defensively"this ability can effect in the time not using this style or not?

Style feats (and their later chain feats) typically grant their benefits while in the style's stance, unless they say otherwise.

Given what he was replying to, I believe Mark's response works out to "style feats (and their later chain feats) grant their benefits only while in the style's stance unless they say otherwise." (I believe "typically" can be safely subsumed into "unless they say otherwise" here.)

Of course Mark's opinion is not necessarily Paizo's.


Consider other styles with only one thing in them such as brute style.

Quote:
While using this style, you can use your Vicious Stomp feat against any opponent within 10 feet of you, as long as it is within your natural reach. If you don’t have the Vicious Stomp feat, you gain no benefit from this feat.

Or earth child style.

Quote:
While using this style, your defensive training dodge bonus to AC increases to +6. Further, against creatures of the giant subtype, you can add your Wisdom bonus on your unarmed strike damage rolls.

Or kitsune style.

Quote:
While using this style, you can attempt to perform a dirty trick in place of an attack at the end of a charge.

And so on.

If a style feat doesn't have "while using {x} feat" or "while using this style" as a precursor to its benefit, it is a passive benefit.

Again, it's a reasonable houserule to say otherwise, but is still a houserule.

Style feat rules wrote:
You can use a feat that has a style feat as a prerequisite only while in the stance of the associated style.

This only limits feats in the chain of that style, not the style feat itself.


Ooo, found a better one. Still just Mark's opinion, of course.

Chess Pwn wrote:

So I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Many Many MANY style feats and feats that require style feats are written in this manner.

You can do/have X. While using style also do/have Y.

Is X always active because of having the feat and only Y needs the style to be active to work or does X and Y need you to be in the style to work?

** spoiler omitted **

The examples I have off-hand are the mobile bulwark style, Monkey Style, Snake Style, Crane Style, Boar Style

If it's the latter I wish you could instead put the "while using" at the beginning to make it clear that the entire feat is "while using" and not only the part after "while using" is while using.

It's the latter, and I agree it's confusing. I try to avoid that wording when working on style feats and their children in feat trees.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Ooo, found a better one. Still just Mark's opinion, of course.

Chess Pwn wrote:

So I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Many Many MANY style feats and feats that require style feats are written in this manner.

You can do/have X. While using style also do/have Y.

Is X always active because of having the feat and only Y needs the style to be active to work or does X and Y need you to be in the style to work?

** spoiler omitted **

The examples I have off-hand are the mobile bulwark style, Monkey Style, Snake Style, Crane Style, Boar Style

If it's the latter I wish you could instead put the "while using" at the beginning to make it clear that the entire feat is "while using" and not only the part after "while using" is while using.

It's the latter, and I agree it's confusing. I try to avoid that wording when working on style feats and their children in feat trees.

Interesting, this changes a lot of it's how they do work (not that I agree that it is how they work).

Are there any examples of how snake or crane style function in pfs, in regards to their passive benefits?

Grand Lodge

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Ooo, found a better one. Still just Mark's opinion, of course.

Chess Pwn wrote:

So I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Many Many MANY style feats and feats that require style feats are written in this manner.

You can do/have X. While using style also do/have Y.

Is X always active because of having the feat and only Y needs the style to be active to work or does X and Y need you to be in the style to work?

** spoiler omitted **

The examples I have off-hand are the mobile bulwark style, Monkey Style, Snake Style, Crane Style, Boar Style

If it's the latter I wish you could instead put the "while using" at the beginning to make it clear that the entire feat is "while using" and not only the part after "while using" is while using.

It's the latter, and I agree it's confusing. I try to avoid that wording when working on style feats and their children in feat trees.

That's interesting. I definitely hadn't interpreted feats like Snake Style like that. I value Mark's opinion on the matter but especially for PFS my best interpretation of the rules on this stand with my previous post. Unless there's a clear indicator there's a passive buff (such as the case with Snake Style) you must enter the stance as a swift action even if there isn't the "while in this style" wording.


I agree that's interesting.

Seeing as the wording will probably never be altered, I'll probably continue to run it as "If there is a mentioned division of active part, then other parts are considered passive benefits. Otherwise style feats require swift actions to enter the stance to benefit."

With the other option being you must enter the stance as a swift action to benefit at all.


Well, hes right about one thing.

Its confusing.

But it's at least an (more than an actually) answer.

It would be house ruling to do anything but swift action activate.


Since we already had this discussion here, here, here, and here, I'm gonna copy paste my argument that have never been refuted.

The style feat rules say this: "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. You can use a feat that has a style feat as a prerequisite only while in the stance of the associated style."
*) Presumably, "cannot use a style feat" OoC is supposed to mean "cannot enter a stance" OoC, but it's irrelevant for this topic anyway.

The last sentence is the only relevant limitation, and it only applies to feats with style feat prereqs. The style feat itself obviously has no such prereq. 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 (52 out of 68) 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. Everything before those word, or the entire description if these words aren't present, is constantly active because nothing say it isn't.
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!

For instance, Crane Style says "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." The reduced penalty is always active, but the +1 AC requires the stance.

The feat rules say you get the benefits section of feats you possess. The style feat rules say followup feats only work in stance. The second doesn't overrule the first, so that one still applies to style feats. The way the rules work, unless something overrides the general feat rules, they're what counts.

Mark Seifter's posts, apart from being strictly unofficial, are a sloppy attempt at a sloppy patch-up job, and most certainly not in any way derived from the actual rules, nor do they match how the writers of early style feats interpreted the rules. It's a pure houserule.


apparently, since hes said the same thing twice and has never been refuted, his is what stands and yours is an incorrect interpretation and house rule.

Should I put italics around some of that so it seems to mean more?

twice and never been refuted.

There.


Derklord,

The specific part of your argument that I don't agree with is:

Quote:
Everything before those word, or the entire description if these words aren't present, is constantly active because nothing say it isn't.

You have no basis for the that claim not having verbiage to the effect of "while using this style" means that the effect is constantly active. You are assuming this to be the case without any reasoning, and it only appears true if you compare feats. But since the feats are not written by the same people, and since the feats aren't written at the same time I think making the assumption isn't reasonable.

The baseline I'm assuming (without any proof, but equal to your proof) is that unless there is wording present (such as in Snake Style) that appears to create an effect that is separate from a benefit derived from entering the style stance that benefiting from the feat requires actively being in the stance.


Cavall wrote:

apparently, since hes said the same thing twice and has never been refuted, his is what stands and yours is an incorrect interpretation and house rule.

Should I put italics around some of that so it seems to mean more?

twice and never been refuted.

There.

I only said that to explain why I'm not directly addressing individual statements, but hey, I get that if you have zero rule based support for your claim, you desperately need to misdirect the attention away from my arguments. It's pretty telling that you exclusively focus on my introductory sentence and not on the argument.


Claxon wrote:
You have no basis for the that claim not having verbiage to the effect of "while using this style" means that the effect is constantly active.

Yes I do, although I admit I only alluded to the rule (secend to last paragraph), and didn't quote it.

"Benefit: What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description) to do." CRB pg. 113

The benefits section of, say, Jabbing Style says "When you hit a target with an unarmed strike and you have hit that target with an unarmed strike previously that round, you deal an extra 1d6 points of damage to that target."

According to the above quoted rule, possessing (and qualifying for) the feat enables me do deal the bonus damage on consequitive unarmed hits, because the feat has no other limitation. The style feat rules don't touch that part for style feats, either, unlike for followup feats where they add the restriction of "You can use a feat that has a style feat as a prerequisite only while in the stance of the associated style."


So, I decided to look at the numbers to see if any patterns shake out. I looked at 59 style feats (which I know isn't all of them but I find d20pfsrd easier to work with). I made the following assumptions

1. The character wasn't "in style"
2. The character was "in combat"
3. If there was no indication that a feat's benefits only applied while "in style" I assumed they fully benefited from the feat.

the numbers are as follows:

Spoiler:

archon = nothing
ascetic = nothing
brute = nothing
cudgeler = nothing
bulette = nothing
deadhand = nothing
dragon = nothing
earth child = nothing
empty quiver = nothing
fox = nothing
grabbing = nothing
janni = nothing
kirin = nothing
kitsune = nothing
kraken = nothing
kyton = nothing
linnorm = nothing
Maddening = nothing
outslug = nothing
overwatch = nothing
owl = nothing
panther = nothing
pefect = nothing
shield gauntlet = nothing
smashing = nothing
snapping turtle = nothing
spear dancing = nothing
spring-heeled = nothing
startoss = nothing
street = nothing
swift iron = nothing
swordplay = nothing
vanguard = nothing
wolf = nothing
wyvern fury = nothing
35

beastmaster = full
crashing wave = full
dwarven hatred = full
elven battle = full
illusive gnome = full
indomitable mountain = full
jabbing = full
kobld = full
orc fury = full
pummeling = full
slipslinger = full
tatzlwyrm = full
tiger = full
13

boar = half
crane = half
djinni = half
efreeti = half
mantis = half
marid = half
mobile bulwark = half
monkey = half
shaitan = half
snake = half
upsetting shield = half
11

my gut reaction looking at the numbers is that #3 is a false assumption after all 35 feats grant no benefit if you're not "in style" so why should those 13 be anything special? it "feels" like an exploit to claim that you for some reason benefit fully from them.

There are some other factors however that soften the reaction and suggest otherwise.

1. some of those 13 feats come from the same books as the 35, some even come from the same books that the 11 half benefit feats come from. If it was simply an editing error you wouldn't expect to see this sort of thing. Instead they would be isolated in some way not fully mixed in or for there to be so many.

2. About half of the 13 "full" feats have a racial requirement. None of the feats outside the 13 have one. If there were only one or two "full" feats that lacked a racial requirement this too could point to an editing error. However, its more then just one or two. In the case of the racial feats this seems to be a deliberate choice. This also creates a precedent.

3. About 1/3 of the 11 half feats only grant a benefit outside of being "in style" because they are increasing how many times you can use another ability (elemental fist). If these were the only half benefit feats that existed this too could point to the full benefit feats being an editing error. These style feats essentially provide an out of combat benefit and so of course they would have to provide it even when you're not "in style". However, the rest of the half-benefit feats clearly provide in combat bonuses even when you are not in stance. Which also provides precedent for a style feat to provide a combat benefit even when you're not "in style".

In the end, you have about a half dozen style feats that seem to provide their full benefits regardless of what "style" you're in that anyone can take. This makes them stand out because it means they are "more powerful" then the other 90% of style feats. From a balance standpoint they probably should only provide their benefits while "in style". The reason it doesn't simply state that you don't benefit from any style feat unless you are "in style" is that this ruling would screw over the half-benefit feats as well as the racial style feats all of which are clearly designed to work even when you're not "in style". I don't think the creators intended for the feats to be more powerful then most other style feats. But without an official FAQ that nerfs them to be in line with the rest, its where they sit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dreklord
Your argument is that you've never been refuted despite the fact theres 2 clear posts by people that make the game that directly answer that exact question saying the opposite of what you are.

Therefore, I don't have to argue your argument, you simply don't have one, unless willful dismissal of evidence is happening. Since it isn't, I'm more inclined to point out WHY you don't have an argument (making a statement that is instantly false) vs pointing out flaws based on something made in bad faith.

Further to the point, your statement that earlier writers had different readings completely ignores that fact that this community runs entirely on the latest readings, not the earliest. While it is often difficult to understand RAI, it's a lot easier when someone within the company tells you the RAI. So even if the arguement wasn't made in bad faith, it is also flawed simply because it ignores how we apply these things.

Additionally, it is hypocritical to make the statement that someone is making desperate attempts to misdirect when you are directly insulting one of the makers of the game in order to attempt to discredit them in order to give the illusion of your argument having weight.

Lastly, frankly, I simply disagree with the premise of what you're stating. I find your point about style feats and prereqs to be deeply flawed. But since so does someone whose words carry more weight in the community than you does too (and stated so more than once), it was better to simply point that out rather than repeat what you feel Mark "sloppily" stated.

Grand Lodge

Yeah, I gotta say everything Derklord presented isn’t super convincing. The lack of consistent wording is much more likely to be due to the fact that there are multiple writers for these feats, even within the same source book, that don’t necessarily communicate 100% what is being printed. In addition, editors need to trim wording in order to make everything fit on the pages they print.

What’s more likely, the idea that multiple writers might not use the same wording on particular types of feats, or that they all collaborated and purposefully omitted some fairly redundant wording on a seemingly random assortment of style feats? While I don’t necessarily have any evidence to the fact, I certainly feel the former is much more likely.


LordKailas wrote:

my gut reaction looking at the numbers is that #3 is a false assumption after all 35 feats grant no benefit if you're not "in style" so why should those 13 be anything special? it "feels" like an exploit to claim that you for some reason benefit fully from them.

There are some other factors however that soften the reaction and suggest otherwise.

Thank you, for making an evaluation based on facts, not just some feeling (or that's based on ignoring that explicitly non-official forum posts are something different than written rules).

LordKailas wrote:
I don't think the creators intended for the feats to be more powerful then most other style feats. But without an official FAQ that nerfs them to be in line with the rest, its where they sit.

To be honest, I have no idea what the authors intended. I'm completely convinced that the authors of the "half feats" as you call them did understand the rules as I presented them, but beyond that, I don't feel able to presume any intend either way.

Both Pummeling Style and Jabbing Style have recieved extensive errata (basically being rewritten), so "it's a freelance writer's mistake that was missed in editing" is out as an explanation (unlike for the WMH ones, for instance).

LordKailas wrote:
From a balance standpoint they probably should only provide their benefits while "in style".

To be fair, most of the feats are for unarmed, a combat style that isn't exactly known for being overpowered. The only weapon based one where I can actually see someone using it as a stand-alone feat is Slipslinger Style, another rather weak playstyle. Something to remember is that it's usually not the style feat, but the follow-up feats that are the main power, anyway. Ascetic Form, Crane Wing (at least pre-nerf), Dragon Ferocity, Jabbing Master, Outslug Sprint, Pummeling Charge, Shikigami Manipulation, Startoss Comet/Shower; these are the money-maker feats, the ones above and beyond what a normal feat can do.

@Syries: Is it really that hard to understand my argument? Because it seems that you have completely missed it. My argument isn't about consistent wording. My argument isn't even about what the writers thought (apart from the "half-feat" thing, does anyone actually argue that those writers presumed a general rule, and then added reminder text in the middle of their feats?). My argument isn't about what the writers might have intended. My argument is about what's actually written in the actual books. My entire argument is basically "the general feat rules say you get what's written in the benefits section, and nothing in the style rules or feat description says you don't (for feats like Jabbing Style), so you do". Entirely written rules based. You are very welcome to present a counter-argument, but it has to contain an actual rule quote (as that's how the Pathfinder rules work).

@Cavall: Once again you mistype my name. Either you're doing that deliberately, or you can't even be bothered to get the name right. In any case, it once again shows that you aren't in any way interested in a serious debate, and thus I have nothing to say to you.


Or maybe just maybe letters get mixed up as I read them and it's not about you at all. Don't assume things and grind your teeth about something that isn't happening. I'm very interested in serious debate. You just made yours about insulting the employees of the company and it doesn't sit well with me. I am ok with you not saying anything to me though. Your style of posting is not my cup of tea.


Ok, I'll bite.

I didn't insult anyone. I didn't comment on Mark Seifter, I commented on his post. You know, the unofficial post he did in his (I presume) free time, it's not like this was something he invested five hours of his worktime on? Said post does not only ignore what the rules actually say, and the underlying issue (which is why I call it a sloppy attempt) but it basically results in the writers of a bunch of feats looking like they fail at writing for putting that phrase in the middle of the feat description when it makes absolutely no sense to do so (which is why I call it a sloppy patch-up job).

Cavall wrote:
Your argument is that you've never been refuted despite the fact theres 2 clear posts by people that make the game that directly answer that exact question saying the opposite of what you are.

Wrong. My argument was about the rules as written, while Mark Seifter's answers in that thread are "always just my opinion and [hold] no official weight" and what he says on the topics "isn't official. It's [his] personal opinion as a GM."

Cavall wrote:
Since it isn't, I'm more inclined to point out WHY you don't have an argument (making a statement that is instantly false) vs pointing out flaws based on something made in bad faith.

I actually just now realized that you were talking about Mark Seifter, I presumed you meant me with your "he", and that you attempted to make fun of my introductory sentence. Which made your post sound really hostile. You know, using the name really would have helped!

Cavall wrote:
Further to the point, your statement that earlier writers had different readings completely ignores that fact that this community runs entirely on the latest readings, not the earliest.

This has nothing to do with what I said - I was talking about the first printed style feats when I said "early writers". And as i've said above, the latest errata for ACG repeat the wording, and at least Pummeling Style's erratum was written from scratch.

Cavall wrote:
While it is often difficult to understand RAI, it's a lot easier when someone within the company tells you the RAI. So even if the arguement wasn't made in bad faith, it is also flawed simply because it ignores how we apply these things.

My argument wasn't flawed, because it wasn't about RAI. Plus, Mark Seifter's post is no indication of a general Pathfinder developer team RAI stance on the topic, nor on the writers' RAI.

Cavall wrote:
Lastly, frankly, I simply disagree with the premise of what you're stating. I find your point about style feats and prereqs to be deeply flawed.

Then show me why. Post some rule quote that reveals the flaws in my point.

Cavall wrote:
Or maybe just maybe letters get mixed up as I read them and it's not about you at all.

I did include that possibility. Typos can happen, but you're misspelling my name a little too often (3rd time this year), which to me indicates that you don't exactly respect me as an opponent in a debate when you don't even care enough to spell-check my name.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Style feats and swift actions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.