Hello,
I have a question for you more experience Players. Regarding the monk and their martial stance such as Wolf Stance for example.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=437
Its written for the fluff; You enter the stance of a wolf, low to the ground with your hands held like fanged teeth. You can make wolf jaw unarmed attacks.
But the next sentence mechanically it's written; You can make wolf jaw unarmed attacks. These deal 1d8 piercing damage; are in the brawling group...
My questions;
1- Is the Wolf Jaw unarmed attack actually a jaw attack, like a bite? I am assuming that it is not. That it's just like flavourful martial art striking technique named this way and not an actual Jaw attack (like your character biting with his teeth the enemy) am I right? It's suppose to be something similar to Dragon Ball's Yamcha Wolf Fang Fist right?
2- If my assumption is correct than, would you as a DM if I was a player allow me to use another natural weapon like Dhampir fang or Lizardfolk Fang unarmed attack as the Wolf Jaw attack. Would that be something acceptable? Like using the stats of the Wolf Jaw but describing it as using an actual Bite with my dhampir fangs as the physical part of the body used.
3- Alternatively what about the Dragon Stance dragon tail attack,
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=431
if I have the Ganzi heritage with the Smashing Tail feat
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2535
which allow the Ganzi to use their tail as a unarmed attack. Would that be ok for the character to use his tail for the Dragon Stance instead of his legs?
I was thinking it would use the damage dice of the stance and add the traits from the unarmed body part to the strike.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. It is not a literal attack with your jaws. It uses your hands, by the description.
2-3. These are different attacks and have no interaction with one another. There are mechanical benefits to being able to switch out attacks that are unintended, since there may be various feats, traits, abilities, or items which can interact in unexpected ways. These are kept distinct for a reason.
That being said, I have allowed a player to make Dragon Tail attacks with their lizardfolk tail, but that was a flavor thing not mechanical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seconded.
The monk stances typically use the character's hands to make the attack with. Sometimes their feet. It doesn't really matter as long as the stats for the attack are correct.
I would not allow combining the stats of different unarmed attacks together. So you couldn't combine the Barbarian (Animal) (Wolf) unarmed attack with the Monk (Wolf Jaw) unarmed attack and end up with a hybrid attack that does 1d10 damage with Trip and Backstabber, but not Agile or Finesse since the Barbarian wouldn't want those.
If the character does have some other body part that could be used for making the attack, I would let them flavor the attack to use it - as long as the stats of two attacks aren't being merged. So go ahead and use the Dhampir fangs to make a Wolf Jaw attack if you want - but you won't get any of the benefits of Dhampir Fangs including upgrade feats like Taste Blood or Bloodletting Fangs.
Another thing people often overlook with monks is that
Even tho unarmed attacks can be made with any body-part, the monks Powerful Fist Ability only increases the damage done with Specifically the Fist, so kicking would still deal the normal damage and your other unarmed attacks from Ancestries and the like would not be increased either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing people often overlook with monks is that
Even tho unarmed attacks can be made with any body-part, the monks Powerful Fist Ability only increases the damage done with Specifically the Fist, so kicking would still deal the normal damage and your other unarmed attacks from Ancestries and the like would not be increased either.
I have always seen Powerful Fist as increasing the 'Fist' damage including any generic unarmed attack that uses the same stats - such as a kick or headbutt. Because those are specifically stated as being the same stats.
But yes, if you get a specific unarmed attack from an ancestry or something like that, Powerful Fist won't change that unarmed attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing people often overlook with monks is that
Even tho unarmed attacks can be made with any body-part, the monks Powerful Fist Ability only increases the damage done with Specifically the Fist, so kicking would still deal the normal damage and your other unarmed attacks from Ancestries and the like would not be increased either.
I have always seen Powerful Fist as increasing the 'Fist' damage including any generic unarmed attack that uses the same stats - such as a kick or headbutt. Because those are specifically stated as being the same stats.
But yes, if you get a specific unarmed attack from an ancestry or something like that, Powerful Fist won't change that unarmed attack.
The only problem is that the ability calls out fist specifically and even mentions “other unarmed attacks” in reference to applying the penalty (or lack thereof) to making lethal attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only problem is that the ability calls out fist specifically and even mentions “other unarmed attacks” in reference to applying the penalty (or lack thereof) to making lethal attacks.Another thing people often overlook with monks is that
Even tho unarmed attacks can be made with any body-part, the monks Powerful Fist Ability only increases the damage done with Specifically the Fist, so kicking would still deal the normal damage and your other unarmed attacks from Ancestries and the like would not be increased either.
I have always seen Powerful Fist as increasing the 'Fist' damage including any generic unarmed attack that uses the same stats - such as a kick or headbutt. Because those are specifically stated as being the same stats.
But yes, if you get a specific unarmed attack from an ancestry or something like that, Powerful Fist won't change that unarmed attack.
The rules for unarmed attacks tell us that Fist is just being used as a stand-in. If you make a regular kick, you use your Fist stats. IF you headbutt someone, you use your Fist stats. It's all flavor.
The distinction is important because other types of unarmed attacks exist, and only the secondary benefit applies to all of them.
The only problem is that the ability calls out fist specifically and even mentions “other unarmed attacks” in reference to applying the penalty (or lack thereof) to making lethal attacks.
The rules for unarmed attacks tell us that Fist is just being used as a stand-in. If you make a regular kick, you use your Fist stats. IF you headbutt someone, you use your Fist stats. It's all flavor.
The distinction is important because other types of unarmed attacks exist, and only the secondary benefit applies to all of them.
“Unarmed Attacks lists the statistics for an unarmed attack with a fist, though you’ll usually use the same statistics for attacks made with any other parts of your body. Certain ancestry feats, class features, and spells give access to special, more powerful unarmed attacks. Details for those unarmed attacks are provided in the abilities that grant them.”
It doesn’t seem to say that fists means also kicks or headbutts. What I read is that unarmed attacks are usually fists but can be kicks and other.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. If you make an attack with your foot or your head that is still a 'fist' attack.
If you have the Automaton Armament attack, you can also make an attack with your hand, but it isn't a 'fist' attack.
So 'usually you use the same statistics' for attacks made with your fist or other parts of your body. But there are times where a different part of your body - or even the same part of your body - uses a different unarmed attack stat block. Those other unarmed attacks would be modified separately. But your 'fist' stat block is the only one you have for that generic unarmed attack. If it gets modified, that modification applies to all of them.
Yes. If you make an attack with your foot or your head that is still a 'fist' attack.
If you have the Automaton Armament attack, you can also make an attack with your hand, but it isn't a 'fist' attack.
So 'usually you use the same statistics' for attacks made with your fist or other parts of your body. But there are times where a different part of your body - or even the same part of your body - uses a different unarmed attack stat block. Those other unarmed attacks would be modified separately. But your 'fist' stat block is the only one you have for that generic unarmed attack. If it gets modified, that modification applies to all of them.
I have no issue with including non-fist unarmed attacks as “fist” attacks. What I don’t see are rules saying they are. What I see is an umbrella term being “unarmed attacks” and underneath it lists fist as well as other types of unarmed attacks. It is like the difference in a weapon being treated as a simple weapon versus it being a simple weapon in regard to how it works with the entire rule set.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean you literally quoted the rule.
I mean you literally quoted the rule.
And it literally doesn’t say what you say it does.
It says “Unarmed Attack” is usually a fist. Okay accepted. It doesn’t say “Fist” encompasses all unarmed attacks.
Unarmed attacks would be fist, kick, headbutt, claw, bite, horn, etc. Fist is a type of unarmed attack. It isn’t the term for all unarmed attacks, but a specific version of an unarmed attack. Ie, Unarmed Attack is the general and Fist is the specific.
Eh, it’s not a hill I wish to die on. I am letting this one go.
>though you’ll usually use the same statistics for attacks made with any other parts of your body.
Like your foot, or head. What did you think that part of the sentence meant?
I think “usually” is a weaseler word.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure that Powerful Fists applies to all of your unarmed attacks, since your character might not even have hands but can still make unarmed strikes (like if you're a conrasu, an anadi in spider-form, a poppet that is a toy horse, a fleshwarp with tentacles instead of arms, etc.) It's just that if you are a toy horse or a ball of tentacles your unarmed attacks use the "Fist" statline.
They're full stop not going to make a class feature vastly more functional for one ancestry than another.
|
I'm going to pull this away from Powerful Fist and back to OP's question.
The different stances aren't the same as natural unarmed attacks. They are different forms of martial arts.
Just because you have a tail, doesn't mean you can use it to make Dragon Tail strikes. This is because the Dragon Tail style is a form of martial arts that explicitly uses your legs. You would have trained specifically to use your legs to make the strikes, so subbing in a tail doesn't really help you. The "flavor text" isn't really flavor when it comes to stances, as they describe how those stances make their strikes, or more specifically, how you would have trained to make those strikes.
I'm going to pull this away from Powerful Fist and back to OP's question.... This is because the Dragon Tail style is a form of martial arts that explicitly uses your legs. You would have trained specifically to use your legs to make the strikes, so subbing in a tail doesn't really help you. The "flavor text" isn't really flavor when it comes to stances, as they describe how those stances make their strikes, or more specifically, how you would have trained to make those strikes.
Hello again, thank you all for weighing in on this,
I can see how the intention of the writer may have been that these strike have nothing to do with the actual natural weapon and are simply inspired by pop culture depiction of Chinese martial arts where martial artist are inspired by wild animal to fight in certain position.
I would be lying though if I didn't say that the fact that the damage dice and type is modified just because the humanoid is assuming a lower stance is bothering me slightly but hey it's a game, its a special ability. It's a magical world right! With those 3 poor reason to justify the change in type and damage.
Now how ridiculous is it that in a fantasy world, where humanoid of different species coexisting on the same planet. That Monks across all races have never been able to develop the ability to use their natural weapon in combat no way, shape or form. Only human are capable or smart enough to invent martial arts. No other creature intelligent creature who would have witness such feats would have had the idea of training their body in similar fashion. Using their natural gift/weapon as weapon in their stance.
You would think that Flying race may have develop martial art adapted to the freeform of movement of those able to fly or glide. Some, Races with horns would for sure train to use them in combat. I'll end my ranting here.
The fact that monk are able to transfer their technique to any monk weapons or ancestry weapon with the appropriate feat indicate that at the end of the day. The technique doesn't really actually require any part of the body. It's mostly a stance and a philosophy of movement. The part of the body or weapon used is by the Lore and rule of the game is irrelevant and that is the undisputed reality. If you are a monk and have the monastic weaponry feat and the ancestry weaponry you can use your stance with those weapon and those strike with those weapons. (except those that only allow stance strike) Taking that into account I don't see why a monk couldn't have train to use his technique with other part of the body. I think it's a completely valid option and if the player would use the same Damage Dice. I don't see what wrong. It is lore friendly and it is a lot less crazy than using actual weapons. I understand if the DM allows it is ok. But I believe this should be the norm not a Homebrew or alteration.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your rant is kinda bizarre.
For one, right out of the box with no feats needed a Monk can use their Ancestry's unarmed attacks with Flurry of Blows. And Ki Strike if you get that.
It is only the upgrade to the basic and universal 'fist' unarmed strike that doesn't get applied to the other Ancestries special unarmed attacks or the unarmed attacks given by classes.
So for in-game lore, only Humans needed to develop special techniques for improving their punching. Other ancestries just use their natural weapons. And even that isn't entirely accurate since Humans aren't the only ancestry that don't have any non-standard unarmed attacks.
For those ancestries that have horns or claws or such, they don't even need to be a Monk in order to use such weapons in combat.
Your rant is kinda bizarre.
For one, right out of the box with no feats needed a Monk can use their Ancestry's unarmed attacks with Flurry of Blows. And Ki Strike if you get that.
...
For those ancestries that have horns or claws or such, they don't even need to be a Monk in order to use such weapons in combat.
I believe that the part where you assume that only human needed to developped such technique is based on written rules that are borderline illogical.
Looking as the rule as written. I am saying that the rule as written are illogicals and that it is highly improbable that in a High fantasy world in which there are multiple races humanoid race with animal features that none of them have ever develop any sort of Martial Art fighting style that would take advantage of their natural weapon to create like the human monk more powerful striking technique.
I am also saying that since the rule allow the monk wiedling a nunchaku and another monk weapon or any monk weapon to use their Wolf Jaw attack than it stands to reason that with enough training these technique can be use with anything your fist or any weapon that you have sufficient training with. And by extension of that. If the monk can use a wolf Jaw strike with a nunchaku than which is normally a fist attack than what would prevent the monk from training with his fang and use his fang instead of his fist or nunchaku to deliver the Wolf Jaw attack.
Nunchaku? Unarmed Attacks like Wolf Jaw are never delivered with weapons, even if you take Monastic Weaponry.
Nunchaku? Unarmed Attacks like Wolf Jaw are never delivered with weapons, even if you take Monastic Weaponry.
What is the point of taking Monastic Weaponry if not for that. If you can't used the stance properly than the feat is useless.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nunchaku? Unarmed Attacks like Wolf Jaw are never delivered with weapons, even if you take Monastic Weaponry.What is the point of taking Monastic Weaponry if not for that. If you can't used the stance properly than the feat is useless.
Um. The point is everything the feat says it gives you. I don't understand your confusion.
You get access to monk weapons, can flurry with them, and use monk abilities that would normally require an unarmed strike to use.
It's starting to feel like you wildly misread the whole monk class.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monastic Weaponry allows you to use Flurry of Blows, and any ability that asks you to make a strike with an "unarmed attack" like One-Inch Punch, with Monk weapons rather than with unarmed attacks. It does not allow you to use weapons in place of things that require a specific unarmed strike, like Wolf Drag.
Nunchaku? Unarmed Attacks like Wolf Jaw are never delivered with weapons, even if you take Monastic Weaponry.What is the point of taking Monastic Weaponry if not for that. If you can't used the stance properly than the feat is useless.
You can use monk abilities and feats through the weapons: for instance, you can use Ki Strike or Stunning Fist with your weapon. Special unarmed attacks are NOT one of the things that work, because they are special unarmed attacks. By that I mean, they have specific stats for the attack and that's can't be the case if you're using something that also has specific stats for an attack.
It would be cool to see some additional monk fighting styles built around having unusual natural attacks, but inherently, those feats will be restricted specific ancestries, so it is something that isn't going to have very broad use. It makes sense that such things haven't been high priority additions to the game. But they would make fantastic homebrewed modifications for GMs to add to specific games as rare feats that can be learned from different NPCs and such. I do wish there had been more guidance in the GMG for making up class feats as rewards. I wouldn't be surprised to see one of the developers to put something out 3 party about it, although it would be important players don't see it as "rules GMs have to abide by."
Well first, no where it is written that a wolf Jaw strike requires the use of a fist or leg or any part of the body. All the stances do is tell you the position you assume and then tell you you can only or can make a strike. It doesn't explicitely say how the strike is given, with which part of the body. Contrary to spells or any other manoeuver or technique that all the time specifies the need for a free hand to use an ability.
It is implied by the class and the modifiers that this is the case. Not explicitely stated. Secondly, why not write that Stance Strike cannot be use with weapon. No where is it written that.
Thirdly, it comes down to the sentence;
though not if the feat or ability requires you to use a single specific type of attack, such as Crane Stance.
So doing the devil advocate against myself I would say, well the reason you can't use it with the Crane Stance is probably because the weapon cannot be use with the strike this is why you can't use it.
But why not explicitely write that stance strike require to be unarmed and cannot be used with any weapon(including monk weapon).
Now I am extrapolating from this is that we can indeed use these strike but certain stance are not compatible so certain strike are unfortunately unavailable. I could very well be at wrong for presuming such and as far as logic goes so all of you for assuming something that isn't explicitely stated.
Both of us are making assumption based on rule that are vague.
Because you firmly believe that I am wrong, you probably see my position as ridiculous. Why would it be impossible for a monk to use tiger claw technique with a claw weapon. It's thematically cool and it makes sense.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But why not explicitely write that stance strike require to be unarmed and cannot be used with any weapon(including monk weapon).
You mean like the Unarmed trait? That all of those Monk stance attacks have?
Why would it be impossible for a monk to use tiger claw technique with a claw weapon. It's thematically cool and it makes sense.
Because the game can't determine what the players and DM feel is thematic. If you allow weapons for tiger claw, that means it works with knuckle dusters, bo staves, monkey fists, nunchaku, pantograph gauntlets, sansetsukon or even a bow weapon like the gakgung. As such, the game can't go into each and every monk weapon and compare it to each and every specific stance attack and figure out which would or wouldn't be thematic in their eyes and sure couldn't make one that'd be sure to completely match any particular player/DM's idea of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In general a specific Unarmed attack is a specific attack. It isn't made with a weapon - but other than that, the description of how the attack is made is left up to the players at the table.
A specific unarmed attack like Wolf Jaw cannot be made using a weapon, even with the Monastic Weaponry feat. You also can't make a Crane Wing strike using a weapon - ever.
Similarly, you also can't make a Wolf Jaw attack using your Ancestry's bite attack. Those are two separate unarmed attacks. You could use your Ancestry's jaws to make the Wolf Jaw attack, but it would be purely a Wolf Jaw attack and would have no improvements from your Ancestry's unarmed bite attack stat block.
Monastic Weaponry lets you use things like Flurry of Blows or Ki Strike or other things that require any Unarmed Attack to be used with specific weapons. After taking Monastic Weaponry you can use Flurry of Blows with a Nunchaku even though it isn't an unarmed attack.
Ancestry Unarmed attacks already have that effect. There is no need to take Monastic Weaponry in order to use an Ancestry's Unarmed attack in Flurry of Blows or Ki Strike. You still can't use the Ancestry's unarmed attack in place of a specific unarmed attack such as Crane Wing. If you are in Crane Stance, you can only use Crane Wing strikes and they must use the stats for Crane Wing - no weapons, and no other unarmed attacks.
This is the rules discussion board. You had a question about the rules. It's been answered. Arguing with us about how "illogical" it is for blah blah whocares in a world where people can punch dragons to death isn't productive. If you want to homebrew what you think "makes more sense" or whatever, go for it. Try the homebrew board. Someone's probably beat you to it
The reason you're getting pushback on this HERE is because you're not the first guy to try for the slippery slope of "so can I use my natural bite/claws/etc. for this bite/claw/etc.-themed monk stance unarmed attack?" "yeah, sure" "okay, well then since my ancestry has venomous bites/claws/etc. that applies too, right?" "uh" and then you have a GM having to walk back what they intended to give you in goodwill because you argued for it to fit thematically but turned out to be some munchkin BS
I already wrote at the begining that I was thinking that I would use the damage dice of the strike and traits of both, but even then I wouldn't mind having just the trait from the strike.
I was making a build of a Dual Class alternate rule witch + monk and I was thinking it would be so cool to use her hair (I took all the feat to use her hair in combat.) to make the unarmed strike. She would assume the wolf stance and use her hair like a weapon cutting or piercing making the worlk jaw attack and tripping them. With the feat level 2 Living hair, you already gain the trip trait so it isn't super far fetch.
I don't think I am the first one, I saw other people asking similar question before I posted my thread. I don't mind the push back. I find it funny though that whenever someone question the logic of a rule or if a rule should be change plenty of people will come out saying well if you want to homebrew it just do it. Obviously if we want to homebrew it, even if you or the company was against it, we could still do it and no one could do anything to stop us so that is a mute point.
and if by munchkin you are insinuating that I am trying to break the game I am not. I am the kind of player that prefer role play above everything else. I am the kind of player that will multiclass into 7 different classes to create something unique even if I turned out super weak and very unoptimized. In most RPG I play I tend to have a very hard time getting to end game because I take whatever I think looks cool or fit the theme of my character and I don't care about stats or damage very much. Most of the time not at all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it funny though that whenever someone question the logic of a rule or if a rule should be change plenty of people will come out saying well if you want to homebrew it just do it.
There doesn't have to be a logic to a rule past balance: there are several rules that, IMO, don't make a lick of sense logically but are clearly the rules of the game. That's why people will suggest houseruling it because it's VERY unlikely to be changed unless there is some kind of error found. In this case, it can be used to make an unbalanced attack, even if you yourself aren't planning on using it that way:
For instance, a Tiefling takes Form of the Fiend for a Tail [1d4 bludgeoning (agile, finesse, unarmed)] and also takes dragon stance [Dragon Tail 1d10 B (Backswing, Nonlethal, Unarmed)] and your way, they'd have a 1d10 B agile, finesse, Backswing, Nonlethal, Unarmed attack which is outside even normal monk max finesse damages and is also easily poachable by a rogue to be able to sneak attack with it.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
My best definition for a Munchkin is someone who argues 'but realism...' or 'but my flavor...' in order to get mechanics benefits.
So if you want to play a Witch with Monk stances, that is fine. I probably wouldn't even require you to take the Living Hair line of feats in order to make Wolf Jaw attacks with your hair.
But you can't merge the Living Hair attack and the Wolf Jaw attack into one composite attack that has the best of the damage and all of the trait of both.
If you want the flavor, you can have the flavor. But flavor shouldn't be a reason to change game balance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that monk are able to transfer their technique to any monk weapons or ancestry weapon with the appropriate feat indicate that at the end of the day. The technique doesn't really actually require any part of the body. It's mostly a stance and a philosophy of movement. The part of the body or weapon used is by the Lore and rule of the game is irrelevant and that is the undisputed reality. If you are a monk and have the monastic weaponry feat and the ancestry weaponry you can use your stance with those weapon and those strike with those weapons. (except those that only allow stance strike) Taking that into account I don't see why a monk couldn't have train to use his technique with other part of the body. I think it's a completely valid option and if the player would use the same Damage Dice. I don't see what wrong. It is lore friendly and it is a lot less crazy than using actual weapons. I understand if the DM allows it is ok. But I believe this should be the norm not a Homebrew or alteration.
It's technically true that you can't use your ganzi tail to make a dragon tail style attack. Or rather, Dragon Tail style attacks have specific traits attached to them, and you can't mix it with traits from your natural tail attack.
You can of course describe your character as using the tail to perform the attack, but it wont gain the traits of your ganzi tail. Consider it part of the way in which your body has to move to use the style in the first place.
The problem is you essentially want to fuse together natural attacks and style strike for damage and traits, and it's simply too good mechanically to be allowed. It's one thing to say "Oh, my witches hair is animated and I'm going to use it to make the wolf style strikes". There is no benefit to do so beyond the RP of attacking with your hair so it's fine. Heck, I would even be open to it not requiring you to take the actual feat for the hair natural attack because there is no benefit.
But the moment you try to combine them mechanically, it becomes a problem.
Well you are all very reasonable, I would be a happy players with you as a DM. I truly mean that.
To be frank I didn't really think of all the other things that could be abusable by the Rogue as Graystone mention.
I really only wanted my hair to do the wolf drag thing, but was ready to take all the other feats for the hair and all of you are saying wouldn't even need me to take them because there is no benifit. That is really all I wanted. I dont care about the hair trait to be honest.
I guess there are always people trying to find way to break or abuse of some way to get more powerful.
I enjoyed this discussion. Even if we disagree on the ruling ultimately, as a player the thing you were offering was all I was looking for and I was ready to take all the feats. So yeah, thank you all for joining the discussion.
|
For some of the stances, the attack is the benefit. For some of them it's a restruction--crane wing attacks are identical to a monk's regular fist attacks--but the value of the feat is something else--l8je the AC bonus.
If you already have an attack you want to use, the first kind of stance feat isn't helpful and the second kind has a restriction you don't want.
That's fine. If your Witch/Monk doesn't need a stance, take Ki Strike instead. Or a different monk feat.
With a few exceptions (Ancestry with a ranged unarmed attack feat + stance that doesn't restrict attacks?) I just wouldn't take both. The benefits are too similar.
Some styles simply allow you to make a different kind of unarmed attack than you could normally (e.g. "You can make dragon tail attacks ") others say you can only make those attacks (e.g. " The only Strikes you can make are falling stone unarmed attacks.")
For the former you can use monastic weaponry so you could, for example, use a kusarigama at reach and dragon tail strikes up close. If the feat doesn't tell you anything about what these kinds of strikes are like (dragon stance tells you these are "powerful leg strikes", but there's no information about what falling stone strikes are like.) Generally you should be able to describe your strikes looking however they're going to look, and obviously the GM will make allowances for different anatomical configurations (some PCs don't have legs) but there's no mechanical benefit to saying these are elbow strikes, or punches, or kicks, or whatever compared to any other description.