• Please note: In an effort to ensure that all of our users feel welcome on our forums, we’ve updated our forum rules. You can review the updated rules here: http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=5528.

    If a fellow Community member is not following the forum rules, please report the post by clicking the Report button (the red yield sign on the left) located on every post. This will notify the moderators directly. If you have any questions about these new rules, please contact support@wolflair.com.

    - The Lone Wolf Development Team

Trying to get the +6 BaB requirement for Pummeling Style Faq'ed on the Paizo forums..

P

prototype00

Active member
So as some of you might know, as of currently, Herolab requires that you have a +6 BaB before you can take Pummeling Style (regardless of whether or not you have Brawler's Flurry or Flurry of Blows). I (and most of the Paizo forum) demur on account of the semi-colon in the requirements, reproduced for your convenience here:

Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike; base attack
bonus +6, brawler’s flurry† class feature, or flurry of
blows class feature

I am however encountering a lot of resistance to my faq request in the forum (which probably means that it will never come up) :(

Lets take a sampling:

No FAQ is required here. You need ONE of the three prereqs of BAB +6 or Brawler's Flurry or Flurry of Blows, and you also need to have Improved Unarmed Strike.
Click to expand...

This is not a FAQ request that is needed. This is the Herolab people reading something wrong and putting that into their product.

Herolab is irrelevant as far as the rules work. We do not need to FAQ things so they match what Herolab says. Herolab does not develop Pathfinder, and their mistakes do not reflect on the actual rules.

I suggest you take it to their forum and put it up as a request to remedy this mistake.
Click to expand...

I can see where their confusion would come from. This stumped my buddy and I for a good few minutes but we figured it out. Herolab may just be dumb.
Click to expand...

Agreed, no FAQ needed, its quite clear.

Good rule of thumb, don't trust Hero Lab. Its really really bad.

At one point for PFS I had audited over 20 (probably pretty close to 30) hero lab PC's, and not one of them was right, and some had TERRIBLE flaws.

To be fair this was a few years back and I hear its gotten better, but I still hear about these errors all the time, a few just came up for people I know yesterday actually. I don't touch it though after seeing how awful it was back then, plus I think you have to pay for each book, I already paid for them though, why buy them again?
Click to expand...

*sigh* ah well, I don't agree with some of the assertions here as I still purchase your fine products, but I just needed to vent my discouragement.

prototype00
 
Have you tried a simple Bug Report yet? ACG was coded very quickly just before GenCon and it has some human errors in it. That happens when people are coding in thousands of lines of code.

So has HL come back and said "NO its working as designed"?

I found several issues in the Swashbuckler, Arcanist, and Slashing Grace that is being fixed.
 
AndrewD2 said:
Have you reported it as a bug yet?

BUG REPORTING
Click to expand...

Indeed so:

The feat pummeling style has the following requirements:

Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike; base attack
bonus +6, brawler’s flurry†class feature, or flurry of
blows class feature.

Which the Sacred Fist Archetype of the Warpriest fulfills (he has
Improved Unarmed Strike and the flurry of blows class feature).

However when I make a 1st level Sacred fist warpriest, I am unable to
take the feat.

Hope this helps?

Best Regards,
Prototype00

Replied 8/29/2014 (Today) 9:22 AM
From:
Lone Wolf Development Support <support@wolflair.com>
Date:
Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:22:47 -07:00

Subject:
Re: (Case 46349) Pathfinder bug report: Warpriest with the Sacred Fist Archetype unable to take pummeling Style.
At 1st level you do not meet the +6 BAB pre-req.

--
Awesome Support Staff
Lone Wolf Development Support - support@wolflair.com
http://www.wolflair.com
Click to expand...

prototype00
 
Last edited:
And further correspondence which prompted my Faq request:
Dear Lone Wolf Publishing,

My Query:

The feat pummeling style has the following requirements:

Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike; base attack
bonus +6, brawler’s flurry†class feature, or flurry of
blows class feature.

Which the Sacred Fist Archetype of the Warpriest fulfills (he has
Improved Unarmed Strike and the flurry of blows class feature).

However when I make a 1st level Sacred fist warpriest, I am unable to
take the feat.

Hope this helps?

Best Regards,
Prototype00


and you answered with:


At 1st level you do not meet the +6 BAB pre-req.

--
Awesome Support Staff
Lone Wolf Development Support - support@wolflair.com
http://www.wolflair.com

However based on the parsing of the requirements (and the semi-colon) my understanding is that the feat required Improved unarmed strike (in all circumstances) and one of the following:

1. BaB +6 bonus
2. Brawler's Flurry
3. Monk's flurry of blows

Not that this makes a difference, but this is also the understanding of most of the Paizo forum. Should I make a faq in the rules section so that this is answered to your satisfaction?

Best Regards,
Prototype00
Replied 8/29/2014 (Today) 10:12 AM
From:
Lone Wolf Development Support <support@wolflair.com>
Date:
Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:12:02 -07:00

Subject:
Re: Case 46349
A FAQ would certainly be convincing, yes. Thank you!

--
Awesome Support Staff
Lone Wolf Development Support - support@wolflair.com
http://www.wolflair.com

- show quoted text -
Emailed 8/29/2014 (Today) 10:20 AM
Status changed from 'Resolved (Responded)' to 'Active'.
Date due changed from 9/3/2014 10:00 AM (GMT-07:00) to 9/3/2014 10:20 AM (GMT-07:00).

Date:
Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:19:56 -0700
To:
Lone Wolf Development Support <support@wolflair.com>
Subject:
Re: Case 46349
And done. Hopefully it makes its way into the inevitable ACG faq list.

Prototype00
Click to expand...

Names changed to protect the innocent. :cool:

prototype00
 
ShadowChemosh said:
Have you tried a simple Bug Report yet? ACG was coded very quickly just before GenCon and it has some human errors in it. That happens when people are coding in thousands of lines of code.

So has HL come back and said "NO its working as designed"?

I found several issues in the Swashbuckler, Arcanist, and Slashing Grace that is being fixed.
Click to expand...

So yes, basically "NO, its working as designed". Sorry, missed your post there.

prototype00
 
Trying to find another example. But you are correct that its clearly a "or" condition. So Improved Unarmed Strike is required always. Then if you have any of the three next conditions you are fine. Bab, Flurry of Blows, or Brawlers Flurry.

So in an if statement it would read as follows:
Code: 
@valid = 0
if (#hasfeat[fImpUnarm] <> 0) then
  if (#BAB[] >= 6) then
    @valid = 1
  elseif (#hasability[cMnkFlurr] <> 0) then
    @valid = 1
  elseif (#hasability[cBraFlurry] <> 0) then
    @valid = 1
  endif
endif

Looks like all the new Style Feats are worded this way now. Most likely to better cover all this sharing of class abilities.
 
I defer to your programming expertise. However, may I hazard that since you are a contributor, the Herolab staff won't necessarily have to take your agreement with me carte blanche?

prototype00
 
prototype00 said:
I defer to your programming expertise. However, may I hazard that since you are a contributor, the Herolab staff won't necessarily have to take your agreement with me carte blanche?

prototype00
Click to expand...
"It" may help some but I can't guarantee that. I have a few situations where I disagreed with the rules in HL and without a FAQ they wouldn't change. The difference is I just go fix in my houserules file. ;)
 
ShadowChemosh said:
"It" may help some but I can't guarantee that. I have a few situations where I disagreed with the rules in HL and without a FAQ they wouldn't change. The difference is I just go fix in my houserules file. ;)
Click to expand...

"But the future refused to change..."

Looking at it a second time, I do notice that the first requirement is followed by a semicolon, which supports the grouping together of the rest of it into a single conceptual group. What havoc a single punctuation change can wreak. I will bring the question to my peeps (fellow data file authors) and see what they think.
 
Aaron said:
"But the future refused to change..."

Looking at it a second time, I do notice that the first requirement is followed by a semicolon, which supports the grouping together of the rest of it into a single conceptual group. What havoc a single punctuation change can wreak. I will bring the question to my peeps (fellow data file authors) and see what they think.
Click to expand...
Thanks Aaron. LOL This makes me think of all the fun rule arguments I have had with one of my players all about punctuation. Ahh the memories... :D

We appreciate you taking another look and I totally understand that parsing all these rules is a pain in the neck many days.

prototype00 said:
That sounds interesting, did you have a link to your houserules file?

prototype00
Click to expand...
I say yes with the understanding that I a) DO NOT support this package unless you are one of my players and b) DO NOT recommend you install this in your normal Pathfinder data set. First off it will NOT run with any of the community packages. Second it will change the behavior of how Pathfinder works.

So if you want to set this up in a second install/data folder and pull things out. Feel free to do so. But again I don't support questions/issues unless you are actually one of my players. :)

HERE is my houserules package.
 
Aaron said:
"But the future refused to change..."

Looking at it a second time, I do notice that the first requirement is followed by a semicolon, which supports the grouping together of the rest of it into a single conceptual group. What havoc a single punctuation change can wreak. I will bring the question to my peeps (fellow data file authors) and see what they think.
Click to expand...

I do appreciate the second look you are giving to the feat, though slightly chagrined that my squeaky wheel caused it. I really was just trying to vent.

But thanks all the same, and I appreciate all the hard work you guys put in.

prototype00
 
Just to back up prototype, the early release subscribers did some pretty hefty examination of these feat prerequisites, and he's absolutely right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top