How does sneak attack interact with Pummeling style.
Example: 12th level Unchained monk/8th level unchained Rogue Multiclass. With Pummeling strike he rolls 6 attacks and does normal damage and adds it up as one strike. ASSUMING all 6 attacks hit.... does he 4d6 sneak attack or 24d6 sneak attack?
Yes.
I feel we really don't know right now, there's been a bit of talk but no solution. If it's 4d6 then Dragon style, spirited charge, and the like should work for all of them since it's all one hit, but you could parry the entire thing with one parry. If it's 24d6 then those don't work and you'd need to parry every "attack" even though you're only making one attack.
Sneak attack only applies once during Pummeling Style.
There's a difference between an attack and an attack roll. An attack is a PC action whereas an attack roll is something a player does to resolve that action. When using Pummeling Style, you make a single attack but resolve it with multiple attack rolls. As a result, anything that applies on a per-attack basis (such as damage reduction) only occurs once with a Pummeling Style attack. Since sneak attack occurs on a per-attack basis, Pummeling Style benefits from sneak attack only once. Both the flavor of sneak attack and the mechanics of precision damage support this.
Pummeling style: For each roll that is a hit, you deal the normal amount of damage
Isn't sneak attack normal damage for a hit?
Sneak attack is a rider effect for a hit, since the whole attack is resolved as one big hit the 4D6 looks most correct.
So with dragon style you'd have 1.5 str for every damage roll as they are all part of the first big unarmed hit right?
I would Ad sneek for every hit just like if there was no pummeling style. Since that is how i see the rules atm. But there are questions about pummeling style that remain to be answerd. And for dragon style i would give bonus to the first attack and not to all. And if there was frost bite on i would ad it on every attack and so on.
Yeah! until further clarification I think reading the "normal attack" part as you resolve all the attacks as a normal full attack, just adding all the damage together at the end is the simplest way to deal with the issues that arise.
It's consistent, straightforward, and it doesn't change how sneak attack interacts with a full attack - if you normal full attack you'd do sneak attack on each successful hit after all. Why would you limit something that they can do anyway, just with the benefits that the feat gives them. You've gained a feat to get better, not worse at something.
Dragon Style (if you somehow could use two styles at once) would apply to all damage rolls of a Pummeling Style attack because it modifies a single unarmed strike.
Sneak Attack modifies an attack. It functions on a per-attack basis. The flavor also supports this. Additionally, precision damage and bonus damage dice from special abilities generally never apply more than once per attack. They always apply only once even if you roll the attack's damage more than once (such as from a critical hit). The same principle applies to Pummeling Style.
It's best to think of Pummeling Style as a very unusual critical hit, another instance where you roll multiple damage dice for the same attack. If a bonus gets multiplied on a critical hit, then it applies on each damage roll of Pummeling Strike. Otherwise, it only applies once.
Dragon Style (if you somehow could use two styles at once) would apply to all damage rolls of a Pummeling Style attack because it modifies a single unarmed strike.
Sneak Attack modifies an attack. It functions on a per-attack basis. The flavor also supports this. Additionally, precision damage and bonus damage dice from special abilities generally never apply more than once per attack. They always apply only once even if you roll the attack's damage more than once (such as from a critical hit). The same principle applies to Pummeling Style.
It's best to think of Pummeling Style as a very unusual critical hit, another instance where you roll multiple damage dice for the same attack. If a bonus gets multiplied on a critical hit, then it applies on each damage roll of Pummeling Strike. Otherwise, it only applies once.
You've essentially just made Dragon Style X times better and sneak attack X times worse than simply full attacking (where X = number of attacks).
Treating it as a normal full attack retains every tangential abilities relative value (like sneak attack and dragon style) while retaining the benefits of Pummeling Style. You try and read more into it than that it just gets messy. Tangential abilities start to vary wildly in power and effect. That shouldn't really happen.
Dragon Style (if you somehow could use two styles at once) would apply to all damage rolls of a Pummeling Style attack because it modifies a single unarmed strike.
Sneak Attack modifies an attack. It functions on a per-attack basis. The flavor also supports this. Additionally, precision damage and bonus damage dice from special abilities generally never apply more than once per attack. They always apply only once even if you roll the attack's damage more than once (such as from a critical hit). The same principle applies to Pummeling Style.
It's best to think of Pummeling Style as a very unusual critical hit, another instance where you roll multiple damage dice for the same attack. If a bonus gets multiplied on a critical hit, then it applies on each damage roll of Pummeling Strike. Otherwise, it only applies once.
You've essentially just made Dragon Style X times better and sneak attack X times worse than simply full attacking (where X = number of attacks).
Treating it as a normal full attack retains every tangential abilities relative value (like sneak attack and dragon style) while retaining the benefits of Pummeling Style. You try and read more into it than that it just gets messy. Tangential abilities start to vary wildly in power and effect. That shouldn't really happen.
So would it be able target and dispel multiple mirror images or would you make one check at the end to see if it hit a mirror image or the real thing?
Multiple images - exactly as if it were a full attack. If you hit an image you deal no damage with that attack roll.
It's not even as if it's against the flavour of the feat: "pummel= to strike repeatedly with the fists".
EDIT: I'm not saying there aren't issues with the feat, or that others are reading the feat wrong, I'm just giving one interpretation. One that I feel balances most of the issues in a reasonable way. Is it going to make sense for every example - probably not, but i think it does less collateral damage than some interpretations.
Multiple images - exactly as if it were a full attack. If you hit an image you deal no damage with that attack roll.
It's not even as if it's against the flavour of the feat: "pummel= to strike repeatedly with the fists".EDIT: I'm not saying there aren't issues with the feat, or that others are reading the feat wrong, I'm just giving one interpretation. One that I feel balances most of the issues in a reasonable way. Is it going to make sense for every example - probably not, but i think it does less collateral damage than some interpretations.
So even though you're actually only making "one devastating punch", all the mirror images could pop. And the attack rolls in pummeling style can't "hit an image" since you're not actually making more than one attack.
*Honestly if they had just said make a full attack and only add DR once it'd be so clear. As it is it's a confusing mess.
Dragon Style (if you somehow could use two styles at once) would apply to all damage rolls of a Pummeling Style attack because it modifies a single unarmed strike.
Sneak Attack modifies an attack. It functions on a per-attack basis. The flavor also supports this. Additionally, precision damage and bonus damage dice from special abilities generally never apply more than once per attack. They always apply only once even if you roll the attack's damage more than once (such as from a critical hit). The same principle applies to Pummeling Style.
It's best to think of Pummeling Style as a very unusual critical hit, another instance where you roll multiple damage dice for the same attack. If a bonus gets multiplied on a critical hit, then it applies on each damage roll of Pummeling Strike. Otherwise, it only applies once.
You've essentially just made Dragon Style X times better and sneak attack X times worse than simply full attacking (where X = number of attacks).
Treating it as a normal full attack retains every tangential abilities relative value (like sneak attack and dragon style) while retaining the benefits of Pummeling Style. You try and read more into it than that it just gets messy. Tangential abilities start to vary wildly in power and effect. That shouldn't really happen.
Dragon Style doesn't stack with Pummeling Style--you can only have one style active at once. A Master of Many Styles monk can't combine them either because he loses flurry of blows, a prerequisite for Pummeling Style.
Pummeling Style provides a trade-off--your on-attack effects only apply once but so do the target's defenses. If you're in a situation where Pummeling Style is less advantageous, then use a normal flurry. If you got sneak attack, then that's what you want anyway.
Dragon Style doesn't stack with Pummeling Style--you can only have one style active at once. A Master of Many Styles monk can't combine them either because he loses flurry of blows, a prerequisite for Pummeling Style.
So a Master of Many Styles monk/Sacred Fist warpriest with combat style master, Dragon Style and Pummeling Style can't combine them? News to me.
Dragon Style (if you somehow could use two styles at once) would apply to all damage rolls of a Pummeling Style attack because it modifies a single unarmed strike.
Sneak Attack modifies an attack. It functions on a per-attack basis. The flavor also supports this. Additionally, precision damage and bonus damage dice from special abilities generally never apply more than once per attack. They always apply only once even if you roll the attack's damage more than once (such as from a critical hit). The same principle applies to Pummeling Style.
It's best to think of Pummeling Style as a very unusual critical hit, another instance where you roll multiple damage dice for the same attack. If a bonus gets multiplied on a critical hit, then it applies on each damage roll of Pummeling Strike. Otherwise, it only applies once.
You've essentially just made Dragon Style X times better and sneak attack X times worse than simply full attacking (where X = number of attacks).
Treating it as a normal full attack retains every tangential abilities relative value (like sneak attack and dragon style) while retaining the benefits of Pummeling Style. You try and read more into it than that it just gets messy. Tangential abilities start to vary wildly in power and effect. That shouldn't really happen.
Dragon Style doesn't stack with Pummeling Style--you can only have one style active at once. A Master of Many Styles monk can't combine them either because he loses flurry of blows, a prerequisite for Pummeling Style.
Pummeling Style provides a trade-off--your on-attack effects only apply once but so do the target's defenses. If you're in a situation where Pummeling Style is less advantageous, then use a normal flurry. If you got sneak attack, then that's what you want anyway.
It's really easy, you take sacred fist warpriest or brawler 2 and you get pummeling style, then take the monk level for pummeling charge and can be in two styles at once and grab dragon style as your lv3 feat.
2 ways that I know of - Moms/sacred fist & Moms/Brawler. I wouldn't be surprised if there are others.
Pummeling Style doesn't really provide a trade off. It provides a way to overcome DR. The collateral damage to things like sneak attack, or the increased effectiveness of mirror image/miss chances, is really unnecessary. Make no mistake by the way, only applying once really ups the effectiveness of defences like blur.
Like I said, it's one way to read it. Is it the best way...<shrugs>...It's a valid way, it fit's the wording and most of the flavour. it's simple, and it has the least impact. YMMV.
Chess Pwn, yup, sure would have been (or if they had left out the "one devastating punch" line - doesn't really match 'pummeling' to me - and it's the single biggest hurdle to my reading of the feat)
|
Dragon Style doesn't stack with Pummeling Style--you can only have one style active at once. A Master of Many Styles monk can't combine them either because he loses flurry of blows, a prerequisite for Pummeling Style.
Two things wrong with with this: One, The prerequsite for Pummeling style is one of BAB 6, Flurry of Blows, or Brawlers Flurry). Anyone can qualify for Pummeling Style with BAB 6. Two, a Master of Many Styles ignores prerequisites for bonus feats and can take it at first level if they wish.
Based on other threads of this nature (this is not the first by far) there needs to be an FAQ. Sometimes when it is ruled as one attack, it makes something extra powerful. Sometimes when it is ruled as two attacks, it makes something else extra powerful.
It is going to be a tough call. I think you just have to pick one way at your table until the FAQ comes out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, yeah, if you use Dragon Style and Pummeling Style together, you add 1.5 your Strength on all damage rolls. For the same reason you would do the same if you scored a critical hit. But you don't do the same with flaming or precision damage because those only work on a per attack basis.
Based on other threads of this nature (this is not the first by far) there needs to be an FAQ. Sometimes when it is ruled as one attack, it makes something extra powerful. Sometimes when it is ruled as two attacks, it makes something else extra powerful.
It is going to be a tough call. I think you just have to pick one way at your table until the FAQ comes out.
I'm not sure what gets more powerful by treating it as multiple attacks. It is no different than a normal full attack. That's the main reason I advocate it. But if I've missed something, let me know and I'll think on it.
As near as I can tell it's only when you treat it as a single attack do things start going squirrely.
You don't add 1.5 strength on all damage rolls with dragon style. From Dragon Ferocity "While using Dragon Style, you gain a bonus on unarmed strike damage rolls equal to half your Strength bonus."
It is very inconsistent to rule that something applies to every portion of pummeling style, but sneak attack doesn't just because for once there is something good for sneak attack. If anything sneak attack is still the weaker option to use with it instead of power attack or anything else, because it does not multiply on a crit, whereas other damage sources do.
That, for me, makes me really think it should add. Each attack has to hit individually to do any damage anyways (otherwise its a limited pounce available to more builds at the price of 2+ feats). And Sneak Attack does not multiply on a crit, which is what made Pummeling Strike so powerful, multiple opportunities to get a threat for all of the damage, which benefits sneak attack not at all.
Dragon style makes the first unarmed strike of a round deal 1.5str for damage. Dragon ferocity increased all damage by half your str and isn't being discussed here.
Since all of the pummel attacks are your first unarmed strike then they'd all get the boost from pummeling. And the people that advocate this approach say that sneak attack is only once by very nature of it only being one actual attack. Those that allow sneak attack on all attacks don't allow 1 mirror image to absorb the hit, even though it's only one punch.
I have to ask why is sneak attack on a full attack that scary? let's ban rogues as they are obviously OP <tongue in cheek>
Or is it really simply the wording of "one devastating punch" that is the sticking point? Because the rest of the feat seems to want to treat it largely as a "normal" attack routine. would you come to a different conclusion if that line wasn't in there?
I am curious as to whether it's an issue over perceived power or unfortunate wording (or maybe it's a mixture).
You collect all your power into a focused series of vicious and debilitating punches.
Benefit: As a full-round action, you can pool all your attack potential into a focused series of strikes. Make a number of rolls equal to the number of attacks you can make with a full attack or a flurry of blows (your choice) with the normal attack bonus for each attack. For each roll that is a hit, you deal the normal amount of damage, adding it to any damage the attack has already dealt from previous rolls (if any). If any of the attack rolls are critical threats, make one confirmation roll for the entire attack at your highest base attack bonus. If it succeeds, the entire attack is a confirmed critical hit.
/ramble
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's definitely not a power issue. having spirited charge and dragon style work for all of them is stronger by far. It really the mechanical issue of how it works. Since it's only one successful hit, sneak attack should technically be applied once, and one image of a mirror image should take the entire blow, as it's only one attack. But since it's one attack then furious focus should work for all the attack rolls that are made as part of the attack.
I have to ask why is sneak attack on a full attack that scary? let's ban rogues as they are obviously OP <tongue in cheek>
Or is it really simply the wording of "one devastating punch" that is the sticking point? Because the rest of the feat seems to want to treat it largely as a "normal" attack routine. would you come to a different conclusion if that line wasn't in there?
I am curious as to whether it's an issue over perceived power or unfortunate wording (or maybe it's a mixture).
Wait, this is the Rules Question forum, right? Because people asked how Pummeling Style works and I answered it, providing support from experience, rules on attacks versus attack rolls, and existing precedents.
Yes, I do defend the flavor of the feat for many reasons. Another reason has to do with damage reduction. If you successfully make the argument that sneak attack multiplies with Pummeling Style, then you made the argument that damage reduction applies multiple times against Pummeling Style. If the feat was 100% exactly like flurry of blows, then it doesn't really need to exist (aside from feat tax for Pummeling Strike). Because of this, I think it's completely stupid to suggest Pummeling Strike should work exactly like flurry of blows and count as multiple attacks (instead of a single attack with multiple attack and damage rolls). That's not how the ability was written nor intended to work. Power has nothing to do with it.
Wait, this is the Rules Question forum, right? Because people asked how Pummeling Style works and I answered it, providing support from experience, rules on attacks versus attack rolls, and existing precedents.
Yes, I do defend the flavor of the feat for many reasons. Another reason has to do with damage reduction. If you successfully make the argument that sneak attack multiplies with Pummeling Style, then you made the argument that damage reduction applies multiple times against Pummeling Style. If the feat was 100% exactly like flurry of blows, then it doesn't really need to exist (aside from feat tax for Pummeling Strike). Because of this, I think it's completely stupid to suggest Pummeling Strike should work exactly like flurry of blows and count as multiple attacks (instead of a single attack with multiple attack and damage rolls). That's not how the ability was written nor intended to work. Power has nothing to do with it.
First let me apologise if I said anything to offend you. My comments and questions were in no way directed at you. I was genuinely curious about everyone's reasons. I've stated a couple of times that I don't feel my interpretation of the rules is the only valid one.
Second, To me the main benefit of Pummeling Style is not that it's exactly like flurry of blows (obviously it's not, as it uses flurry as a base) it's the ability to add all the damage together to overcome DR/hardness with a side benefit of the occasional nova when you crit. That seems to me to be a pretty sweet deal for a feat, without messing everything else up.
Again YMMV :)
God I hope the issue an errata on Pummeling Style whenever they errata and re-release the Advanced Class Guide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Single attack: with multiple attack AND damage rolls. That is kind of the point. If sneak attack does not apply to each roll, does power attack? You mention furious focus, but as an initial premise you have no problem with power attack adding to each roll? Even though its one attack? Maybe it should just be weapon damage rolled each time, so its a single scaling vital strike. After all, what is normal damage anyways.
Power Attack specifically says it modifies attack and damage rolls. It does not operate on a per-attack basis. As a result, Power Attack works with Pummeling Style.
As I mentioned earlier, it's good to think of Pummeling Style as a weird critical hit. If an effect gets multiplied on a critical hit, it likely gets added on each successful attack roll in a Pummeling Style attack.
Alrighty! Sorry if I sounded a bit rough there. No hard feelings against you.
|
|
As written, I feel sneak attack should apply to each hit. Each roll is an attack roll, and attacks that qualify for sneak attack damage get said damage. If this is the case, then feats that affect specific attack rolls should work on the appropriate rolls. It nerfs the mounted charge/pummel trick, but is the most consistent ruling I can see.
As written, I feel sneak attack should apply to each hit. Each roll is an attack roll, and attacks that qualify for sneak attack damage get said damage. If this is the case, then feats that affect specific attack rolls should work on the appropriate rolls. It nerfs the mounted charge/pummel trick, but is the most consistent ruling I can see.
There are many attack rolls, but only one actual attack. So there's only one blow for sneak attack to sneak on.
As written, I feel sneak attack should apply to each hit. Each roll is an attack roll, and attacks that qualify for sneak attack damage get said damage. If this is the case, then feats that affect specific attack rolls should work on the appropriate rolls. It nerfs the mounted charge/pummel trick, but is the most consistent ruling I can see.There are many attack rolls, but only one actual attack. So there's only one blow for sneak attack to sneak on.
:) You are counter-arguing pretty much any view put forward. That's got me curious again - how would you rule it if you had to GM such a character tomorrow?
|
|
As written, I feel sneak attack should apply to each hit. Each roll is an attack roll, and attacks that qualify for sneak attack damage get said damage. If this is the case, then feats that affect specific attack rolls should work on the appropriate rolls. It nerfs the mounted charge/pummel trick, but is the most consistent ruling I can see.There are many attack rolls, but only one actual attack. So there's only one blow for sneak attack to sneak on.
So how does that work on a charge? What about dragon style? Also, if it's only one attack, why do you even make multiple attacks? Why not just make a single attack and multiply it? That'd make all of this much simpler (even if it would be a tad OP). What if I manage to snag Precise Strike, or take levels in Investigator?
I could agree to your interpretation, but let's at least make it internally consistent (unlike those silly sneak attack/volley rules).
Edit: Also, why would your Strength modifier be added to each attack if it's only one attack?
So how does that work on a charge? What about dragon style? Also, if it's only one attack, why do you even make multiple attacks? Why not just make a single attack and multiply it? That'd make all of this much simpler (even if it would be a tad OP). What if I manage to snag Precise Strike, or take levels in Investigator?
Why do people keep asking this stuff when I already explained it several times!
As written, I feel sneak attack should apply to each hit. Each roll is an attack roll, and attacks that qualify for sneak attack damage get said damage. If this is the case, then feats that affect specific attack rolls should work on the appropriate rolls. It nerfs the mounted charge/pummel trick, but is the most consistent ruling I can see.There are many attack rolls, but only one actual attack. So there's only one blow for sneak attack to sneak on.So how does that work on a charge? What about dragon style? Also, if it's only one attack, why do you even make multiple attacks? Why not just make a single attack and multiply it? That'd make all of this much simpler (even if it would be a tad OP). What if I manage to snag Precise Strike, or take levels in Investigator?
I could agree to your interpretation, but let's at least make it internally consistent (unlike those silly sneak attack/volley rules).
Edit: Also, why would your Strength modifier be added to each attack if it's only one attack?
Str gets added to damage rolls, so each damage roll gets the str. Using the all one model, A charge? all get +2 to hit. Dragon style 1.5 str on all attacks. You make multiple attacks because it says to. You don't make a single attack because that's not what it says to do. precise strike? if you got piercing unarmed you'd add that damage to a hit. Investigator is all attack rolls and damage rolls, so multiple times.
If sneak attack is only added once because it is one attack, true strike would apply to all because it is only one attack. Miss chance would apply once. Any defensive spells/items that do damage to the attacker would only count as being hit once.
Cyrad, not everyone agrees with you, me included. That happens where free will is concerned.
Dragonhunterq, I didn't mean more powerful than anything specific. What I meant was that a common theme in rules adjudication is to err towards the least powerful option. In the case of Pummeling Style, it depends on what it interacts with, not just the style itself.
At my table, it is one attack for damage purposes. We make each attack as a normal attack with all normal modifiers and spell effects. We calculate any damage that should be added for that individual hit. We add it all up. We apply it as one massive damage to the target. Anything that only works on one hit, like true strike, is applied once. Anything that affects every hit, like miss chance, is checked for each attack roll.
I only present this as an example of interpretation, not a rule, because it is impossible to prove how it should apply as it is both one hit and multiple hits, per RAW.
YMMV
True strike doesn't work since it's your next attack roll, not your next attack, so it's still only one roll. Miss chance would apply once since it's one attack. You are only hitting them once.
@dragonhunterq
I'd rule it's only one attack, since that's what I feel the rules say to do as written.
If sneak attack is only added once because it is one attack, true strike would apply to all because it is only one attack. Miss chance would apply once. Any defensive spells/items that do damage to the attacker would only count as being hit once.
Cyrad, not everyone agrees with you, me included. That happens where free will is concerned.
I was more referring to how one person asked how Power Attack and Dragon Style interact with Pummeling Style. Then after I answer it and provide an explanation why, another person asks the same thing. Power Attack is an easy case to figure out because it explicitly affects all your attack rolls and damage rolls. This is also true for the true strike spell -- that spell explicitly says it modifies a single attack roll. There's no ambiguity there. However, if the spell said "You receive a +20 bonus on your next attack's attack roll," that's more ambiguous because Pummeling Style's attack has multiple attack rolls.
|
|
I was asking my questions rhetorically. For simplicity's sake, Pummeling style should either be considered multiple attacks, or a single attack in reference to all effects. It doesn't make sense to say "Well, it counts as multiple effects for this type of damage, but as a single effect for this type of damage" when the game never makes a distinction between them.
|
Davor, if it was a single attack for all effects, what would be the point? The concept I get (YMMV ahead) is the old seventies martial arts films where the kung fu master would punch a dude with his whole body shaking from the effort, and after a second or two the enemy would fly through a wall or explode or something. I think in part that they were playing with pounce, or ways other than pounce to "power up" a monk and simply got so focused on monks they didn't think how it would effect precision damage. By RAW (ugly phrase I know) I think it is pretty clear it is one attack, with your full potential. Cyrad is right in my opinion, thinking of it as a critical hit is the best way to resolve it. Oh, and if you do confirm a crit on it... well it's time for some Hokuto no Ken style stuff then.
TLDR: Sneak shouldn't work here IMO.
I was asking my questions rhetorically. For simplicity's sake, Pummeling style should either be considered multiple attacks, or a single attack in reference to all effects. It doesn't make sense to say "Well, it counts as multiple effects for this type of damage, but as a single effect for this type of damage" when the game never makes a distinction between them.
Ah, I see.
I concede that this would benefit from an FAQ or a rewording to clarify. At my table, it's a single attack where defenses apply once and any effect that can apply multiple times on a critical hit can also apply for each successful attack roll during a Pummeling Style attack.
|
|
Davor, if it was a single attack for all effects, what would be the point? The concept I get (YMMV ahead) is the old seventies martial arts films where the kung fu master would punch a dude with his whole body shaking from the effort, and after a second or two the enemy would fly through a wall or explode or something. I think in part that they were playing with pounce, or ways other than pounce to "power up" a monk and simply got so focused on monks they didn't think how it would effect precision damage. By RAW (ugly phrase I know) I think it is pretty clear it is one attack, with your full potential. Cyrad is right in my opinion, thinking of it as a critical hit is the best way to resolve it. Oh, and if you do confirm a crit on it... well it's time for some Hokuto no Ken style stuff then.
TLDR: Sneak shouldn't work here IMO.
I get the concept. It's awesome. I just want things to work in a simple, unified way. If you bring the 1 attack interpretation, you don't get to pick and choose what gets added to the damage. It's not treated like a critical hit, because there are rules for what happens when you roll a critical hit. Either you add all appropriate damage modifiers, or you don't. There is not a single situation I can think of (barring odd spells w/ sneak attack) where a character doesn't qualify for appropriate damage modifiers because of the means by which his attack was executed. The only thing that comes close to this is something like Clustered Shots. I will admit that Pummeling Style is an odd feat due to its wording, but it should be consistent with general combat rules, not this nonsense about "Well, everyone gets precision damage, except sneak attack, because it's not the same, even if it kinda is, and some bonuses apply, but not others, and this one applies to all damage rolls even though it says only the first roll, because there's only one attack, but you still get to use your strength on everything, and probably enhancement bonuses, but that might only apply once because it's one attack..."
It boggles the mind.