PDA

View Full Version : pathfinder, stunning fist and scorpion



kaskavel
2018-02-19, 06:21 PM
Can those two be used in the same attack?

BowStreetRunner
2018-02-19, 07:47 PM
The PF combat rules for actions (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat/#TOC-Action-Types) state "Some combat options (such as using the Cleave feat) are standard actions that allow you to make an attack, but don’t count as the attack action. These options can’t be combined with other standard actions or options that modify only attack actions (such as Vital Strike)." If you want to use the Stunning Fist or Scorpion Style combat feats you run into the same issue. Each effectively takes the place of your normal attack action, so you cannot combine them.

Sayt
2018-02-19, 09:27 PM
The PF combat rules for actions (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat/#TOC-Action-Types) state "Some combat options (such as using the Cleave feat) are standard actions that allow you to make an attack, but don’t count as the attack action. These options can’t be combined with other standard actions or options that modify only attack actions (such as Vital Strike)." If you want to use the Stunning Fist or Scorpion Style combat feats you run into the same issue. Each effectively takes the place of your normal attack action, so you cannot combine them.

Stunning fist doesn't require you to make an attack as a standard action in Pathfinder. You can use stunning fist on any unarmed strike you make.

kaskavel
2018-02-19, 09:52 PM
Stunning fist doesn't require you to make an attack as a standard action in Pathfinder. You can use stunning fist on any unarmed strike you make.

Correct, so what is the answer to my question?

Sayt
2018-02-19, 10:17 PM
Yes, you can make an attack invoking the Scorpion Style feat and the Stunning fist feat at the same time.

BowStreetRunner
2018-02-19, 10:53 PM
Stunning fist doesn't require you to make an attack as a standard action in Pathfinder. You can use stunning fist on any unarmed strike you make.
Hmmm...reread it a couple more times and then went back and reread the rule and examples again for good measure. I'd have to agree with you.