Flying Kick [Archive] - Wizards Community

Flying Kick [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Jadowman
06-07-07, 01:02 PM If one has a pounce ability (eg. Barbarian Variant CChamp), would you be able to apply the extra 1d12 of unarmed damage (granted via the Flying Kick feat) to all unarmed attacks made at the end of the charge? Or just one?
CantripN
06-07-07, 01:04 PM I'm inclined to say it works...

Benefit: When fighting unarmed and using the charge action, you deal an extra 1d12 points of damage with your unarmed attack.
Bionecrosis
06-07-07, 01:12 PM I'm inclined to say that it does not.

Reasoning: One does not keep the momentum from the flying kick when punching after landing from the kick. Try it out yourself. Go to the gym, or an empty field and run about 20 feet, then jump and put your foot horizontal to the ground, in the flying kick position (like Liu Kang) and see if the momentum from the kick carries through with any punches you throw after landing. That is provided, of course, that you land back on your feet and not on your back.
CantripN
06-07-07, 01:14 PM Logic + D&D = not a good idea.
See, you get a +2 to ALL your attacks after the charge. That's momentum right there... Don't try to bend the spoon.
Jadowman
06-07-07, 01:18 PM I have, in my younger and fitter past, been able to launch two kicks during one jump (try adding a little spin). And video games (other than Mortal Kombat) would have me believe that more are possible ;).

But this isn't about realism. This is about DnD.
Warforged Goblin
06-07-07, 01:23 PM I'd say go off the rules for Powerful Charge.
LoreKeeper
06-07-07, 01:27 PM "Logically" I'd be inclined to allow multiple attacks provided there is some mechanism that allows the hero to achieve it. For example if she had levitate or flying she could combo together a string of flying kicks; alternatively, many ranks in jump would allow for enough skill to allow multiple attacks.

I'd place these ranks at 9, 14, 19, etc based on the premise that at full base attack and full jump ranks you'd have 2 attacks at base attack 6 and correspondingly a jump skill of 9.
Bionecrosis
06-07-07, 02:03 PM The bonus damage is too high for any DM to allow it be added onto all of the character's unarmed attacks after the charge. Yet again, I can't escape logic, and I've got to say that it just doesn't make sense. Also, the Pounce and Flying Kick abilities are two seperate abilities that shouldn't stack. Unless you kick with your hands, I don't see how this would work. Unless you can specificly say how you plan to do it, I wouldn't allow it. If, on the other hand, you can explain how you'd do it, and it sounds logical to the rest of the group, I suppose I'd allow it.
CantripN
06-07-07, 02:06 PM Benefit: When fighting unarmed and using the charge action, you deal an extra 1d12 points of damage with your unarmed attack.

"A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet."

I'll take 2 kicks, an elbow to the face and a head butt, to go...
Nothing about the feat states you use your feet. Heck, you don't even need feet for it. D&D uses generic feats; Power Attack can be described as more "strength" or as "aiming at the weak spot".

And frankly, if you think a maximum 5d12 is a lot, too bad.
Bionecrosis
06-07-07, 02:16 PM Umm... you lose momentum after the first strike. If you fly at a wall, you lose your momentum after you hit it. If you fly at a Beholder, you lose your momentum when you strike. If you fly at a Kobold, you keep going because you weigh more than it. Neither me nor my friends can see how you people can be so inane that the additional damage can be applied to other unarmed attacks.
CantripN
06-07-07, 02:21 PM You're trying to mix science with magic. Guess what? It doesn't work.

Ever read ToB? The Manuevers are all Extraordinary.
Even the ones that Stop Time, Heal or deal elemental damage.

As far as I'm concerned, the extra damage doesn't come from any "Momentum", but rather from game mechanics. Call it whatever you like.
Bionecrosis
06-07-07, 02:27 PM The flying kick isn't a magic feat. It doesn't say you need to cast spells or levitate to do it. No, it's the representation of a character making what the feat says, a flying kick. The game mechanics behind flying kick is that you make a flying kick and you deal additional damage based on the fact that you just did a flying kick.
CantripN
06-07-07, 02:30 PM No. It's that you make a Charge and deal an extra d12 on Unarmed Attacks.

And ToB has a non-magical way to fly... Everything in D&D is a bit "unnatural".
Bionecrosis
06-07-07, 02:32 PM 1) wtf's a ToB?
2) You make a charge and deal an extra d12 on ONE unarmed attack. ONE attacks gets the added momentum from the charge. Not 2. Not 3. Not 5.
Warforged Goblin
06-07-07, 02:36 PM Originally Posted by zvbxrpl
Whenever you eviscerate a fantasy setting for the sake of realism, god kills a kitten. Please...think of the kittens.

No more talk of momentum or physics please. I have 2 new kittens at home and the "ToB = anime" thread has me worried enough as it is. Please, think of my kittens Pazuzu and Kossuth.

If I were DM and an unarmed combatant had the Flying Kick feat and a Pounce ability (like say a 6th level catfolk fighter who has Improved Unarmed Strike, Power Attack, Flying Kick, and Catfolk Pounce as feats), I'd allow them to add the +1d12 damage to each attack. The feat does not explicitly state that the extra damage only applies to the first attack, so by the RAW, any attack after a charge adds the extra 1d12 damage.

ToB is the "Tome of Battle: Book of the Nine Swords". If you don't own it, go out and buy it, now. Read it. Learn it. Love it. It proves fighters can have nice things.
CantripN
06-07-07, 02:36 PM ToB = Tome of Battle.

Dude, you named your pussies after a Demon Lord and a God? Awesome.
Joseph_Silver
06-07-07, 02:39 PM You named your cats Pazuzu and Kossuth? You're my hero! :D
Warforged Goblin
06-07-07, 02:40 PM Well, I only named one Pazuzu. My wife-to-be named the other Kossuth :D
ShinAkuma2
06-07-07, 03:53 PM No, it's the representation of a character making what the feat says, a flying kick. The game mechanics behind flying kick is that you make a flying kick and you deal additional damage based on the fact that you just did a flying kick.

Flying Kick is just a name. By RAW, if a bear had this feat,it could charge and do an extra 1d12 of damage with its claw, as it is an unarmed attack.
tarkin
06-07-07, 04:00 PM Bears doing Flying Kicks?

No. Not true.

Flying Kick has a pre-req of unarmed strike and clearly says with unarmed strike.

While unarmed strikes count a natural weapons, natural weapons do not count as unarmed strikes. It is like saying all knives count as bladed weapons, that does not mean all bladed weapons are knives.

The bear could not take this feat nor could he use it with the kick.

--------

Basic rules for charges:

Strict/Loose:

Charge supply all energy of charge into single attack. It specifically states the bonus stops after making a single attack (does not apply to AoO's made later), even though the disadvantage continues.
If you get any additional attacks onto a charge, only the first one counts fully as a charge. The other attacks do not count as 'charging', unless the feat/ability that grants them specifically says so, and then only to the extent the feat/ability says.

Power Game/anything Goes: All your attacks count as charging.
RobbyPants
06-07-07, 04:15 PM The flying kick isn't a magic feat. It doesn't say you need to cast spells or levitate to do it. No, it's the representation of a character making what the feat says, a flying kick. The game mechanics behind flying kick is that you make a flying kick and you deal additional damage based on the fact that you just did a flying kick.
I think you're focusing too much on the name of the feat, and not so much on the printed benifits, and how they interact with the rest of the game's rules.

Now, you can nerf it all you want in your game, but that's a house rule. If you mix too much logic with D&D, you get wierd results.
Obi-Wan Shinobi
06-07-07, 06:43 PM here is another way to look at it:

do you allow all the attacks the charger can make while pouncing to get the +2 to hit??? if so, then you should also allow all the attacks he makes while pouncing that are unarmed strikes the extra damage from Flying Kick.

if it is supposedly all due to momentum, then you cant allow one without the other.
ShinAkuma2
06-07-07, 10:02 PM Bears doing Flying Kicks?

No. Not true.

Flying Kick has a pre-req of unarmed strike and clearly says with unarmed strike.

While unarmed strikes count a natural weapons, natural weapons do not count as unarmed strikes. It is like saying all knives count as bladed weapons, that does not mean all bladed weapons are knives.

The bear could not take this feat nor could he use it with the kick.

Bear animal companion? Bear Warrior? Wildshaped Druid?

Are you SURE there's no way a bear can acquire this feat?

Besides, you might want to get your eyes checked; it quite clearly and distinctly says unarmed attack, of which a natural weapon attack is a type.
Jadowman
06-08-07, 05:57 AM There is a difference between unarmed strikes and natural weapons. For example, natural weapons never allow multiple attacks based on base attack, but a character is allowed multiple unarmed strikes from base attack. I think it lists all of this at the back of the MM. However, I often play druids with IUS and it seems possible to me that on a charge, while wild shaped, I could give up my natural weapon damage to instead do my unarmed strike damage (based on size) + 1d12.

IMHO, I think that you can apply the 1d12 to all attacks. I just wanted to see what others thought. RAW allows our Ryu/Ken/Liu Kang character to throw fireballs and flaming punches, and so I can't see a reason to deny them their spin and/or bicycle kicks. Logically, you don't lose ALL your momentum on one attack, because if you did, I don't think that -2 penalty to AC for recklessness and unbalancing would stick around after your turn.
Jadowman
06-08-07, 06:03 AM New question: What about Pounce and Leap Attack?
CantripN
06-08-07, 07:44 AM New question: What about Pounce and Leap Attack?

Very much the same question. Whatever you answer to that one.
ShinAkuma2
06-08-07, 12:43 PM There is a difference between unarmed strikes and natural weapons.

All differences aside, they are both types of unarmed attacks, as defined by the PHB. Something that affects unarmed attacks will affect both unarmed strikes and natural weapons.
RobbyPants
06-08-07, 01:39 PM All differences aside, they are both types of unarmed attacks, as defined by the PHB. Something that affects unarmed attacks will affect both unarmed strikes and natural weapons.
Do you know where that is in the PHB or SRD? I've been trying to find a ruling one way or the other, and I can't.

It seems sort of like a squares and rectangles thing to me. A monk gets to count their unarmed attacks as natural attacks, but I haven't found anything in the entry of unarmed attacks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#attack) or natural weapons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalWeapons) in the SRD to suggest the opposite. So far, the best I can find is the opening sentance to Natural Weapons, which states:
Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature.

This suggests that they are weapons, and not unarmed attacks. However, this is the closest thing I can find on the subject close to a ruling.
ShinAkuma2
06-08-07, 04:12 PM It's in the Combat section: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#attack

"Armed" Unarmed Attacks

Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed.

Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons are being lumped together as "Unarmed Attacks".

Also see the glossary definition:

Unarmed Attack: A melee attack made with no weapon in hand.

This is separated from Unarmed Strike, because Unarmed Strike is only one type of Unarmed Attack. A Natural Weapon attack is also made with no weapon in hand (since the hand itself may be the weapon :) ), and thus is also an Unarmed Attack.

Flying Kick adds damage to successful Unarmed Attacks on a charge, so any type of attack made without a weapon will benefit.
RobbyPants
06-08-07, 10:36 PM Thanks :)

I read over that part in one of my own links! :eek:
LoreKeeper
06-09-07, 12:18 AM That should settle it then - just a closing remark on real-world flying kicks: It is not uncommon for Earth-based high-level martial artists to be able to perform two (sometimes more) seperate flying kicks from a standing jump. With a bit of a run-up they can accomplish more.

Regarding momentum - it isn't particularly difficult to run up a wall two-to-three steps before the forward momentum is dissipated.

@Warforged Goblin: Hope the kitties made it ;) :D
DinwathSereglin
06-09-07, 01:00 AM I have seen people pull off axle kicks in real life.

I have seen a person pull off leaping into a split-kick followed by a front kick without touching the ground. He was running forward when he jumped into the split kick and crushed all three coconuts he was aiming for.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Jadowman 06-07-07, 01:02 PM	If one has a pounce ability (eg. Barbarian Variant CChamp), would you be able to apply the extra 1d12 of unarmed damage (granted via the Flying Kick feat) to all unarmed attacks made at the end of the charge? Or just one?
CantripN 06-07-07, 01:04 PM	I'm inclined to say it works... Benefit: When fighting unarmed and using the charge action, you deal an extra 1d12 points of damage with your unarmed attack.
Bionecrosis 06-07-07, 01:12 PM	I'm inclined to say that it does not. Reasoning: One does not keep the momentum from the flying kick when punching after landing from the kick. Try it out yourself. Go to the gym, or an empty field and run about 20 feet, then jump and put your foot horizontal to the ground, in the flying kick position (like Liu Kang) and see if the momentum from the kick carries through with any punches you throw after landing. That is provided, of course, that you land back on your feet and not on your back.
CantripN 06-07-07, 01:14 PM	Logic + D&D = not a good idea. See, you get a +2 to ALL your attacks after the charge. That's momentum right there... Don't try to bend the spoon.
Jadowman 06-07-07, 01:18 PM	I have, in my younger and fitter past, been able to launch two kicks during one jump (try adding a little spin). And video games (other than Mortal Kombat) would have me believe that more are possible ;). But this isn't about realism. This is about DnD.
Warforged Goblin 06-07-07, 01:23 PM	I'd say go off the rules for Powerful Charge.
LoreKeeper 06-07-07, 01:27 PM	"Logically" I'd be inclined to allow multiple attacks provided there is some mechanism that allows the hero to achieve it. For example if she had levitate or flying she could combo together a string of flying kicks; alternatively, many ranks in jump would allow for enough skill to allow multiple attacks. I'd place these ranks at 9, 14, 19, etc based on the premise that at full base attack and full jump ranks you'd have 2 attacks at base attack 6 and correspondingly a jump skill of 9.
Bionecrosis 06-07-07, 02:03 PM	The bonus damage is too high for any DM to allow it be added onto all of the character's unarmed attacks after the charge. Yet again, I can't escape logic, and I've got to say that it just doesn't make sense. Also, the Pounce and Flying Kick abilities are two seperate abilities that shouldn't stack. Unless you kick with your hands, I don't see how this would work. Unless you can specificly say how you plan to do it, I wouldn't allow it. If, on the other hand, you can explain how you'd do it, and it sounds logical to the rest of the group, I suppose I'd allow it.
CantripN 06-07-07, 02:06 PM	Benefit: When fighting unarmed and using the charge action, you deal an extra 1d12 points of damage with your unarmed attack. "A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet." I'll take 2 kicks, an elbow to the face and a head butt, to go... Nothing about the feat states you use your feet. Heck, you don't even need feet for it. D&D uses generic feats; Power Attack can be described as more "strength" or as "aiming at the weak spot". And frankly, if you think a maximum 5d12 is a lot, too bad.
Bionecrosis 06-07-07, 02:16 PM	Umm... you lose momentum after the first strike. If you fly at a wall, you lose your momentum after you hit it. If you fly at a Beholder, you lose your momentum when you strike. If you fly at a Kobold, you keep going because you weigh more than it. Neither me nor my friends can see how you people can be so inane that the additional damage can be applied to other unarmed attacks.
CantripN 06-07-07, 02:21 PM	You're trying to mix science with magic. Guess what? It doesn't work. Ever read ToB? The Manuevers are all Extraordinary. Even the ones that Stop Time, Heal or deal elemental damage. As far as I'm concerned, the extra damage doesn't come from any "Momentum", but rather from game mechanics. Call it whatever you like.
Bionecrosis 06-07-07, 02:27 PM	The flying kick isn't a magic feat. It doesn't say you need to cast spells or levitate to do it. No, it's the representation of a character making what the feat says, a flying kick. The game mechanics behind flying kick is that you make a flying kick and you deal additional damage based on the fact that you just did a flying kick.
CantripN 06-07-07, 02:30 PM	No. It's that you make a Charge and deal an extra d12 on Unarmed Attacks. And ToB has a non-magical way to fly... Everything in D&D is a bit "unnatural".
Bionecrosis 06-07-07, 02:32 PM	1) wtf's a ToB? 2) You make a charge and deal an extra d12 on ONE unarmed attack. ONE attacks gets the added momentum from the charge. Not 2. Not 3. Not 5.
Warforged Goblin 06-07-07, 02:36 PM	Originally Posted by zvbxrpl Whenever you eviscerate a fantasy setting for the sake of realism, god kills a kitten. Please...think of the kittens. No more talk of momentum or physics please. I have 2 new kittens at home and the "ToB = anime" thread has me worried enough as it is. Please, think of my kittens Pazuzu and Kossuth. If I were DM and an unarmed combatant had the Flying Kick feat and a Pounce ability (like say a 6th level catfolk fighter who has Improved Unarmed Strike, Power Attack, Flying Kick, and Catfolk Pounce as feats), I'd allow them to add the +1d12 damage to each attack. The feat does not explicitly state that the extra damage only applies to the first attack, so by the RAW, any attack after a charge adds the extra 1d12 damage. ToB is the "Tome of Battle: Book of the Nine Swords". If you don't own it, go out and buy it, now. Read it. Learn it. Love it. It proves fighters can have nice things.
CantripN 06-07-07, 02:36 PM	ToB = Tome of Battle. Dude, you named your pussies after a Demon Lord and a God? Awesome.
Joseph_Silver 06-07-07, 02:39 PM	You named your cats Pazuzu and Kossuth? You're my hero! :D
Warforged Goblin 06-07-07, 02:40 PM	Well, I only named one Pazuzu. My wife-to-be named the other Kossuth :D
ShinAkuma2 06-07-07, 03:53 PM	No, it's the representation of a character making what the feat says, a flying kick. The game mechanics behind flying kick is that you make a flying kick and you deal additional damage based on the fact that you just did a flying kick. Flying Kick is just a name. By RAW, if a bear had this feat,it could charge and do an extra 1d12 of damage with its claw, as it is an unarmed attack.
tarkin 06-07-07, 04:00 PM	Bears doing Flying Kicks? No. Not true. Flying Kick has a pre-req of unarmed strike and clearly says with unarmed strike. While unarmed strikes count a natural weapons, natural weapons do not count as unarmed strikes. It is like saying all knives count as bladed weapons, that does not mean all bladed weapons are knives. The bear could not take this feat nor could he use it with the kick. -------- Basic rules for charges: Strict/Loose: Charge supply all energy of charge into single attack. It specifically states the bonus stops after making a single attack (does not apply to AoO's made later), even though the disadvantage continues. If you get any additional attacks onto a charge, only the first one counts fully as a charge. The other attacks do not count as 'charging', unless the feat/ability that grants them specifically says so, and then only to the extent the feat/ability says. Power Game/anything Goes: All your attacks count as charging.
RobbyPants 06-07-07, 04:15 PM	The flying kick isn't a magic feat. It doesn't say you need to cast spells or levitate to do it. No, it's the representation of a character making what the feat says, a flying kick. The game mechanics behind flying kick is that you make a flying kick and you deal additional damage based on the fact that you just did a flying kick. I think you're focusing too much on the name of the feat, and not so much on the printed benifits, and how they interact with the rest of the game's rules. Now, you can nerf it all you want in your game, but that's a house rule. If you mix too much logic with D&D, you get wierd results.
Obi-Wan Shinobi 06-07-07, 06:43 PM	here is another way to look at it: do you allow all the attacks the charger can make while pouncing to get the +2 to hit??? if so, then you should also allow all the attacks he makes while pouncing that are unarmed strikes the extra damage from Flying Kick. if it is supposedly all due to momentum, then you cant allow one without the other.
ShinAkuma2 06-07-07, 10:02 PM	Bears doing Flying Kicks? No. Not true. Flying Kick has a pre-req of unarmed strike and clearly says with unarmed strike. While unarmed strikes count a natural weapons, natural weapons do not count as unarmed strikes. It is like saying all knives count as bladed weapons, that does not mean all bladed weapons are knives. The bear could not take this feat nor could he use it with the kick. Bear animal companion? Bear Warrior? Wildshaped Druid? Are you SURE there's no way a bear can acquire this feat? Besides, you might want to get your eyes checked; it quite clearly and distinctly says unarmed attack, of which a natural weapon attack is a type.
Jadowman 06-08-07, 05:57 AM	There is a difference between unarmed strikes and natural weapons. For example, natural weapons never allow multiple attacks based on base attack, but a character is allowed multiple unarmed strikes from base attack. I think it lists all of this at the back of the MM. However, I often play druids with IUS and it seems possible to me that on a charge, while wild shaped, I could give up my natural weapon damage to instead do my unarmed strike damage (based on size) + 1d12. IMHO, I think that you can apply the 1d12 to all attacks. I just wanted to see what others thought. RAW allows our Ryu/Ken/Liu Kang character to throw fireballs and flaming punches, and so I can't see a reason to deny them their spin and/or bicycle kicks. Logically, you don't lose ALL your momentum on one attack, because if you did, I don't think that -2 penalty to AC for recklessness and unbalancing would stick around after your turn.
Jadowman 06-08-07, 06:03 AM	New question: What about Pounce and Leap Attack?
CantripN 06-08-07, 07:44 AM	New question: What about Pounce and Leap Attack? Very much the same question. Whatever you answer to that one.
ShinAkuma2 06-08-07, 12:43 PM	There is a difference between unarmed strikes and natural weapons. All differences aside, they are both types of unarmed attacks, as defined by the PHB. Something that affects unarmed attacks will affect both unarmed strikes and natural weapons.
RobbyPants 06-08-07, 01:39 PM	All differences aside, they are both types of unarmed attacks, as defined by the PHB. Something that affects unarmed attacks will affect both unarmed strikes and natural weapons. Do you know where that is in the PHB or SRD? I've been trying to find a ruling one way or the other, and I can't. It seems sort of like a squares and rectangles thing to me. A monk gets to count their unarmed attacks as natural attacks, but I haven't found anything in the entry of unarmed attacks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#attack) or natural weapons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalWeapons) in the SRD to suggest the opposite. So far, the best I can find is the opening sentance to Natural Weapons, which states: Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. This suggests that they are weapons, and not unarmed attacks. However, this is the closest thing I can find on the subject close to a ruling.
ShinAkuma2 06-08-07, 04:12 PM	It's in the Combat section: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#attack "Armed" Unarmed Attacks Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed. Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons are being lumped together as "Unarmed Attacks". Also see the glossary definition: Unarmed Attack: A melee attack made with no weapon in hand. This is separated from Unarmed Strike, because Unarmed Strike is only one type of Unarmed Attack. A Natural Weapon attack is also made with no weapon in hand (since the hand itself may be the weapon :) ), and thus is also an Unarmed Attack. Flying Kick adds damage to successful Unarmed Attacks on a charge, so any type of attack made without a weapon will benefit.
RobbyPants 06-08-07, 10:36 PM	Thanks :) I read over that part in one of my own links! :eek:
LoreKeeper 06-09-07, 12:18 AM	That should settle it then - just a closing remark on real-world flying kicks: It is not uncommon for Earth-based high-level martial artists to be able to perform two (sometimes more) seperate flying kicks from a standing jump. With a bit of a run-up they can accomplish more. Regarding momentum - it isn't particularly difficult to run up a wall two-to-three steps before the forward momentum is dissipated. @Warforged Goblin: Hope the kitties made it ;) :D
DinwathSereglin 06-09-07, 01:00 AM	I have seen people pull off axle kicks in real life. I have seen a person pull off leaping into a split-kick followed by a front kick without touching the ground. He was running forward when he jumped into the split kick and crushed all three coconuts he was aiming for.