So long as you spend the swift action, I believe you would get to apply your sneak attack twice.
Once as a brawler when you succeed at the check to damage your victim.
Then once as a feat when you spend a swift action as a result of damaging your victim.
Seems like a fun build, since you technically only need one level in brawler for it.
The thing is, they're actually two different triggers.
The first is when he passes the check.
The second is when he deals the damage.
So it's not stacking, it's just two events that are essentially adjacent.
|
My initial thought, which could be totally wrong, would be that the Strangler feat requires sneak attack, which is not the same named ability as the Strangler ability of Strangle (which grants sneak attack while grappling).
So, IMO, to make this work, you'd need to be a Brawler (Strangler) and a Rogue (or Ninja, Alchemist-Vivisectionist, or whatever with sneak attack), and then the Brawler ability would allow it's usual dice of sneak attack while grappling (depending on how many Brawler levels you've taken), while the Strangler feat would allow any sneak attack from Rogue (or Ninja, Vivisectionist, etc.) levels to *also* apply while grappling.
I'm with Set on this.
The Strangler archetype does not give you "Sneak Attack" as per the rogue or unchained rogue class feature, nor add to that class feature's damage dice. I would not say the damage granted by the Strangle (Ex) ability actually qualifies you for the feat or is usable by it. It might as well have simply said precision damage instead. Likewise, I'd argue that the Strangler archetype's Strangle(Ex) ability doesn't actually allow you to use sneak attack dice from other classes either.
If you want to be a Strangler with the Strangler feat, as Set said, pick up a different class that grants sneak attack. It would essentially allow you to keep adding damage to your grapples, at the price of a swift action, despite multiclassing
The feature says "Sneak attack" so I think it's a bit silly to say that it's not sneak attack.
The thing is, they're actually two different triggers.
The first is when he passes the check.
The second is when he deals the damage.So it's not stacking, it's just two events that are essentially adjacent.
Whenever you successfully maintain a grapple and choose to deal damage...
...succeeds at a grapple check to damage or pin an opponent...
Both are based on dealing damage to a target you've successfully maintained a grappled against. Same trigger.
However, as others have noted, the feat allows you to apply SA to your grappled target but the archetype doesn't clearly grant SA. That may be the intent and it could double up if it is, but I don't think it is. The feat looks to me to be used for the SA feature of the rogue (and similar classes) that is always available to them (assuming they could meet the flanking/flat-footed/loss of dex requirements).
One question I have is whether the Strangler archetype gets the sneak attack damage because as the grappler it is always considered to be "flanking" the victim? In otherwords, if someone was immune to flanking, would that nullify the ability to apply Sneak Attack a grappled foe or can Stangler's suddenly grapple and flank things that otherwise could never be flanked?
I would say flank immune creatures cannot be effected by the archetype, otherwise why bother mentioning it at all. But its certainly not well spelled out.
That is, mentioning flanking seems to imply that flanking the target is a requirement to apply the strangler SA. But it may be it was mentioned simply because the most common way to get to apply SA damage is to flank a target and the writer didn't want people to get confused about not being able to apply it without an ally flanking partner. Could they then have said that the target is always considered flat-footed for purposes of applying this damage for the same net result (except flank immune wouldn't matter in that case)? Sounds like a good FAQ candidate actually.
The trigger doesn't really matter regardless. The source does.
These are two different sources (one class feature, one Feat). Stacking issues aren't a problem.
The main issue is, as Set says, Strangle is not Sneak Attack in the same way Close Combat is not Weapon Training for the purpose of Feats and such. So a Strangler alone does not qualify for the Feat, you'd need to dip a level in Rogue or something.
Granted it doesn't specifically say "Sneak attack class feature", and instead reads "Sneak attack +1d6" (Not +1d6 sneak attack). Any other feat that requires sneak attack also follows this format if it requires a specific amount of added damage dice from the sneak attack class feature.
Still, I'd assert that the the Strangler's 'Strangle' ability is not the same. It's not Replacing a sneak attack class feature, so it doesn't fall under the archetype rules of counting as that class feature. Looking at the snakebite striker: There's a true sneak attack, through and through. 'Strangle' is of a different name, extremely situational, and could just as easily have read 'precision damage' instead of 'sneak attack'. I'd chalk it up to bad writing, and suggest the Strangler archetype's additional damage isn't fully doubled due to a single feat. Perhaps the writers simply wanted to word it this way to suggest how the class ability interacts with other abilities, like uncanny dodge
Hell, I'm not even sure if it is eligible for the Sap Adept feat (Edit: Or similar feats requiring Sneak attack +xd6). Perhaps it is FAQ worthy?
You know what? This entire time, I overlooked that tiny bit of text for the Strangle(Ex) ability in the PRD.
Strangle (Ex): At 1st level, a strangler deals 1d6 points of sneak attack damage (as per the rogue ability of the same name) whenever she succeeds at a grapple combat maneuver check to damage or pin an opponent.
Emphasis mine. I take back my whole point; That would qualify it for the Strangler feat to me. Excuse my arguments.
Still, I consider it a bit strange there's a feat that doubles precision damage for a particular archetype without any significant drawback. The Strangler greatly benefits from improved grapple anyways, and then it's just one more feat for some decent damage. Edit: Well, three feats... as previously pointed out, they don't get improved unarmed strike. Okay, it seems almost fair now.
What I find strange is that the Strangler Brawler archetype doesn't give you either of the things other than Sneak Attack (Improved Grapple, Improved Unarmed Strike) that you need for the Strangler feat -- it even trades out Brawler's Improved Unarmed Strike.
But it doesn't double the damage. You don't get to apply Sneak attack twice. The feat simply allows someone with Sneak Attack to apply it in a grapple which the rogue couldn't normally do, but which the Strangler already can.
To put it another way, the Strangler Archetype gets essentially no benefit from the Strangler feat.
Now this...This seems invalid to me.
The Strangler archetype "deals 1d6 points of sneak attack damage (as per the rogue ability of the same name) whenever she succeeds at a grapple combat maneuver check to damage or pin an opponent."The strangler feat "can spend a swift action to deal your sneak attack damage to the creature you are grappling."
There's nothing anywhere to suggest that sneak attack damage can't stack. It's not a type of bonus, and these are two different sources. Even if they draw from a similar resource (The number of sneak attack dice the Strangler can use), what possible reason would you suggest for these two not to stack?
Your wording of it being 'allowed' or 'applied' isn't shown or applicable. One deals it automatically, and the other deals it with a swift action. Both simply deal the damage under the same condition (successfully maintaining the grapple and choosing to deal damage).
Seems like a similar situation arose with Greater Trip and Vicious Stomp. Given how that turned out, I'd be obliged to say that Strangler stacks.
@ N N 959
Alright. It's a long one. Your points seem to be...
1) Anything that deals sneak attack damage on an action/attack is not applicable if sneak attack damage is already being applied.
2) The strangler feat solely 'allows' a character to deal sneak attack damage on a particular action, using the swift action to allow it.
You worded it differently in several places, so correct me if I've misread, but that seems to basically be what your argument boils down to. For now, I'm contesting the two points above.
My Response:
So, to tackle #1:
- Sneak attack damage from multiple sources can stack on a single attack. Take the Assassin prestige class's sneak attack as an example; It does not add to a previous sneak attack class feature (It has its own progression), but it is an ability that works exactly the same. In addition, it states it stacks with all other sources. Effectively, you are applying sneak attack damage twice to an attack, adding them together. Contrast that with the Vivisectionist which actually does add to another sneak attack class feature to determine overall # of dice.
- All other examples of precision damage that I can find either explicitly state they stack with other sources of precision damage, or are merely added (From feats and class features alike). A Critical Hit is the only mention I can see of precision damage being limited, and that's only to clarify that it's not multiplied on a crit.
Tackling #2 is a bit harder. I've found...
- There are a few feats that would allow sneak attack damage where it would not normally be allowed, such as Shadow Strike. These feats are worded to suggest that the character "Can" deal precision or sneak attack damage in general to an attack. These are worded very generally, and seem to only allow the player, rather than enabling a completely new ability. (An unchained rogue cannot deal additional sneak attack damage using Shadow Strike; It gains no benefit, as it already can deal sneak attack damage to a target with concealment. This seems to be exactly how you're interpreting the Strangler feat.
- The Strangler feat is worded differently; It uses wording similar to many other feats in Ultimate Combat that grant a whole new action/effect, rather than simply enabling an already existing feature to be used in special circumstance. Stunning Pin, Passing Trick, Felling Escape, Sorcerous Strike and many others (All ultimate combat, same source as the Strangler feat) are phrased in this exact way.
You Can Spend a X Action to do Y.
Ask yourself this; If you got sneak attack damage from another class, such as the rogue, what happens for either or both the Strangler Archetype and Strangler Feat? Why would you include or exclude sneak attack dice from one class or the other?
Don't get me wrong. I'm actually more than inclined to interpret it your way, if you didn't catch that from above posts. However, I think that you're wrong here, and this feat just happens to have an extremely rare overlap where the same amount of damage is dealt twice in the same instance. If I were GM, I'd houserule it otherwise (I consider it highly probably your interpretation is the intention of the writers), but its wording seems to favor my interpretation.
In Conclusion:
.
The Strangler feat is using a swift action to deal your sneak attack damage dice, implying all sneak attack damage dice, to a target you've successfully maintained a grapple against. As shown above, precision damage from multiple sources (And a feat is indeed a source) stack.
It's a neat trick, using 3 feats to pull off, but seemingly worthwhile.
Edit: @Johnnycat93 - oof... I hadn't heard of that conflict. I'm guessing that it was ruled you get one attack of opportunity for the trip attempt, and another for the opponent falling prone?
First of all, I don't think they would stack seeing as they have an identical trigger with 0 wiggle room.
Second, even if they did stack, you only get so many sneak attack dice. Different sources of sneak attack stack only for the total number of dice you can use on any valid attack. Unfortunately the Strangle(Ex) ability is not the Sneak Attack ability and thus does not add any dice.
This is a weird situation, but essentially the Strangle ability is using sneak attack dice without actually adding to the sneak attack dice pool. Meaning that if you were to use Strangle(ex) and Strangler(combat feat) in the same round attack your pool would be split between the two. (note: this would not be the case if Strangle(ex) used precision damage instead of sneak attack damage)
Pool = 5d6
Trigger(assuming only for the sake of this argument that two actions can proc off the same trigger)
Strangle uses 1d6
Strangler is now only able to utilize 4d6
or
Trigger(assuming only for the sake of this argument that two actions can proc off the same trigger)
Strangler uses 5d6
Strangle procs, but has no dice to use
This is identical to using only the Strangler feat in the end, so stacking wouldn't actually be an issue even if it were to happen, which it shouldn't imo.
Edit: @Johnnycat93 - oof... I hadn't heard of that conflict. I'm guessing that it was ruled you get one attack of opportunity for the trip attempt, and another for the opponent falling prone?
I don't think there was ever an official ruling, but I think the majority sentiment was that there were two seperate triggers and thus two AoOs.
So, given that I think there are two distinct triggers in this case I'd say that one would be able to apply the Sneak Attack damage twice.
However, if there is actually a hard, printed rule that limits how much Sneak Attack one can do at once then that overrides. I don't think there is one besides common sense, and I think the scenario presented here is a reasonable enough exception to common sense to merit consideration.
What are the two distinct triggers in this case Johnnycat93?
A standard action to deal damage with a grapple and a standard action to deal damage with a grapple plus a swift action.
I think that only pushes the conflict back a level. Now it's between the swift and the class ability instead of the class ability and the benefit of the feat. Its still 1 trigger for 2 events, which is not supported by the rules afaik. If you can find a counterexample i'd be happy to see it.
Again, that's a similar argument that was made during Greater Trip vs Vicious Stomp.
For another example: what about the feats Enforcer and Cornugon Smash. Does damaging an opponent with a nonlethal weapon while I'm using Power Attack mean I get to make two demoralize checks? I'd say yes.
I'm willing to acknowledge that this whole thing is a grey area at best with regard to the rules, so I don't automatically assume that I'm right and you're wrong (to be clear, I'm not insinuating that others have either). This is just what I'd rule if it came up at the table.
Ok, i understand that this is how you would rule it, I'm just going to try to map out why i think the two cases you provided are different from the case of Strangle + Strangler
Vicious Stomp- Whenever an opponent falls prone adjacent to you, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you.
Cornugon Smash - When you damage an opponent with a Power Attack, you may make an immediate Intimidate check as a free action to attempt to demoralize your opponent.
Strangler - Whenever you successfully maintain a grapple and choose to deal damage, you can spend a swift action to deal your sneak attack damage to the creature you are grappling
With this combination you cannot show a case where you use a grapple check to deal damage to an opponent in a pin without both abilities proc'ing. This shows that their trigger condition is identical, which means they cannot be used during the same attack.
But there is at least one case in which the class ability applies that the feat doesn't and that is when you succeed a grapple check and choose to attempt a pin. In that case, only the class ability procs.
Unless I have a wild misunderstanding of grapple rules, choosing to pin a target is not the same as choosing to damage a target with regards to what can be done when you successfully maintain a grapple.
Right, but in that case you aren't trying to apply both of the abilities and thus there is no conflict to talk about. If you find some way to use your grapple check to both pin and damage the target in the same turn there would still be a conflict on the damage resolution.
Okay, but with regard to pinning its almost exactly the same as Enforcer/Cornugon Smash where I can proc one without the other. I'm not convinced of a meaningful distinction between the two cases.
Strangle has a specific combination that must be met to be used, so let's call that condition A. Strangler also has a specific condition, let's call it condition B.
In the case of using grapple to damage an opponent: Condition A = B.
In the case of using grapple to pin an opponent: Condition A =/= B.
I'm using this logic as grounds to say that A and B are not the same thing, but it could applied with equal validity to say that A and B are the same in the specific context of using grapple to damage an opponent.
I don't think it's clear either way. May be worth hitting the FAQ button.
Mm, i see. The issue is that Strangle has 2 activating triggers, not 1.
Strangle is triggered by conditions A or C, whereas Strangler is activated on B, and B == A.
(this is another difference from the previous cases, those feats all have only 1 trigger condition)
For me, that's enough to say that the two abilities do not have identical trigger conditions.
You said A = B? how is that not identity?
Because I also said A =/= B. Some portion of the triggers are identical, but that does not make them truly identical.
Sorry, it can be a pain to communicate via text. I'm not trying to be factious.
Sorry but your logic is off. (A=B AND A=/=B) is never a true statement. There are 2 trigger conditions, and one of them is causing a conflict. The fact that the other condition does not cause a conflict is not the issue being discussed in this thread.
Which is why I tried to bring Enforcer and Cornugon Smash into it, because I believe that applying your method to those two abilities shows that they'd be in conflict with one another because a set of their multiple trigger conditions conflict.
Okay... Going to give this one more go, then I'm opting out. Seems most arguments have been made already. ..Again, I'll try to make an attempt to summarize positions, and what I believe would happen given any one person's stance is true. Again, these are likely not to be perfect representations, but I feel this will be a more structured a response than simply tossing out points.
If Johnnycat93 is correct, a Strangler with the Strangle ability may use the two in conjunction. If that Strangler successfully maintains a grapple and chooses to damage an opponent, they add Strangle's sneak attack damage dice. If They spend a swift action, they then add any and all sneak attack damage dice (Including that gained from the Strangle ability), which stacks with the former.
To contradict Johnnycat93's stance, one needs to show any of the following:
1) The Strangler feat does not enact its own damage, but only adds a conditional option for other sneak attack dice. (It does not 'Deal', it only 'lets')
2) The Strangle ability and Strangler feat cannot be used in the same instance.
3) Additional ruling that the sneak attack damage dice do not stack on any one given trigger, and/or cannot be applied to a single action twice.
4) Overlapping feats or abilities do not stack (Such as from those examples given).
If Rediculon is correct, a Strangler without an additional source of sneak attack damage dice does not qualify for the feat. If they do happen to acquire sneak attack damage dice from another class and then take the feat, they may use the Strangle ability in conjunction with the Strangle feat. This results in the character dealing, at maximum, a number of sneak attack damage dice equal to their total pool. This maximum is not exceeded or added to by the Strangle ability.
A separate example would be when the feat+ability are incapable of being used due to being an 'identical trigger with 0 wiggle room' (Successfully maintaining a grapple + choosing to deal damage). Since only one of the two can be used, I assume the Strangle ability would take precedence since it deals its damage automatically.
For Rediculon's stance to be wrong, one most show any of the following:
1) The Strangle ability does in fact add sneak attack damage dice to the total that can be applied in any one given action, which can stack with other sources.
2) The Strangler's Strangle ability and the Strangler feat can both add sneak attack damage dice to the maintaining+damaging action without being limited by a total pool.
3) The Strangler's Strangle ability qualifies you for the Strangler feat.
4) The Strangle ability and Strangler feat can be used simultaneously.
If N N 959 is correct, A character that attempts to use both the Strangle ability and the Strangler feat (when maintaining a grapple and choosing to deal damage, and taking a swift action) does so with no additional effect; Together they apply the sneak attack damage granted by the Strangler archetype, and that's all. If the character possesses sneak attack damage from another class, that too is added. There is no conflict in terms of actions, triggers, or conditions.
To counter N N 959, one needs to show any of the following:
1) The feat does indeed add sneak attack damage in and of itself AND functions off damage dice granted by the Strangle class ability.
2) The Strangle class ability does not qualify one for the Strangler feat, or the two are completely incompatible (As per Ridiculon's argument)
It's tough to set up a disproof for the claim that sneak attack damage dice form a pool, a limited resource, that can only ever be applied once to any one action or attack. That's more of a positive claim, and requires evidence. Dealing with evidence presented so far later on.
I hold the stance that they do stack. I propose there is nothing limiting the Strangle ability and the Strangler feat to be added on the same action, with the former being added automatically (to damage or pin) and the latter being added via a swift action (to damage only). I also believe the Strangle class ability also allows the character to meet the sneak attack dice prerequisite for the feat. I believe the feat's damage and the Strangle ability's damage to be two separate sources, even if both draw from a single ability.
If I'm correct, a character that uses both the Strangle ability and the Strangler feat in a single instance effectively applies the sneak attack damage granted by the Strangle class ability twice; They deal their initial sneak attack damage from the Strangle ability, then add their total sneak attack damage again due to the feat's swift action (Which happens to be the same amount). If the same character possesses sneak attack damage dice from another class, then that character may add that sneak attack damage using the Strangler feat as well.
To disprove me, the same conditions used to argue Johnnycat93 must be shown. To refresh, those are::
1) The Strangler feat does not enact its own damage, but only adds a conditional option for other sneak attack dice. (It does not 'Deal', it only 'lets')
2) The Strangle ability and Strangler feat cannot be used in the same instance.
3) Additional ruling that the sneak attack damage dice do not stack on any one given trigger, and/or cannot be applied to a single action twice.
4) Overlapping feats or abilities do not stack (Such as from those examples given).
I hope everyone can agree to the above. Even if it seems off, The following is what matters: Evidence. Below I will list supporting or opposing arguments and excerpts we've listed so far, in no particular order, along with my opinion on them.
-= Ability score modifiers don't stack! =-
There are several quotes from James Jacob that deny one the ability to apply your dex multiplier multiple times on one roll (The prominent example is that Weapon Finesse and Fury's Fall do not stack. I haven't seen other examples thus far, but I assume the above is correct for now.
I'd argue that sneak attack & precision damage does fit not this trend, and thus is not affected by this argument. Bonuses have their own rules. Ability score modifiers were ruled here. Damage, in so far that I know, and unless presented with specific exceptions, Always Stacks. Honestly, the Focused Shot + Alchemist Bomb argument is probably a better place for this.
-= The Strangler Feat doesn't deal damage on its own! =-
Presented by N N 959, this seems to be an argument about how the feat is worded and presented, and the main contention between us. On the one hand, there's the interpretation that it does Not apply sneak attack damage in and of itself. On the other, it takes a swift action to straight up deal damage equal to your total sneak attack damage dice. One thing we can agree upon: It would settle a large portion of the argument if agreed upon.
To support the second, I presented feats (such as Stunning Pin, Passing Trick, Felling Escape, Sorcerous Strike) all from the same material (Ultimate Combat) that Do, in fact, seem enable one to perform a effect in exchange for an action. This supports the feat being read the second way, where it Spends a swift action under X condition to deal sneak attack damage. I also mentioned another feat ( Shadow Strike), from an earlier publication(APG), that seems like it cannot be read any other way but the first interpretation, as contrast. This shows Paizo's method of wording feats intended to work that way.
To support the first... More data needed?
-= Identical Triggers! =-
I have 0 knowledge of why this is actually an issue, if it is at all. Perhaps some quotes or a bit of research is needed to show why two events based on similar triggers cannot occur simultaneously?
My personal view, which shows that the feat triggers off the swift action under a very specific condition (Which happens to be the trigger for the Strangle ability), doesn't acknowledge this as an issue. Sorry, perhaps I'm just not understanding the point.
-= There are examples of Other overlapping feats/abilities! =-
They're all interesting, and they seem to stack perfectly fine even if they repeat the exact same action a second time. It seems, however, these examples steer away from the main issue: Sneak attack damage dice pools.
-= Feat Prerequisites! =-
Does the Strangler's Strangle ability actually qualify one for the Strangler feat, when it comes to sneak attack damage? The PRD does say Strangle's sneak attack is "(as per the rogue ability of the same name)". However, the ability is most definitely not the 'Sneak Attack Class Feature' in itself, and it's a bit fuzzy whether the sneak attack damage dice it gives qualifies for feats.
More evidence is needed here. The one and only bit I have to add to this is that it's been suggested before that so long as one has a 'reliable' way of achieving a feat's prerequisites, they may take the feat (Though they can only use it in times that the character actually meet those prerequisites). Link#1, Link#2 for a whole thread
-= Sneak Attack Dice pool...total...thing. =-
h'okay. As far as I understand this one, some believe that you have a certain 'pool' of sneak attack damage dice, and by some rule, you cannot exceed this pool. Please Post Evidence For This . Until then, I barely understand the argument.
The analogy is meaningless, since it's not an actual consumable resource pool(Like the magus's arcane pool, grit, etc.) that somehow refreshes after every attack . This point absolutely needs some rules to back it up, else it all seems like a strange assertion to me. Each class that gains a sneak attack class feature defines how it works for that class- Nothing suggests a maximum, or anything similar, per attack/action. Sap Master is a feat that essentially lets you DOUBLE your sneak attack dice on a given attack
-= I'm starting to see double, so... =-
Perhaps I'm missing something, but there doesn't seem to be another major argument. Good luck guys! Also...
Finally, I'd like to re-propose the interpretation of the Strangler feat + Strangle ability that I think avoids all the above conflicts, but does not seem fully reflected in the wording of either ability.
This is my interpretation of the rules as Intended, but not as written, and it is how I would houserule in my own game. Quite simply, it goes as follows:
- The Strangle ability's sneak attack damage dice are a completely separate entity from the sneak attack class feature, and does not meet the prerequisites of the Strangler feat.
- The Strangle ability adds these damage dice to the triggering actions, no matter what other sneak attack damage dice are present.
- The Strangler feat does *Not* include these damage damage dice when determining how many it adds.
- All such damage dice are subject to abilities or effects that would normally affect sneak attacks and precision damage, such as immunity, uncanny dodge.
Simple, effective. You never have damage dice doubled, nor have them limited, and I can't find a point of contention for it being overpowered or in conflict. There's not even a reason to debate the prerequisites, because it's a worthless feat unless you have the sneak attack class feature from another class!
At least this is a quicker response....
What is the analogy to sneak attack dice in this feat, because I don't see it
The point of All the above feats, shadow strike and stunning pin included, is to point out the wording; It's how they've written the feat.
The 4 grouped examples have no actual relation except that they all use similar wording: "You can spend a X action to Y", and each one of them adds an effect, action or use of a class ability.
Stunning pin-> Stunning Fist attempt
Passing trick -> Bluff check to feint
Felling Sweep -> trip attempt
etc.
Seeing as how these feats came from the same source as the Strangler feat, and how similar their wording is, I was basically inferring that it's likely the Strangler feat Also adds an effect (In its case, in exchange for a swift action). Even if many of these feats use class abilities that
To further solidify the point, I gave a feat (Shadow strike) which is more of an enabler. It merely Allows you to apply an effect where it's normally not applicable. It's to show that, if the writers had meant for the Strangler feat to merely be an enabler for a sneak attack, it's more likely they'd write it in a fashion similar to Shadow Strike. Instead, they wrote it as an effect caused by a swift action under specific circumstances.
Anyways. None of that was deductive; You can still read the feat your way very easily, and I was simply showing some examples where it becomes more likely to read it my way.
As for the rest of the argument...
It is Not from two 'Rules' that I'm suggesting to apply sneak attack damage twice. It's because, interpreted my way, the damage is called for from two different sources.
Look, You keep suggesting that the sneak attack damage dice come from the same source. Like you said, a rogue doesn't deal two times the sneak attack damage because an enemy is both flanked and denied their DEX. It's a single ability, applied when Either condition is fulfilled. I'm suggesting there are two different sources at work(One being the feat, the other being the class ability). Arguing beyond that is pointless, as far as I see. Unfortunately, it will keep going back to the way the feat is read. We would both be in agreement that just because it's Enabled from various conditions doesn't mean it's Applied multiple times. We both disagree to the wording of a feat, which would effectively apply it a second time due explicitly to the conditions written in the feat (Spend a swift action; Deal damage).
I haven't set up a straw man to knock down; I denied that sneak attack damage dice are the same as ability score modifiers, in the same way that ability score modifiers are distinct from various bonuses. Each have their own rules, and as far as I can see, the only rules surrounding sneak attack damage are spelled out in the class feature itself. Similarly, the rules for the Flaming special ability are described in their own section.
As for other reasons the additional sneak attack would be denied...
-There's nothing written that bars for sneak attack damage to be added twice, or from different sources, save for critical hits and a few abilities that call them out.
-There are several descriptions that say that sneak attack damage dice stack with other sources, including other sneak attack damage dice.
-IF the feat is read and interpreted my way, this just might be one of the very few instances, if not the only one, that calls for the same amount of sneak attack damage to be applied on an attack by both a feat and class feature in the same moment.
There are a few things that could break down my assertions...
1) Show me that the feat must or should be read one way, and not the other. This can probably only ever be done by the PDT, but I welcome you to make a more compelling argument than simply asserting it can't happen the other way, and having no other ruling to back it up.
2) Show me that the feat cannot count as a source in and of itself, or that it's drawing from some total pool that disallows this interaction. If you can find additional ruling besides the rogue's sneak attack class feature, this'll probably be cleared up really quickly.
So far, I only see one important factor going in your favor, and that's that the Strangler feat would be the only feat in the game I see that explicitly calls for you to deal your sneak attack damage on a given action (A swift action, in this case). There are other feats, of course, that do allow you to use a class feature in exchange for an action spent (Crusader's Fist as an example). There are also those dealing precision damage. This is simply the first I've seen to outright deal a sneak attack, rather than modify or enable one.
The feat itself is a unique case true, but i think the biggest issue is the wording of the class ability. The class its attached to doesn't have the Sneak Attack ability, why the heck is the Strangle ability using sneak attack damage instead of precision damage? It makes no sense thematically and is causing mechanical problems here.
In what way is the guy who just put you in a full nelson being 'sneaky' by trying to stab you in the neck? I'm pretty sure this is a staple climax scene of the action/shooter movie genre, bad guy tackles hero and they fight over the knife, 2 inches over the hero's neck.
"Sneak attack" is a legacy term from AD&D. It was in later versions of D&D that WotC started using the term Precision Damage (mainly for Rangers). And while D&D 3.5 and ergo PF have kept the legacy term "sneak attack" for that special damage that a Thief/Rogue does, the concept has changed from being "sneaky" to the ability to strike a critical area. So "sneak attack" is technically a misnomer. It should be a specific subset of Precision Damage so as to distinguish it from other types of Precision Damage (because the game needs distinctions in order to identify prerequisites).
So ignore the descriptive label and think of "sneak attack" as Rogue-style Precision Damage. As opposed to an Investigator's Studied Strike or a Ranger's Favored Enemy.
That solves the thematic issue well enough, but we still have this weird mechanical blip of an ability saying you can use sneak attack when you don't actually have the Sneak Attack ability to begin with. Then once you get over that hump you still have the action order conflict... i'm still of the opinion that it is the archetype, not the feat, that is at fault here (although it could also be solved if the feat used an immediate action since those actually interrupt other actions, unlike swifts)
Where is a prohibition of double dipping fundamentally laid down?
Also what wording of the sneak attack class feature are you using to infer a pool of dice?
I'm with N N on this, for what it's worth.
*shrug*