vecnajoe's page

Speedy Tricks just lets you replace one attack with a Dirty Trick.

So if you are doing full attack action one of your attacks can be replaced with a Dirty Trick. If you are making an AoO you can replace the attack with a Dirty Trick.

This means that yes technically you can use Vital Strike but since the Dirty Trick doesn't deal damage the Vital Strike doesn't really do anything as it only allows you to double the damage dice of which there are none.

Why would you only get one Dirty Trick out of a full attack as opposed to subbing multiple attacks for Dirty Tricks? Not disagreeing, just asking for clarity.

I suppose the wording of the ability makes it sound singular with the "He can make "a" dirty trick" line.

Subject says it all.

From the SRD:

"Speedy Tricks (Ex)

At 9th level, a dirty fighter has perfected how to quickly perform dirty tricks. He can make a dirty trick combat maneuver as an attack instead of a standard action.

This ability replaces weapon training 2."

Does this mean you can apply dirty trick like you would Vital Strike because it is made as an Attack Action? Or is it subbing Dirty Trick for hitting someone but being able to do so on AoO's/Full Attack?

Found the wording of the last part unclear as to whether it becomes an Attack or an Attack Action.

Maneuver Master Monk and Dirty Fighter... Fighter :p both have ways of applying multiple (though different) Dirty Trick penalties in a round if they choose to do so.

Looking at the Dirty Trick entry I would assume that each penalty must be removed separately just because you are applying more than one penalty so each one would require a different action to remove.

I have a friend who tells me that they must be removed separately for the Dirty Fighter specifically and if a Maneuver Master Monk uses Maneuver flurry to apply multiple (different) Dirty Trick penalties to one target it only takes one Move (Standard with Greater Dirty Trick) action to remove all of them.

This seems an odd interpretation of the rules to me but I'm having trouble finding official sources for either his or my interpretation. What is your take on it? Or do any of you have official sources on this specific issue. Any help would be appreciated.