How is a Vivisectionist's Sneak Attack supposed to work?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

If this post has already been answered elsewhere, please link to it and forgive this entry.

Vivisectionist's Sneak Attack class feature has some rather unique wording...

PRD wrote:


http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/spellcastingClassOptions/a lchemist.html#vivisectionist-(archetype)

Sneak Attack: At 1st level, a vivisectionist gains the sneak attack ability as a rogue of the same level. If a character already has sneak attack from another class, the levels from the classes that grant sneak attack stack to determine the effective rogue level for the sneak attack's extra damage dice (so an alchemist 1/rogue 1 has a +1d6 sneak attack like a 2nd-level rogue, an alchemist 2/rogue 1 has a +2d6 sneak attack like a 3rd-level rogue, and so on). This ability replaces bomb.

So here's the main point: Though the text above gives a clear example of Vivisectionist and Rogue classes stacking together, it never explicitly states that only the rogue and/or base and/or alternate classes are the only ones it can stack with. The wording does not limit the class feature from stacking with Prestige Classes that also grant Sneak Attack.

This can be both detrimental and beneficial to the character.

Multiple prestige classes gain the Sneak Attack class feature at level one. Because they are "Classes that grant sneak attack", they would qualify to stack with the Vivisectionist's Sneak Attack... basically forcing the character to gain, At Most, one additional sneak attack die every Other level (instead of potentially one every level, by taking multiple different Prestige Classes that grant it at level one.)

One prestige class in particular can stand to gain from the Vivisectionist's sneak attack; Because it gains an additional sneak attack die every 3 levels, you could potentially gain an additional sneak attack die by investing a single level in Vivisectionist

For example: an 18th level character has Rogue-8, Master Spy-10. He gains 4d6 SA from his levels in Rogue, and 4d6 from Master Spy (total 8d6). At 19th level, he can take Vivisectionist. He is then Rogue-8, Master Spy-10, Vivisectionist-1. Because he now has 19 levels in "Classes that grant Sneak Attack" they stack to determine the effective rogue level for the sneak attack's extra damage dice. In this case, an effective rogue level of 19. Which means 10d6.

Last but not least... the number one flaw here...

Though many prestige classes qualify as "Classes that grant sneak attack"... Their own Sneak Attack class feature is often defined as follows (We'll take the Master Spy as example):

PRD wrote:


Sneak Attack (Ex): This ability is exactly like the rogue ability of the same name. The extra damage dealt increases by +1d6 at every third level (1st, 4th, 7th, and 10th). If a master spy gets a sneak attack bonus from another source, the bonuses on damage stack.

This is repeated in many prestige classes..

Quote:
If an assassin gets a sneak attack bonus from another source, the bonuses on damage stack.
Quote:
If an arcane trickster gets a sneak attack bonus from another source, the bonuses on damage stack.
Quote:
If a low templar gets a sneak attack bonus from another source, the bonuses on damage stack.

To summarize...

All these qualify as "Classes that grant sneak attack"... And all of them grant *Stacking* sneak attack damage, On top of other sources, as is the norm. They would grant sneak attack damage in Addition to what the Vivisectionist's Sneak Attack class feature gives.

Our level 19 Rogue-8, MS-10, Vivisectionist-1 character just went from 10d6 to 14d6, because the Master Spy's sneak attack damage is given in addition to that of the Vivisectionist's.

The Vivisectionist's Sneak Attack class feature absolutely must be rewritten to specifically omit prestige classes from the "Classes that grant sneak attack" ... if it is to work as intended.

EDIT: P.S. It'd also be nice to know officially how Vivisectionist, Ninja, and Rogue all interact together as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's an awful lot of text for reading a lot more into it than is there. It explicitly says it stacks with other sources of sneak attack. It then uses rogue as an example. It works like every other source of sneak attack. Nothing has to be rewritten.


you understood one thing wrong I thing.
You do not determine the dice on sneak attacks by summing up the classes with that class feature, dividing it by two.
A rogue 1, vivisectionist 1, has 2d6 of sneak attack with 2 hit dice.

This problem with stacking isn´t a problem, except maybe at the second level. You won´t get the opportunity to get the advanced rogue talents for example, and 1d6 more isn´t going to break the game.
This would only become a problem if they add base classes or prestige classes (and not archetypes) that gain sneak attacks.

The difference is like a wizard gaining a spell level before the sorcerers. The third edition survived even without much balancing.


Richard Leonhart wrote:

you understood one thing wrong I thing.

You do not determine the dice on sneak attacks by summing up the classes with that class feature, dividing it by two.
A rogue 1, vivisectionist 1, has 2d6 of sneak attack with 2 hit dice.
PRD wrote:


(so an alchemist 1/rogue 1 has a +1d6 sneak attack like a 2nd-level rogue,

...You're wrong. And it explicitly gives that example.


Mojorat wrote:
That's an awful lot of text for reading a lot more into it than is there. It explicitly says it stacks with other sources of sneak attack. It then uses rogue as an example. It works like every other source of sneak attack. Nothing has to be rewritten.

Sneak attack class feature from various other prestige classes say that it stacks with other sources.

Vivisectionist's says "classes that grant sneak attack stack to determine the effective rogue level for the sneak attack's extra damage dice"

See the example above. It basically gathers levels from all classes that grant Sneak Attack, adds them together, and assigns you Sneak Attack damage based on a rogue with that sum as its level.

edit: It should be noted that the above is not counting the sneak attack dice that the prestige classes Add on top of it... since the prestige class's SA damage stacks with that from other sources.


Namelessone wrote:


So why are you not adding the sneak attack damage from the prestige class.

I'm not sure what you mean, exactly. Could you clarify?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bane Wraith wrote:

snip:
If this post has already been answered elsewhere, please link to it and forgive this entry.

Vivisectionist's Sneak Attack class feature has some rather unique wording...

PRD wrote:


http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/spellcastingClassOptions/a lchemist.html#vivisectionist-(archetype)

Sneak Attack: At 1st level, a vivisectionist gains the sneak attack ability as a rogue of the same level. If a character already has sneak attack from another class, the levels from the classes that grant sneak attack stack to determine the effective rogue level for the sneak attack's extra damage dice (so an alchemist 1/rogue 1 has a +1d6 sneak attack like a 2nd-level rogue, an alchemist 2/rogue 1 has a +2d6 sneak attack like a 3rd-level rogue, and so on). This ability replaces bomb.

So here's the main point: Though the text above gives a clear example of Vivisectionist and Rogue classes stacking together, it never explicitly states that only the rogue and/or base and/or alternate classes are the only ones it can stack with. The wording does not limit the class feature from stacking with Prestige Classes that also grant Sneak Attack.

This can be both detrimental and beneficial to the character.

Multiple prestige classes gain the Sneak Attack class feature at level one. Because they are "Classes that grant sneak attack", they would qualify to stack with the Vivisectionist's Sneak Attack... basically forcing the character to gain, At Most, one additional sneak attack die every Other level (instead of potentially one every level, by taking multiple different Prestige Classes that grant it at level one.)

One prestige class in particular can stand to gain from the Vivisectionist's sneak attack; Because it gains an additional sneak attack die every 3 levels, you could potentially gain an additional sneak attack die by investing a single level in Vivisectionist

For example: an 18th level character has Rogue-8, Master Spy-10. He gains 4d6 SA from his levels in Rogue, and 4d6 from Master Spy...

My thoughts are this: A prestige class does not count towards the vivisectionist's sneak attack.

Take a Rouge 10/Assassin 10. You gain 5d6 of Sneak Attack from the Rogue and 5d6 from the Assassin.

Now take a Vivisectionist 5/Rogue 5/Assassin 10. You would also have 5d6 of sneak attack from the Vivisectionist/Rogue and 5d6 from the Assassin.


thanks for the rectification Bane Wraith.

@Namelessone
the problem is that (new in PF?) sneak attack from different base classes do not add up, which is very weird.
You add the class lvls, then look how much sneak attack that would make.

However as far as I know base attack bonus is still just added, a wizard, sorcerer, commoner, rogue etc. could still have a BAB of 0.

So the question, as I understood, is what happens if you add a prestige class with a different progression, if sneak attack dice are not added but considered as one big progression, even though the prestige class has a different progression chart than the rogue.


Elamdri wrote:

Take a Rouge 10/Assassin 10. You gain 5d6 of Sneak Attack from the Rogue and 5d6 from the Assassin.

Now take a Vivisectionist 5/Rogue 5/Assassin 10. You would also have 5d6 of sneak attack from the Vivisectionist/Rogue and 5d6 from the Assassin.

What you describe is what I think are the Rules as Intended. It's what every person has answered me personally so far...

The only problem I see is that the wording in the Vivisectionist's Sneak Attack class feature doesn't actually entail that.

It entails that a Vivisectionist 5/Rogue 5/Assassin 10 would have +15d6.
An effective rogue level of 20, (Since it's 20 levels in Classes That Grant Sneak Attack ) And an additional 5d6 from the Assassin, since the Assassin's stacks with the SA damage from all other sources.

Somehow, "Classes that grant sneak attack" has to be limited to Non-Prestige classes, in order for it to be the proper 10d6 in the end.

Edit: Hell, it'd be nice to know how it interacts with Ninjas too... Last I saw, Ninja levels and Rogue levels don't stack either. And the Vivisectionist's SA was clearly designed only to stack in effective levels with the Rogue. Adding that to the main post.


Richard Leonhart wrote:


So the question, as I understood, is what happens if you add a prestige class with a different progression, if sneak attack dice are not added but considered as one big progression, even though the prestige class has a different progression chart than the rogue.

That's exactly One of the points. It's one of the few ways this class feature can be of benefit to the character, and seems almost like it's intentional (there are multiple prestige classes that grant Sneak Attack damage at a far inferior progression to the rogue)

...The other important point is that, due to the wording of Sneak Attack from the prestige classes, they'd be added a Second time. A character with a point in Vivisectionist would get all classes that grant sneak attack lumped together, at the Rogue's progression rate... and then Additional SA damage from the Prestige Classes, because their claim is that they Stack with all other sources.

Silver Crusade

Prestige Classes that add sneak attack all take into account that the character will have at least 10 fewer levels in their base class, which is why they all say that the sneak attack dice stack.

A Rogue 10/Master Spy 10 will Have 9d6

A Rogue 10/Assassin 10 will have 10d6

A Rogue 10/Master Spy 5/Assassin 5 will have 10d6

The Vivisectionist's ability is designed to stop cheese like Rouge 3/Alchemist 3 to get 4d6 of sneak attack at level 6 or Rouge 5/Alchemist 5 to get 6d6 of sneak attack at level 10.

It's clearly not intended to apply to prestige classes, and I believe that's quite easily fixed by saying that the ability only applies to normal classes, not prestige classes.

Yes, the wording is ambiguous but it takes a INT score of 4 to realize that it was not intended to apply to prestige classes and therefore dipping 1 level into vivisectionist does not give 5 or more extra Sneak Attack dice.

Simply stated, if there are two interpretations, one that is broken and one that isn't, it's clear that you go with the non-broken interpretation.


Hey, I'm only pointing out the flaw I see. I'm pointing out the unclear and/or ambiguous wording, pointing out that it's overdue to be rewritten.

...I said Already it's clear to see how it was Meant to be used.

I'm not sticking by a "broken interpretation"; just pointing something out that should probably be corrected and be made Proper. Would be rather rude to call someone of low intelligence, for wanting to Correct some ill-written rules.

Edit: I see now that your post was probably in no way accusing, and apologize. Just a bit touchy, after basically interrogating every Pathfinder player I know and being fed up with something like this...

Silver Crusade

I wasn't suggesting you were pushing for the erroneous interpretation. I'm pointing out that if a player IS, then that player needs to be smacked upside the head.

I'm just not sure that this is something that's in dire need of correction. I could understand if it was ambiguous and unclear how it was supposed to work, but this is pretty clear that despite the ambiguity, there is only one correct interpretation.


Fair, fair. ^_^

Edited my post, sadly not in time.

Silver Crusade

It's fine, wasn't offended. I can be glib.


Honestly I'm hankering to hear some theories on how this'd work with someone multiclassing in both ninja and rogue though. Mind you, it'd be practically redundant except for archetypes and wanting to pick up evasion, but still a possibility.

Possibly it'd force one to choose between one of the two? For the "Effective Rogue Level" stacking? (Or Effective Ninja Level, for the other?)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can't multi-class Ninja and Rogue. Ninja replaces the rogue, like an archetype.


...*headdesk*

Thank you. I needed that slap of obviousness.

I withdraw my query =P


Elamdri wrote:

The Vivisectionist's ability is designed to stop cheese like Rouge 3/Alchemist 3 to get 4d6 of sneak attack at level 6 or Rouge 5/Alchemist 5 to get 6d6 of sneak attack at level 10.

"Cheese"? I don't regard that as "cheese" at all. It isn't overpowered. Paizo made the rule unnecessarily complicated.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cheese doesn't mean overpowered. Cheese means exploiting ambiguity in rules to do something that rules never intended. Cheese CAN be overpowered, but it doesn't have to be overpowered.

For example, magus's using arcane mark to get two attacks is cheesy, but not overpowered.


Elamdri wrote:
Cheese doesn't mean overpowered. Cheese means exploiting ambiguity in rules to do something that rules never intended.

By your definition, if Paizo hadn't ruled that sneak attack has a specific stacking rule, it wouldn't be ambiguous and thus wouldn't be "cheese". Problem solved.

Silver Crusade

The problem stems from misuse of terms.

Cheese is exploiting a vague/ambiguous rule to do something that the rule was not intended to support.

Broken/Overpowered is doing something that messes with the balance of the game.

Something can be cheesy and not broken and something can be broken but not cheesy. Often, things that are cheesy are broken, which is why I think those terms get associated too often.

Magus using spellstrike is cheesy, but not broken.

Master Summoner archetype is not cheesy at all, but totally broken.


Elamdri wrote:

Cheese doesn't mean overpowered. Cheese means exploiting ambiguity in rules to do something that rules never intended. Cheese CAN be overpowered, but it doesn't have to be overpowered.

For example, magus's using arcane mark to get two attacks is cheesy, but not overpowered.

And was clarified by the devs to be working as intended.


Elamdri wrote:

Cheese is exploiting a vague/ambiguous rule to do something that the rule was not intended to support.

As I said before, if Paizo hadn't stated the rule about stacking rogue & vivisectionist levels for sneak attack, there would be no ambiguity or vagueness. Therefore it wouldn't have been "cheesy".

Silver Crusade

Talonhawke wrote:
Elamdri wrote:

Cheese doesn't mean overpowered. Cheese means exploiting ambiguity in rules to do something that rules never intended. Cheese CAN be overpowered, but it doesn't have to be overpowered.

For example, magus's using arcane mark to get two attacks is cheesy, but not overpowered.

And was clarified by the devs to be working as intended.

Where?


Elamdri wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Elamdri wrote:

Cheese doesn't mean overpowered. Cheese means exploiting ambiguity in rules to do something that rules never intended. Cheese CAN be overpowered, but it doesn't have to be overpowered.

For example, magus's using arcane mark to get two attacks is cheesy, but not overpowered.

And was clarified by the devs to be working as intended.
Where?

There is a thread out there stating it is a legal use of the spell.

Silver Crusade

Ah, thought maybe someone had a link. I mean, it's not a game breaking mechanic, but Arcane Mark isn't a touch attack spell. I could understand if someone were to sink a magus arcana to be able to make ray attacks through the sword and then use Ray of Frost. Oh well, not the 1st time the designers do something I disagree with.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The constant changes in the definition of the term "cheese", is just one of the many reasons I hate the term.

F*ck the term cheese.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Elamdri wrote:
Ah, thought maybe someone had a link. I mean, it's not a game breaking mechanic, but Arcane Mark isn't a touch attack spell. I could understand if someone were to sink a magus arcana to be able to make ray attacks through the sword and then use Ray of Frost. Oh well, not the 1st time the designers do something I disagree with.

You are making the same mistake I was making.

"Touch attack spells" don't exist, any spell with a range of touch used to touch an hostile subject count as a armed attack.

PRD wrote:
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity.


Jesus guys, really? This much discussion over something with pretty clear RAI?


Elamdri wrote:


Magus using spellstrike is cheesy, but not broken.

For example, magus's using arcane mark to get two attacks is cheesy, but not overpowered.

There isn't anything "cheesy" about using spell strike. Your contradicting yourself by saying "cheese" is exploiting a vague/ambiguous rule, and if you know how it works, it's not even cheesy whatsoever.

Same case for Arcane Mark. They went out and said cantrips can be used with spell combat (and essentially, spell strike.) Therefore, it can't be cheese as you described it. Even before so, there wasn't anything explicit in what spell levels you could use with Spell Combat/Spell Strike anyones.

Back to OP, best thing would probably be to FAQ and wait for developer input.


The extra language is an unnecessary complication. The only reason that language is there is because Paizo want all characters with sneak attack to be able to use it at 1st level, but doesn't want any character to be able to have +2d6 sneak attack at 2nd level.

(that's also one reason for ninja being a "rogue alternate class" instead of a base class of its own).

I think you can safely assume that the intent of the language (while not being particularly clear) is that the character will never have a better sneak attack progression than a straight rogue would have, regardless of which classes the character has levels in.

Unless playing in PFS, I would simply disregard that whole notion and play it with sneak attack dice stacking normally. That's both easier and makes more sense.


Well, of course a character can havea Slightly better sneak attack progression by repeatedly taking Prestige Classes that grant the feature at first level... But other than that, yes, its very blatant what the intention is and how the ability's supposed to function.

It's also an unclear entry in the official rules with no correction and not included in any errata I've seen, so figured it might be about time to just point it out.

Thank you all for commenting; Hopefully it catches a developer's eye soon, and can be quickly rewritten and fixed.

Liberty's Edge

Skipping over the walls of text, this came up once in my home game, and a Viv1/Rog1 only got a 1d6 SA.

Pretty sure That's RAW.

p.s. Ninja's can't be rogues. <-- fact.

/throws a smoke bomb.


Sadly, the Walls of Text explain that the RAW in this case is unclear, and can be used to boost a character's Sneak Attack dice immensely...

Though what you say is most definitely the RAI =P

And yes, later on, the ninja/rogue point was made. Headdesking occured. It was a stupidly obvious fact that I'd personally forgotten about.

Liberty's Edge

Bane Wraith wrote:

Sadly, the Walls of Text explain that the RAW in this case is unclear, and can be used to boost a character's Sneak Attack dice immensely...

Though what you say is most definitely the RAI =P

And yes, later on, the ninja/rogue point was made. Headdesking occured. It was a stupidly obvious fact that I'd personally forgotten about.

So even though it specifically says:

"(so an alchemist 1/rogue 1 has a +1d6 sneak attack like a 2nd-level rogue, an alchemist 2/rogue 1 has a +2d6 sneak attack like a 3rd-level rogue, and so on)."

you think it's different? That could not possibly be misconstrued. Any arguments you have against it are flawed.


Winterwalker wrote:


So even though it specifically says:

"(so an alchemist 1/rogue 1 has a +1d6 sneak attack like a 2nd-level rogue, an alchemist 2/rogue 1 has a +2d6 sneak attack like a 3rd-level rogue, and so on)."

you think it's different?

I'm just talking base classes, as it make no mention of a PrC. Now I don't have the books on me physically, and did use the pfd20srd page to nab that text, but is it not also in the book verbatim? That's rather clear how it works, so I won't need to read any WOT's about why it isn't.

As mentioned above, it's clear what the vivisectionist's sneak attack class feature is Supposed to do. And it does work fine, for the base classes. But it is when Prestige Classes get involved that it is skewed and may be abused.

A prestige class that grants sneak attack is still a "Class that grants sneak attack", in the ability's description; This entire thread exists simply to argue that that should be corrected or clarified so as to Not include prestige classes.


Winterwalker: Bane Wraith never suggested a vivisectionist 1 / rogue 1 should get more than +1d6. The question was specifically about how it worked with sneak-attack-granting PrCs :)

Liberty's Edge

Bane Wraith wrote:
Winterwalker wrote:


So even though it specifically says:

"(so an alchemist 1/rogue 1 has a +1d6 sneak attack like a 2nd-level rogue, an alchemist 2/rogue 1 has a +2d6 sneak attack like a 3rd-level rogue, and so on)."

you think it's different?

I'm just talking base classes, as it make no mention of a PrC. Now I don't have the books on me physically, and did use the pfd20srd page to nab that text, but is it not also in the book verbatim? That's rather clear how it works, so I won't need to read any WOT's about why it isn't.

As mentioned above, it's clear what the vivisectionist's sneak attack class feature is Supposed to do. And it does work fine, for the base classes. But it is when Prestige Classes get involved that it is skewed and may be abused.

A prestige class that grants sneak attack is still a "Class that grants sneak attack", in the ability's description; This entire thread exists simply to argue that that should be corrected or clarified so as to Not include prestige classes.

I fail to see why it needs to be clarified, a pure rogue, pure alchemist, or combo of the 2 doing the same thing (taking a PrC) follows the same rules when taking a PrC.

If you really want to nitpick RAW it says 'class' and does not mention 'prestige' class at all. So follow the rules for PrC in regards to any modifications to SA would be my advice.

Liberty's Edge

Are wrote:

Winterwalker: Bane Wraith never suggested a vivisectionist 1 / rogue 1 should get more than +1d6. The question was specifically about how it worked with sneak-attack-granting PrCs :)

Oh well if that's the case. There's no argument here then.


Show me the rule where it says a "Prestige Class" is not a "Class", and I'll be more than satisfied.

Liberty's Edge

Bane Wraith wrote:
Show me the rule where it says a "Prestige Class" is not a "Class", and I'll be more than satisfied.

Funny response:

"Show me the rule where a Prestige Class is a Class."

Grasping at straws response:
"Or simply click in the PRD section under 'classes' and see whats defined, is any PrC there?"

Rules that may favor my dumb statement:

Definitions of Terms
Here are definitions of some terms used in this section.

Core Class: One of the standard eleven classes found in Classes.

"So there's a definition of what is a class, with all 11 core 'classes.'"

p.s. "Ya I got nothing more than that. but can you beat it? Are you satisfied?! ARE YOU NOT...ENTERTAINED!?"

/kicks a kitten into a deep dark well.

p.p.s. You can add all the 'base' classes to this list found here as this was a new book added after the original 11 were added. This is what I see as 'classes' a prestige class is not what I would define as a 'class' such as these 17 core bad boys.

/kicks one more kitten in a well just to be sure.


Friend... Nothing within the Vivisectionist's Sneak Attack Class Feature states that it is restricted to "Core" classes (Or Alternate classes).

If you really want me to post a bunch of statements that might contradict you... Just imagine that you are arguing that No single Prestige Class that claims its abilities stack in level or effect with other classes, can actually stack with other Prestige classes.

An Assassin's Death Attack would not stack with a Master Spy's, to bring up the first example that comes to mind. (If you want to argue that "Prestige Classes" are not "Classes" )

Liberty's Edge

Bane Wraith wrote:

Friend... Nothing within the Vivisectionist's Sneak Attack Class Feature states that it is restricted to "Core" classes (Or Alternate classes).

If you really want me to post a bunch of statements that might contradict you... Just imagine that you are arguing that No single Prestige Class that claims its abilities stack in level or effect with other classes, can actually stack with other Prestige classes.

An Assassin's Death Attack would not stack with a Master Spy's, to bring up the first example that comes to mind. (If you want to argue that "Prestige Classes" are not "Classes" )

I think I won here.

/throws smoke and vanishes.


I never asked such a thing.

I asked you to show me where a "Prestige Class" is not a "Class". It was more or less not a truthful request; It would solve the problem when it comes to the Vivisectionist's Sneak Attack class feature, but, naturally, would create chaos elsewhere and probably doesn't exist as a statement.

I was only emphasizing that the Vivisectionist's ability needed to be reworded to not include Prestige Classes.

edit: And it's rather annoying when you edit your posts seconds after submitting them, completely erasing some of your original statements... As now this post seems nonsensical.


Nothing has to be re-written, it's clear to me, and the OP can simply choose to believe what she thinks on the matter.

Getting an extra 5 levels of rogue retroactively gifted simply for taking a level of a base class? Poppycock.


If it's clear to you, describe how the rules as written may Not lead to the conclusions presented.

The rules as Intended are clear. The wording, not so much. I see no harm in wanting the wording to properly reflect the RAI.


How about specific trumps general?

Viv's entry says how it interacts for all classes. Each PrC entryi s for how pre-existing SA works with THAT particular class's SA. Maybe?

The whole thing is stupid. BAB +0, sneak +2d6 at level 2 isn't broken. Sneak attack "as a rogue" would've been sufficient. :(


I'm not entirely sure what you mean, there...

There doesn't seem to be any sort of Conflict between the two as far as I can see. Therefore, there's no specific vs. general terms. the Vivisectionist's entry has a rather general statement, only. There's nothing in the average PrC's "Sneak Attack" entry that makes me think it would cancel out the Vivisectionist's; it specifically says that the bonuses on damage stack with all other sources.


Well, that's the thing. The PrC's say the bonus damage stacks. As opposed to saying the levels stack for determining SA damage. So you basically treat them as a separate entity entirely.

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / How is a Vivisectionist's Sneak Attack supposed to work? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.