Does "accomplished sneak attacker" feat stack with the "sense vitals" spell?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 112 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Wonderstell wrote:
if you benefit from deciding on when, you're probably doing it wrong.

That is the part that I was referring to about playing 3/4 of the game wrong. A huge number of things can vary greatly depending on the order in which they are applied.

I also never said Magical Knack followed the same rules, I said it served a similar purpose.

Scarab Sages

Slyme, keep in mind that this is the rules forum, not the 'how I would run it in my game' forum.

It's about what the rules actually are. Sometimes it exposes flaws or things that should be reprinted with better verbiage. People are always welcome to rule things how they prefer in their home games and it's reasonable to say, "I think this rule is ridiculous, paizo should change it, and I'm absolutely not doing that in my games!!!" when you come across something that seems unusually bad.

Paizo has had a lot of awkward and even broken rules in the past and discussions about them have on occasion spawned faqs and errata, though not always to the betterment of the ability.

So when I'm saying that these are the rules, that's not the same thing as saying I like the result or would force other people to play that way in my games. I think the only group that is really stuck to the rules is PFS.

Given that a lot of people had seemed to miss that accomplished sneak attacker wasn't a cap to the feat itself, it seems likely that your PFS gm's simply overlooked the restriction.

I looked at it myself on a handful of different occasions before I really noticed how that was worded. It's a stupid cap, but it is what it is. Feel free to go forth and ignore it as I assume the vast majority of players will do. :) Maybe we'll get lucky and paizo will release a better reprint in one of the couple of books that are left for first edition.

...It could happen... :(


Slyme wrote:
Wonderstell wrote:
if you benefit from deciding on when, you're probably doing it wrong.
That is the part that I was referring to about playing 3/4 of the game wrong. A huge number of things can vary greatly depending on the order in which they are applied.

Yes, exactly my point.

Consider a Hunter 6/ Fighter 4 with Boon Companion (+4, up to HD) and Huntmaster (+1).

If you try to apply the benefits of Boon Companion first (effective level 10), and then Huntmaster you'd end up with an effective level of 11.
However, if you had applied Huntmaster first (effective level 7), and then Boon Companion there's no doubt you'd end up with an effective level of 10.

You don't get the choose in which order you apply these bonuses or restrictions. We have a precedent regarding Magical Knack that tells us you'd end up with level 10 in this situation, and the same is true for Accomplished Sneak Attacker.

There's no doubt that ASA and Sense Vitals stack, but you'd have to apply the restriction to the total sum of SA dice. You can't choose to apply it whenever it's beneficial to yourself.

Grand Lodge

*shrug* That is your interpretation anyways.

Until my local 5 star GM/VC changes their ruling, or a Paizo employee chimes in here saying otherwise, I have a different interpretation.


So your interpretation is based on someone else ruling who may also be mistaken?

Well, regardless, it's not like I disagree with you on how it SHOULD work, but as it's been pointed out, this is a forum for how it is.

It stacks until cap. Because that's how it is worded.


Slyme wrote:

*shrug* That is your interpretation anyways.

Until my local 5 star GM/VC changes their ruling, or a Paizo employee chimes in here saying otherwise, I have a different interpretation.

Did you read the post I linked when JJ explains how Magical Knack would interact with an Orange Prism?

James Jacobs wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Do the effects of an Orange Prism Ioun Stone* and the Magical Knack trait stack?

Yes, they stack. Magical knack grants a trait bonus, whereas the ioun stone grants an untyped bonus.

Magical knack, though, can NEVER raise your caster level above your Hit Dice. So if you have another effect that raises your caster level above your HD (like an ioun stone), then Magical Knack doesn't help.

The easiest way to deal with it is to just apply the ioun stone bonus first. If your caster level is still lower than your Hit Dice, then Magical Knack kicks in. (Magical Knack is really only for multiclass spellcasters or spellcasters with racial HD; a single-class spellcaster should never take Magical Knack since it'll never help him unless his caster level is lower than his HD, as in the case of a ranger or paladin.)

That's your Paizo employee chiming in, six years ago.

So according to your own words, everyone you know apparently "interprets 3/4ths of the game wrong."

Grand Lodge

You seem really hung up on the magical knack thing since I mentioned that they serve similar purposes.

Comparing Magical Knack directly to ASA serves no purpose...they are completely different things with completely different mechanics. Apples to Oranges...but serve as food, but that is about it. One is a character trait, one is a feat...one increases caster level, one damage dice...

I simply used it as an example of what they were trying to do...help characters multi-class without handicapping themselves.


Oh come on. Feat trait caster level damage dice...

The point remains the same. The only person you said would change your interpretation literally calls it half a decade ago when a cap comes in and in what order and now its suddenly not good enough.

Maybe show that link to your local 5 star GM and ask him how he thinks about it then.


I can't believe we're having this discussion. You have yet to provide a single argument to back up your interpretation, and just entered this thread to insult those who don't agree with you.

Have you considered that maybe you are the one who's "rules-lawyering" and "interpreting 3/4ths of the game wrong"?

Valuable Discussion:
Slyme wrote:
Every one of them has viewed it as a method of enabling someone to multi-class into a non-sneak class without handicapping themselves, similar to the way magical knack helps multi-class casters not lose so much power.

"Magical Knack wouldn't increase your CL over your HD, so why would Accomplished Sneak Attacker function otherwise?"

Slyme wrote:
If you base your rules lawyering around that premise, then everyone I know interprets 3/4ths of the game wrong.

"Here's JJ weighing in on that subject, and he shares that premise."

Slyme wrote:
A huge number of things can vary greatly depending on the order in which they are applied.

"Yup. Here's another similar situation where things can vary depending on in what order they are applied, and from JJ's explanation this is the right way to rule it."

Slyme wrote:

*shrug* That is your interpretation anyways.

Until my local 5 star GM/VC changes their ruling, or a Paizo employee chimes in here saying otherwise, I have a different interpretation.

"Did you somehow miss when I linked to an employee setting the precedent six years ago?"

Slyme wrote:
Comparing Magical Knack directly to ASA serves no purpose...they are completely different things with completely different mechanics.

Oh yeah, totally. Except for sharing these two parts of their mechanics:

1) Increases a class feature by a fixed amount.

2) Introduces a cap that is dependent on your character level.

But let's just jam our fingers into our ears and scream as high as we can. That's fine too, I guess.
It's not like we can use the deductive reasoning of a fifth-grader to reach any logical conclusion or anything.

James Jacobs: Basically... Magical Knack has to take the LEAST advantageous route to giving you those extra caster levels.

***

Would a direct answer from JJ about Accomplished Sneak Attacker change your mind about "a Paizo employee" chiming in?


Wow, I am late to the party and this got out of hand fast.

As a GM, I'm a bit flip floppy on all of this. I agree with those saying RAW there is a cap. I also understand that RAI it's not supposed to be a gimp, but a restriction to say a full Rogue, or Multi-Sneak character cannot benefit from the feat.

RAW, I also don't think Sense Vitals is the same dice pool as Sneak Attack. As an example, I recently finished making a Makeshift Scrapper with Improvised Weapon Mastery (Ex) at level 12. Whilst it has the same name as the feat, and indeed grants it, it is not the same thing. Many abilities on the PFSRD have multiple pages for this reason, same name, different ability. It also calls out stacking with other forms of Precision Damage, not other forms of Sneak Attack, which insinuates that it is in some way different (or just stacks with all the different names Sneak Attack has over different classes. Example, Vigilante's is called Hidden Strike).

Calling other examples has also been tricky. I've read through each of them and most deal with forms of permanent bonus. An Ioun Stone or a Trait are more or less permanent bonuses. A Spell is not generally. There are few spells which do things like increase caster level for an apt comparison to be made, or spells which give an animal companion temporary additional hit die modifiers.

So whilst I agree the feat is written poorly as to cause this type of argument, I don't think the examples pulled on interactions and rulings thus far can be held as the gold standard for this interaction. One thing needs to be made clear and decided on by the GM.

Is Sense Vitals' effect the same ability as Sneak Attack?

Because if it is, it goes both ways. A Rogue 1, Vigilante X with Hidden Strike, and access to Sense Vitals would have the most basic of Sneak Attacks to qualify for Accomplished Sneak Attacker, and ASA would actually increase the effectiveness of Sense Vitals. Since Hidden Strike and Sneak Attack (to my knowledge) would not stack, but Sense Vitals would. If it is the same ability ASA would apply to the Sense Vitals pool, as it would always be less than half the Vigilante's total level, and unimpeded by the Vigilante's Hidden Strike dice.


Quote:
This allows you to use any manufactured weapon to make sneak attacks, as the rogue ability of the same name

It’s pretty disingenuous to say that sense vitals isn’t sneak attack dice.


Melkiador wrote:
Quote:
This allows you to use any manufactured weapon to make sneak attacks, as the rogue ability of the same name
It’s pretty disingenuous to say that sense vitals isn’t sneak attack dice.

I don't mean to be disingenuous with it. There are a lot of wording subtleties though within Rogue abilities in particular that raise questions though. Look at Hunter's Surprise.

Hunter's Surprise wrote:
Once per day, a rogue with this talent can designate a single enemy she is adjacent to as her prey. Until the end of her next turn, she can add her sneak attack damage to all attacks made against her prey, even if she is not flanking it or it is not flat-footed.

This adds the damage, but does not explicitly make the attacks Sneak Attacks. Or does any attack that uses your Sneak Attack damage become a Sneak Attack? It's important to make the distinction because of interaction with other abilities. The one I was looking into it for was Sneaky Maneuver.

Sneaky Maneuver wrote:
Anytime a rogue with this talent could hit an opponent with a melee sneak attack on her turn, she may take a –2 penalty on her attack roll and attempt a dirty trick, disarm, steal, sunder, or trip combat maneuver instead of dealing sneak attack damage.

However, Sense Vitals is also a viable candidate for questioning interaction. By it's wording.

Sense Vitals wrote:
This allows you to use any manufactured weapon to make sneak attacks, as the rogue ability of the same name, dealing an additional 1d6 points of damage; this additional damage increases by 1d6 for every 3 caster levels you possess beyond 3rd, to a maximum of +5d6 at 15th level. This additional damage stacks with other sources of precision damage.

If Sense Vitals is the same ability, then the dice it adds would qualify as your "Sneak Attack damage" for Hunter's Surprise. If not, then it is it's own thing and only applies when making proper Sneak Attacks, like using Sneaky Maneuver does.

Grand Lodge

This is how I, and every single GM I know rules it, including for PFS play.

1) Accomplished Sneak Attacker cannot raise your sneak attack dice over 1/2 your HD.

2) That damage is a part of your character once you take that feat, and is a permanent adjustment. Only leveling up or re-training can alter that.

3) That limitation only applies to the damage from that feat.

4) Other sources can raise your SA damage above 1/2 your HD unless they specify otherwise.

5) Temporary effects are applied after permanent adjustments.

6) Sense Vitals is a temporary effect, and therefore applied after ASA.

Even in that post from 6 years ago he said Magical Knack stacks with similar effects, not anything about Magical Knack not allowing other sources to raise your CL above your HD.

Absolute worst I could ever see someone arguing for with ASA + Sense Vitals would be not allowing the 1d6 from ASA if SV pushes you over the damage cap. Ruling that it places a complete hard cap on the character so nothing, ever, could raise their dice beyond 1/2 their HD is just ridiculous.


I'm honestly confused as to how this is still a discussion.

One source comes from a feat, that like many other feats in it's category, that raises a class ability, but not higher than that of a pure class build.

The other source is magical and clearly states it stacks with all other sources of SA.

It's magic. It stacks.

For those that suggest it doesn't stack, things like heighten spell and magical knack shouldn't stack in your home games.

Does anything stack in your home games, especially when they clearly state they stack?


I dont think anyone has said they don't stack.

They just dont stack when exceeding the amount that the feat says it no longer applies to.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the spell. It has everything to do with the cap on the feat.


Cavall wrote:

I dont think anyone has said they don't stack.

They just dont stack when exceeding the amount that the feat says it no longer applies to.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the spell. It has everything to do with the cap on the feat.

Several people have stated they don't stack, including the situation you describe.

The feat hard caps your base SA damage to 1/2 your level, as we all know.

We all also know that the spell stacks with all sources of precision damage, of which SA is one type.

Once Accomplished Sneak Attacker is taken and applied, it permanently increases SA by 1d6, so long as the increase provided by the feat does not raise SA dice more the 1/2 of character level.

Here's the issue.

The feat is a little like toughness. Once it's applied, it's just there. There aren't conditions in which it doesn't work, unless the increase provided by the feat increases the SA dice to be more than 1/2 character level, which should be super rare. It's a passive, always ON, feat.

The feat already applies it's bonus before the spell. As such, Sense Vitals stacks in all ways, shapes, and forms with ASA.

How is there more to this story?


Well, the more to the story is the link provided about a trait the does the same thing that absolutely DOESN'T stack with something magical, and in fact the developer for the game said it works the opposite of the way you're stating

Toughness has no cap. It has no way to state it doesn't stack. It's a strawman.

The only things we have as concrete examples are the wording of the feat and the developers words on how to proceed in cases like this. Both of which work opposite to your process


Cavall wrote:

Well, the more to the story is the link provided about a trait the does the same thing that absolutely DOESN'T stack with something magical, and in fact the developer for the game said it works the opposite of the way you're stating

Toughness has no cap. It has no way to state it doesn't stack. It's a strawman.

The only things we have as concrete examples are the wording of the feat and the developers words on how to proceed in cases like this. Both of which work opposite to your process

I did read all of that.

The ioun stone in question is not a spell, nor does it have the wording,"This additional damage stacks with other sources of precision damage.", nor any wording of the like.

The feat raises the base SA dice by 1d6. If the feat does not increase the base SA dice by more than 1/2 character level, the feat applies.

The spell stacks with the feat because the spell specifically says it does.

Ingrish is far too difficult for far too many people.


@Slyme, @Soulgear

You both are of the opinion that you'd apply the sneak attack dice from Sense Vitals after ASA, since one of them is a temporary effect, and the other is permanent.

And here's proof that the Creative Director of pathfinder disagrees with you.

We're all absolutely clear that the 'senior' effect between Magical Knack and the Ioun Stone is the trait, right? One is permanent and always on, the Ioun Stone can be deactivated, destroyed, or passed to a friend.
(This is a purely rhetorical question, there is literally no room for argument)

So the Ioun Stone is an effect that is applied "after" the trait according to your viewpoint. But JJ has explicitly stated that even though they stack, Magical Knack won't help you if you have another effect raising your CL over your HD.
Do note that he makes a general statement, disallowing all effects. So spells/feats/items wouldn't work.

He makes this abundantly clear by further stating that "The easiest way to deal with it is to just apply the ioun stone bonus first." and "Basically... Magical Knack has to take the LEAST advantageous route to giving you those extra caster levels."

This is in clear conflict with your view. I'm honestly not sure if you've bothered to read anything I've linked.

In any case, you've got less of a leg to stand on than a paraplegic leper.

***

Bonus: Here's James Jacobs respectfully telling you to (in my opinion) suck it up and stop b+$@@ing about losing 1d6 SA.

JJ wrote:

Put another way... there's THOUSANDS of traits and feats and powers and abilities... and as a result its absolutely inevitable that some would overlap. You can't take every feat and power and ability anyway, so why are you worried if some overlap or render other options less than optimal? Just pick a different thing that doesn't clash with your character and go on from there.

/.../

Not every option has to be the best.


Now hold on, first off stop being insulting. You're not helping your cause, Soulgear.

Second, do not mock reading comprehension when your point wasnt that it was a spell but that it was magic. An Ioun Stone is magic. In fact your whole post shows it's you who may not be reading along. Here's your own words.

Quote:

The other source is magical and clearly states it stacks with all other sources of SA.

It's magic. It stacks.

Thirdly, it's not the spell that is the issue here. It's the built in cap for the feat. The feat says damage dice NOT class based damage dice. Simply damage dice. So when (not if) the spell stacks, it does so by increasing the damage dice. Which then means it may go over the cap, there by making the feat not work.

Quote:

Your sneak attack damage increases by 1d6.

Your number of sneak attack dice cannot exceed half your character level (rounded up).

And lastly, it wasn't the ion stone that was the issue in the link it was the trait, which had the restrictions. The point to the link was to provide the info that states

Quote:
Magical knack, though, can NEVER raise your caster level above your Hit Dice. So if you have another effect that raises your caster level above your HD (like an ioun stone), then Magical Knack doesn't help.

There is a cap on the feat. If you have another effect that raised it beyond half your hit die, the feat doesn't work.

It DOESN'T WORK. That's about as clear as glass.


It’s amazing this discussion is still going after the James Jacobs quote. It’s very clear how the designers rule on this kind of thing. If your people want to rule otherwise, then fine, but don’t pretend it’s the “right” way.


Melkiador wrote:
It’s amazing this discussion is still going after the James Jacobs quote. It’s very clear how the designers rule on this kind of thing. If your people want to rule otherwise, then fine, but don’t pretend it’s the “right” way.

I think it is still going on because people are interpretting JJ's words differently. Some seem to be interpretting him as saying the cap from the trait (/feat) applies to the bonus Ioun stone (/spell), but I read him as saying that you get the full benefit of the Ioun stone (/spell), but if this takes you to or above the cap you cannot raise it further by means of the trait (/feat).

It is debatable whether this strictly matches the RAW as printed in the book (it would hinge on whether you can choose not to apply a feat you are not benefitting from anyway), but it is good enough for me.

_
glass.


glass wrote:
I think it is still going on because people are interpretting JJ's words differently. Some seem to be interpretting him as saying the cap from the trait (/feat) applies to the bonus Ioun stone (/spell), but I read him as saying that you get the full benefit of the Ioun stone (/spell), but if this takes you to or above the cap you cannot raise it further by means of the trait (/feat).

The reason why it was still going on is because some believed that they could circumvent the feat's limitation by applying that effect first.

When showed proof that their sentiment wasn't shared by JJ, and how to correctly apply those effects, they doubled down on their claims instead of just accepting it. Their argument was that 'older effects' should be applied first, and that the cap of the feat would occur before Sense Vital was applied.

But if they had actually bothered to read the linked posts, they'd have known their idea of 'older effects first' had already been disproved.

***

So now we're at the fun part where the discussion has finally ended, and the people who wants to ignore the cap of ASA will pretend this thread never happened.
And in one or two years someone will necro this thread and say: "but the spell says it stacks!", and the discussion will start again.


Wonderstell wrote:

When showed proof that their sentiment wasn't shared by JJ, and how to correctly apply those effects, they doubled down on their claims instead of just accepting it. Their argument was that 'older effects' should be applied first, and that the cap of the feat would occur before Sense Vital was applied.

But if they had actually bothered to read the linked posts, they'd have known their idea of 'older effects first' had already been disproved.

I cannot speak for anyone before me, but I have "bothered to read the linked posts", and JJ explicitly tells you to apply the Ioun stone (and by analogy the Sense Vitals spell) first.

You seem to be getting hung up on the words "least advantgeous". But as you yourself extracted and quoted upthread, JJ refers says that "Basically... Magical Knack has to take the LEAST advantageous route to giving you those extra caster levels." That is not the same as taking the least advantageous possible reading of the whole combination, which would preclude the caster level being over HD in the first place - which JJ clearly says is possible.

_
glass.


?

What?

Quote:
I cannot speak for anyone before me, but I have "bothered to read the linked posts", and JJ explicitly tells you to apply the Ioun stone (and by analogy the Sense Vitals spell) first.

Yes?

Quote:
You seem to be getting hung up on the words "least advantgeous". But as you yourself extracted and quoted upthread, JJ refers says that "Basically... Magical Knack has to take the LEAST advantageous route to giving you those extra caster levels."

Yes?

Quote:
That is not the same as taking the least advantageous possible reading of the whole combination, which would preclude the caster level being over HD in the first place - which JJ clearly says is possible.

Yes?

What's your point? Absolutely nothing you've just said contradicted my previous post in any way. You've just stated the exact same quotes I've used, but somehow presented them as if I disagree.

If I am a level ten (Wizard 8/Fighter 2) with Magical Knack and an effect that raises my CL by 4, my caster level would be 12.
That's my stance on this whole argument after all, and exactly what JJ says would happen.


the feat imposes A HARD CAP ON ALL SNEAK ATTACK DAMAGE. this is unique to the accomplished sneak attacker feat. comparisons to magical lineage and boon companion are flawed in that neither of those imposes a hard cap. both refer to the benefit you can get from that trait or feat not all sources. accomplished sneak attacker does not self-reference.

RAW they stack. but that doesn't matter because (also RAW) the feat put a hard cap on your sneak attack dice that nothing supersedes.

pretty much everyone in this thread agrees that that is stupid and probably not the intent. the likely intent was that it works like those other things and you just stop getting the +1d6 from ASA if some other source bumps your SA damage to more than 1/2 character level, but THAT'S NOT RAW, and this is the rules forum where we discuss what's written on the page.

Grand Lodge

Hypothetical question time.

What would happen if a level 3 character with 1 level of Unchained Rogue, 1 level of Greensting Slayer Magus, and 1 level of Snakebite Striker Brawler took Accomplished Sneak Attacker as their level 3 feat?

All the people saying HARD CAP would apparently have the feat not only not add anything, but actually take away class features.


Hypothetical answer time

Don't take the feat of you're past half hit die.


exactly. we're only saying the feat does what it says it does. i'm not sure why that seems like rocket science to some.

if you don't like what the feat says it does, don't do that.


As to the Hypothetical like Cavall said raw you either purposely gimped yourself or plan on not having enough sneak attack dice to worry with down the line.

It's likely that the writer or editor thought there was a cap on sneak attack like this and it slipped through, it wouldn't be the first and won't be the last error, and likely we won't see a fix. That being said RAW it is what it is and if were to go to a Convention or play PFS in another location you might end up with varying results on your character.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slyme wrote:


What would happen if a level 3 character with 1 level of Unchained Rogue, 1 level of Greensting Slayer Magus, and 1 level of Snakebite Striker Brawler took Accomplished Sneak Attacker as their level 3 feat?

Much like a standard wizard who decided to don fullplate and a tower shield and then tried to cast fireball, they would end up regretting that decision.

A level three character has, for the purposes of accomplished sneak attacker, a cap of 2d6. Half the level (1.5) rounded up (2). In this case, that means the feat would be a poor choice for their build.

In other news, boon companion is ineffective if you're a single classed druid with an animal companion. Sap adept and sap master are ineffective if you never use a bludgeoning weapon. Shade of the Uskwood is detrimental if you're not playing a druid. The game is littered with feats that are potentially useless if not used in the right build - and some of them even penalize you.

Grand Lodge

There is a massive difference between ineffective, and downright hurtful to a character.

Out of the thousands of possible feat choices in PF, I cannot think of a single other feat that puts a hard cap on something the way you claim this one does. It seems perfectly clear to me what that line of text does for this feat. I still cannot believe anyone actually interprets it as a hard cap like that.


it's not an interpretation. the words literally say "Your number of sneak attack dice cannot exceed half your character level (rounded up)." that is a hard cap.

you can argue all you want that that isn't the intent (and few would disagree with you), but this isn't the intent forum; it's the rules forum, and, as written, the rules say that your number of sneak attack dice cannot exceed half your character level (rounded up). it doesn't say "from this feat" or anything like that, and there is no general rule that a feat can only affect itself or any such nonsense, so it does what it says it does which is give you 1d6 additional sneak attack dice and place a hard cap on your sneak attack dice.

Grand Lodge

I say it is an interpretation, as not one single feat in the game does what you say this one does, and similar abilities to this one (like magical knack, boon companion, etc) all work the other way around. Just because you cannot seem to connect the dots, does not mean your interpretation is the correct one.


i mean... it's an interpretation insofar as everything is, but the words don't say the thing you want it to mean... you're adding words to make it say what you want it to say. in fact, upon closer reading, boon companion also caps your effective druid level... at your character level. so, whatever animal companion class feature you applied this to would be capped at your character level (which really only affects a few races with the +1/x level to oracle revelation FCB).

anyway, the point is that for it to work the way you want it to, it would have to be worded like magical knack.

Magical Knack wrote:
Pick a class when you gain this trait—your caster level in that class gains a +2 trait bonus as long as this bonus doesn’t raise your caster level above your current Hit Dice.

emphasis mine. that bolded self-reference is the part that makes it behave the way you want the others to work. neither accomplished sneak attacker nor boon companion have this self-referential language.

now i will admit that boon companion seems a bit more open for interpretation (though that could just be because i always assumed it worked like magical knack), but accomplished sneak attacker is pretty explicit. i will also admit that my failure to locate an official statement regarding boon companion was due to lack of effort so i might change my stance given something explicitly regarding that feat or the feat in question, but otherwise, they both lack references to themselves that would limit their effect and thus have global effects.

Scarab Sages

Slyme has made it pretty clear that they refuse to accept the feat works as worded, has no intention of following the rules, and will keep ignoring the restriction until/unless explicitly told they must follow it by a pfs gm.

I would personally not be comfortable using a feat at a table without specifically bringing up the relevant post/debate to the dm for a ruling - especially when it would have a substantial effect on the character. And I would encourage anyone using feats in a questionable manner to do so as well.

Beyond that it's not likely worth engaging in the discussion any longer. The rules and results are obvious and people will act in regards to them as their moral character and home rules dictate.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find myself reminded of a meme.

Meme

Plus, I have discussed it with several PFS GMs, and they all rule it does not hard cap a player.


it's sad that you can't recognize the difference between extrapolating from incomplete data to guess at intent (which we all seem to agree is probably not to limit your sneak attack from all sources), and pretending the rules "as written" say things that aren't on the page.


The order doesn't matter. Something always checks to see if its in violation of its own rules. Its a constant thing. If you're a multiclass arcanist with magical knack boosting the caster level with an arcane point won't work, even if you slip the extra level in at the last second.

As to the silliness of getting less sneak attack dice, you don't have to use your feats if you don't want to. You can resolve your sneak attack with it or without it, your call. But that's generally a package deal unless the feat has two completely separate parts.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

As to the silliness of getting less sneak attack dice, you don't have to use your feats if you don't want to. You can resolve your sneak attack with it or without it, your call.

wait what? can you choose not to apply your toughness or skill focus? my understanding was that feats are only optional when they say "You may..."


The cap remains. I would love to hear from your PFS judges after they read the whole thread, and see how they would argue the developers own words on the subject.

Even your meme doesn't make sense given the links provided on the trait and how it plays out, as it makes you seem to be the one incapable of extrapolation.

The feat has a cap. It just does.

Grand Lodge

Do you cap every spell caster at the damage listed in their spells?

Such as Shocking Grasp, which clearly puts a hard cap on its damage at 5d6? Or Fireball with its clearly stated 10d6 cap?

Or do you allow things like an orc bloodline sorcerer to turn that into 5d6+5 or 10d6+10 even though the spell does not say anywhere that it's damage can be increased above its maximum by other means?

Do you allow Intensified Spell metamagic to break the clearly listed damage caps as well?

Every damaging spell has a cap...it just does.


specific trumps general actually applies here. the spell generally does what it says it does. then, you get a specific ability that modifies how the spell generally works. sneak attack generally advances when your class features say it advances, but then you get a specific ability that says it is capped at half your character level. nothing confusing about that...


Cavall wrote:

The cap remains. I would love to hear from your PFS judges after they read the whole thread, and see how they would argue the developers own words on the subject.

Even your meme doesn't make sense given the links provided on the trait and how it plays out, as it makes you seem to be the one incapable of extrapolation.

The feat has a cap. It just does.

The cap and the hard cap aren't the same thing. I'm pretty sure few would allow everything to stack, but even fewer are going to say an ability will give you less sneak attack dice than you would have without it.


but that's what the ability says it does... if they are saying it doesn't do that they're saying the words aren't what they are on the page, and they're wrong.

if they say it shouldn't do that, that's cool, but that's not really the focus of this forum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cuatroespada wrote:
but that's what the ability says it does...

No. Thats what you're readiing that they do. They're not the same thing.

Quote:
if they say it shouldn't do that, that's cool, but that's not really the focus of this forum.

The rules are written by human being with common sense in the context of the rules of the game to be read by human beings with common sense in the context of the rules of the game. Insisting that you go outside of that paradigm to deliberately read it with blinders on , shutting off both common sense and context is not the "real" rules interpretation it is bad rules interpretation. There is no advantage to it. The results you get doing that are wonky, contradictory, and in the long run most often proven wrong by clarifications.

The rules forum is not the asmodean raw forum.

Grand Lodge

I don't see the words "from any source" tacked on to the sentence in ASA, which apparently you seem to want to add to it, or think it somehow magically exists without it being written there.

Also Sense Vitals is a specific instance, where is specifically states it stacks with other sources., just like the abilities I mentioned in my last post.


@BNW

no... there aren't infinite valid interpretations of the words on a page. there are nearly infinite interpretations of what the author might have meant to be saying. the problem is that the words on the page are the only common point of reference. we have no way of knowing what the author actually intended (even if they tell us what they think they intended). no one is ignoring the context of the rest of the rules, but to be consistent with the rest of the rules and do what you want it to do, it would have to have self-referential language. it does not, so you can only guess that it was meant to. you might be right, but you have no evidence to support that. you only have your conviction that it was meant to say something else.

@Slyme

it doesn't need to say "from any source." that's not how english works. absent any limiting language it already means that.

also, this isn't about stacking, slyme. of course it stacks. the limit from accomplished sneak attacker is a separate issue that you keep attempting to conflate.


Are you honestly going to state that a feat that specifically changes a cap is in any way an argument in good faith to your point?

It is instantly reputable, to the point of not even bothering to have typed it out in the first place.


cuatroespada wrote:

@BNW

no... there aren't infinite valid interpretations of the words on a page.

Did i say that there were?

No.

then ascribing that straw man to me does less than little to help your argument.

In this case you are attacking "there are infinite ways something can be read" instead of "there are multiple says something can be read" . For example "She put a bow on his head". the exact words could mean a tied up ribbon or a piece of archery equipment or part of a ship. One of those makes more sense than the others in context however.

English simply is not so precise that sentences can only mean one thing.

Quote:
the problem is that the words on the page are the only common point of reference.

And individually they can mean multiple things. Rules can be unclear.

But the big problem in this case is that you have rules that are interacting with each other. One rule says "gain 1d6 sneak attack" and another that says that your sneak attack is capped so.. how do they interact?

You cannot, as you are trying to do, simply pick one and decide that it overrides the others. Thats random, arbitrary, contradictory as soon as someone else picks a different starting point.

Quote:
we have no way of knowing what the author actually intended (even if they tell us what they think they intended).

Our options are not 100% philosophical certainty and epistemic nihlism. We may not KNOW what the author intended but you can reach a reasonable conclusion about it. That reasonable conclusion is more than enough certainty to run a role playing game on.

Quote:
you only have your conviction that it was meant to say something else.

binary is great for computers. Its terrible for people. What I have is a conclussion, based on the best evidence I can gather taking in the raw, rai, purpose, and context of the rule.

No rule is an island. It says I gain 1d6 sneak attack. Does that mean with EVERY attack I make? No. Because its refering to another rule in a completely different book which regulates how sneak attacks work, despite what conclusion you would reach if you insisted on only reading that one sentence.

The forest you're missing here while staring at the bark is that that is a FEAT. Its something that expands your capabilities and makes you better at it. Its not a general rule thats supposed to limit everyone its supposed to be something that makes you better, so thats how you read it.

51 to 100 of 112 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Does "accomplished sneak attacker" feat stack with the "sense vitals" spell? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.