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


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 112 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Accomplished sneak attacker

Quote:

Benefit(s): Your sneak attack damage increases by 1d6.

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

Sense vitals

Quote:
This spell makes your eyes shine blood red and allows you to see the vital areas and weak points of creatures within 30 feet of you as a warm glow. 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.

The situation is, for example, if you took 3 levels of rogue and 4 levels of wizard, and also had Magical Knack.

Rogue base is 2d6, accomplished sneak attacker pushes you up to 3d6. Sense vitals would add 2d6, up to 5d6... but this amount(5) is greater than half your character level rounded up(4).

How, exactly, does it interact? Does the feat "turn off" for the duration, so that your sneak attack would simply be base class + spell? Would the feat explicitly prevent the spell from raising your sneak attack above that hard limit? Or are the sneak attack dice provided by the spell not "your number of sneak attack dice", and thus they all stack seamlessly?

It seems to be a puzzling situation.


The feat RAW seems to not stack.


Cavall wrote:
The feat RAW seems to not stack.

That still raises the question, though. In what way does it not stack?

Would a character with 6d6 sneak attack, 1d6 feat, and 5d6 sense vitals (say an arcane trickster at level 15) end up with only 8d6 because of the feat hard limit, or would the feat not come into play and he'd have 11d6?


The feat explicitly cannot raise you above half your level in sneak attack dice. Since it is the only component with such a restriction, I would suggest that it by necessity should be considered last. The feat expressly cannot exceed that limitation.

As long as that restriction isn't triggered, say if you were a level 2 rogue and level 4 sorcerer (1d6 rogue, 1d6 spell, cap of 3d6), it should stack just fine.


I'd let them stack. Otherwise you'll have characters without the accomplished sneak attacker feat who can probably exceed the half character level limit, and someone who took a feat to be better at sneak attacking would have taken a feat that puts a concrete limit on their sneak attack damage. Not having the feat should never be better than having the feat.
My ruling: the feat itself can't raise your sneak attack damage higher than half the character's level rounded up, but other effects can, like this spell. Apply the feat first when calculating the base S.A. damage, if THIS exceeds the limit, uou don't get the extra d6. If not, you do, and other effects apply as written.

It's not RAW but it makes more sense to me.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is no rule where order is specified. Some FAQ and Dev comments indicate in these cases, go with applying the restricted feature last.

Ultimately, since order is not specified then your GM is responsible for all adjudicating associated with an ability that provides a different benefit whether or not it is applied first or second.


You are not usually required to use a feat or ability as far as I am aware. Where a feat or ability would be a liability don't use it.
Using Accomplished Sneak Attacker applies a limit. No matter which way you apply the feat and the spell that limit is not removed. If the spell would take your sneak attack above that limit don't use ASA. Unless you were permanently under the effect of sense vitals, ASA is not completely invalidated.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

(Necroing this thread because it's apparently the only one in Rules concerning the spell sense vitals, and I needed some input regarding it.)

1. Regards Sense Vitals, it explicitly states: "This additional damage stacks with other sources of precision damage", therefore the limits of Accomplished Sneak Attacker are waived, at least as far as the spell's contributions are concerned.

2. Since Sense Vitals is outright granting the ability to "make sneak attacks", that would imply that other sources of situational sneak attack damage are unlocked by the spell.

Rogue wrote:

If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.

Since there are many feats which grant sneak attack damage in other circumstances, by precedent we know that the second sentence is not exclusive. By logical extrapolation, the spell Sense Vitals is an instance of a similar effect. (Its limitation is that it only works with "manufactured weapons", so you can't apply it with, say, Pouncing Fury, etc.)


Slim Jim wrote:
1. Regards Sense Vitals, it explicitly states: "This additional damage stacks with other sources of precision damage", therefore the limits of Accomplished Sneak Attacker are waived, at least as far as the spell's contributions are concerned.

Unless you're arguing that Sense Vitals doesn't give you more Sneak Attack, just more "Precision Damage", then the limitation of Accomplished Sneak Attacker would definitely apply.

If two abilities say that they stack with similar abilities: They Stack.
If one ability says that it stacks and the other says it doesn't: They Don't Stack.

Slim Jim wrote:
2. Since Sense Vitals is outright granting the ability to "make sneak attacks", that would imply that other sources of situational sneak attack damage are unlocked by the spell.
Rogue wrote:

If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.

Are you saying that Sense Vitals allows you to deal sneak attack damage without flanking or targeting flat-footed AC?

It really doesn't. You get the ability to make Sneak Attacks with manufactured weapons, as the rogue ability.
And since it works as the rogue ability, you need to secure sneak attack damage as the rogue ability requires you to.


So there are two reading here that are in conflict. I think a strict interpretation means that Accomplished Sneak Attacker and Sense Vitals don't stack. That being said, I think it is more useful to look at what each of the abilities is intending and then decide on how they should interact.

Accomplished Sneak Attacker is an bog standard multi-class feat in the vein of Monastic Legacy or Boon Companion. They say: "This class feature starts to fall off if you multi-class, so you can pay a feat to keep it relevant." But, since it would be silly for a rogue or a rogue/other to be better at sneak attacking then a normal rogue they add the provision that "This can't make you rogue harder then a full rogue."

In summary, I feel that the intention of Accomplished Sneak attacker is to make a rogue 1 / wizard 3 have the same sneak attack as a rogue 3.

Sense Vitals is designed as a flavorful conditional damage buff.

So there are two interpretations of how this should work.

1) ASA just makes a rogue 1/ wizard 3 a level 3 rogue for sneak attack, and since a rogue casting SV from a scroll would get the full effect, so does the multi-class.

2) Only a real rogue should get the fullest benefit of sneak attack. So this corner case is intended as niche protection for the rogue.

I personally prefer interpretation (1), since it means you don't need to keep track of where all your sneak attack comes from and Sense Vitals seems tailor made for the arcane trickster who I see no reason to shaft.

I could see the argument for (2) but it seems unlikely that this particular interaction was ever foreseen by the author of either the feat or the spell. Plus Sense Vitals is such a marginal spell that I doubt it would break anything if high-level arcane tricksters did +1d6 damage...


"Uh-uh! I ain't workin' for that!"

"Who's this? Who's speaking in my brain without my ears hearing anything? I don't like that; it's weird. Please stop...."

"It is I, your Sniper Googles!"

"What? ...auchk. I knew I shouldn't have bought the cheap ones off ScryBay. Free soul-jarred goblin with every purchase...." <hopeful Diplomacy roll> "Gimme my d6s, you little $#&%!"

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The feat has this line: "Your number of sneak attack dice cannot exceed half your character level (rounded up)."

Really look at that. It doesn't say, 'Due to this feat.' or 'From this ability.' or anything like that

Your sneak attack just can't go any higher. It creates a hard cap.

A seventh level character would be capped at a total of four sneak attack dice and that number couldn't be raised by spells or magic items.


that seems like a needlessly punitive interpretation of the feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It does. However, it's about as RAW as you can get. Sometimes RAW doesn't work in your favour.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Accomplished sneak attack requires a class feature, and although it doesn't explicitly state it, the 'sneak attack' it refers to is the class feature 'sneak attack' that the feature requires.

So accomplished sneak attack adds one dice of sneak attack damage to the class feature 'sneak attack.' And the number of damage dice of your sneak attack class feature can't exceed 1/2 your level.

Sense vitals doesn't' require a sneak attack class feature at all. It gives you an ability to make sneak attacks LIKE a rogues sneak attack class feature, but it isn't the same pool of dice, it isn't the rogue sneak attack class feature. It is it's own thing, and doesn't effect and isn't effected by a feat that effects a sneak attack class feature. (You also couldn't sacrifice sneak attack dice from Sense Vitals for effects like Stem the Flow rogue talent and they wouldn't count for things like the Bleeding Attack Talent.)

So yes, they should both stack just fine.


I see nothing in the limitation that says sneak attack feature, the ability quite clearly says sneak attack dice.

Sense vitals gives dice. If you're going to treat it as separate then all it DOES is add dice.

So no. Wouldn't stack.


Cavall wrote:
I see nothing in the limitation that says sneak attack feature, the ability quite clearly says sneak attack dice.

I said, where it mentioned the feature, in the prerequisite. I also asserted, that further references to 'sneak attack' are references to that feature. This is a common way of creating more readable prose, for example, if I say 'The Worthing house was at the end of the street. The house had been empty for years.' It is pretty basic comprehension that 'the house' is 'the Worthing House'.

You can disagree, but I don't think understanding where I am coming from is confusing.

And of course in almost all cases, 'sneak attack class feature' and 'sneak attack' are distinctions without a difference. The one case that I know of where it might matter is this one.

Cavall wrote:
Sense vitals gives dice. If you're going to treat it as separate then all it DOES is add dice.

It clearly gives an ability to make sneak attacks where or not you have that ability from another source. It lets you make sneak attacks as a rogue does, but it doesn't give you the sneak attack class feature. This effect includes dice of damage (note if you want to particularly get picky it doesn't even call them sneak attack dice, just damage) and says they stack with other sources of precision damage. For the most part it wouldn't matter whether it was one pool of dice or two, but there are a few cases where it would.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I dont think what you said is confusing.

It's more a matter of o e doce pool of sneak attack stacking with another, as it clearly does. This creates one pool of dice. The feat says that the pool cant exceed a certain amount of dice so it can work.

So it just doesn't work while you have that pool stacked up.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The prerequisite is just that - a prerequisite. Not a statement of how a feat works or any limitation on what is affected by the benefits of the feat.

Guided hand, for example, doesn't only work when you're channeling energy despite requiring channel energy as a prerequisite. That's a very basic fact of how feats work.

They do what they say they do. Nothing more, nothing less.

Grand Lodge

I think if you strictly apply rules as written would be 4d6 points of damage.

I also think though there should never be a situation where having a feat creates a liability. Therefore, I personally would house rule this to be more in line with rules as intended by changing the wording of this feat to:

Accomplished sneak attacker
Benefit(s): Your sneak attack damage increases by 1d6.
This feat cannot raise your base sneak attack damage to exceed half your character level (rounded up).

I think this is a case where rules as intended is far more important than rules as written.

Grand Lodge

Sorry, typo:

Accomplished sneak attacker
Benefit(s): Your sneak attack damage increases by 1d6.
This feat cannot raise your base sneak attack damage dice to exceed half your character level (rounded up).


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

It quite obviously stacks.

Sense Vitals is a spell that buffs or adds sneak attack damage. It says "This additional damage stacks with other sources of precision damage." So a real 7th level rogue would have his Sneak Attack pushed to 6d6 from 4d6 from this spell.

Accomplished Sneak Attacker just boosts the sneak attack for multiclasses rogues up to a max for a single class rogue of the same level.

Then this spell gives a temporary bonus on top of that. If it would temporarily add in to the sneak of a single class rogue, there is no reason why it should not add in to the sneak attack of a multiclass rogue who just happens to have this feat.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

It stacks.

The feat increases your BASE Sneak Attack damage, but cannot go higher than half of your Character level.

The Sense Vitals spell says that it stacks with other forms of precision damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nothing in that feat says Base, no matter how many capitals you choose to use. It says the exact opposite.

What you want is to apply it to the pool before the other thing, because it works for you better that way. Nothing in the feat nor the spell says to apply it before other modifiers.

In fact it just says "sneak attack dice". Not base. Total dice.

So no. Doesnt stack.

Grand Lodge

Ryze Kuja wrote:

It stacks.

The feat increases your BASE Sneak Attack damage, but cannot go higher than half of your Character level.

The Sense Vitals spell says that it stacks with other forms of precision damage.

Please note that the feat as written says this:

Benefit(s): Your sneak attack damage increases by 1d6.
Your number of sneak attack dice cannot exceed half your character level (rounded up).

That clearly indicates Rules as written do not stack.

What you have quoted is my house-rule:
Accomplished sneak attacker
Benefit(s): Your sneak attack damage increases by 1d6.
This feat cannot raise your base sneak attack damage dice to exceed half your character level (rounded up).

Because I think that it is more in line this rules as intended.
The base sneak attack damage is my personal house rules, not rules as written.

I apologize if this caused undue confusion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It still stacks. It even says so in the spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The spell stacks into your sneak attack sure. Creating a total amount of sneak attack dice.

However if that passes half your level the feat doesnt add in.

Because if the spell says it stacks then we have to pay attention to the feat where it says "until X happens".

So no. Doesnt stack in the example given.

If you had a sandman bard or something with a reduced sneak attack, it totally would stack in sure. Until that cap is hit.


Saying it doesn't stack is like saying martial classes that have BAB equal to their class level can't benefit from Bless because that would raise their BAB to higher than class level.

This is a spell. It's a temporary buff. It doesn't count against you for what you get from class levels.

You have to read this in context. It is clearly talking about the effects of the feat and not a general rule that applies to everyone everywhere.

Boon Companion has similar wonky wording that you have to interpret in context too.

Scarab Sages

There's a difference between interpreting something and ignoring what's there because it's inconvenient to you.

The feat increases your sneak attack dice by 1d6. It then caps your maximum sneak attack dice at half your character level (rounded up). It doesn't care where you got your sneak attack dice. It could be racial, it could be from a class, it could be from a spell, it could be from a magic item. Doesn't matter.

That is the tradeoff. You aren't required to take the feat, but if you do so then you accept the restrictions with the benefits (even if they're s!#*ty).

Sense vitals increases your sneak attack dice.

There's very little interpretation that needs to be done here.

1. What is the total number of sneak attack dice you have from any source?

2. Is it more than half your level (rounded up)?

3. If yes, reduce it to a number = to half your level (rounded up). If no, roll away.

If you don't like it, you're free to houserule it at your table or ask your gm to houserule it. But again, feats only do what they say they do and this one draws no distinction as to the source of your sneak attack dice.

Alternatively, you could attempt to draw paizo's attention to it in the hopes that they'll release errata changing the restriction - though I doubt 1st edition will be getting a lot of attention in the future.


darth_borehd wrote:

Saying it doesn't stack is like saying martial classes that have BAB equal to their class level can't benefit from Bless because that would raise their BAB to higher than class level.

This is a spell. It's a temporary buff. It doesn't count against you for what you get from class levels.

You have to read this in context. It is clearly talking about the effects of the feat and not a general rule that applies to everyone everywhere.

Boon Companion has similar wonky wording that you have to interpret in context too.

That's a false equivalent. Bless doesn't raise BAB. Bless doesn't have a cap on BAB. Bless doesn't even mention BAB.

Just like this feat doesn't mention class levels when talking about sneak attack dice. Just sneak attack dice. Not where they come from. Just total dice.

Its "clearly" talking about dice pool. Not class levels. If it was as clear as you'd make it out, I wouldn't NEED "context."

It stacks. Until 1/2 level. Then this feat (context, clarity or whatever words you want to use) is explicit in stating it doesn't add on.

If you took one level of rogue, 7 of hunter and this feat... it would totally add in. 1d6 from rogue, 2d6 from spell and 1d6 from feat. 8 HD so 4 dice. If you were 6 hunter levels and 1 rogue it wouldn't. You'd be one short. But since the spell levels slowly after this, that's the only level you'd miss out on if you kept going hunter.

Wording is clear. It doesn't stack in for the example the OP gave.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Specific trumps general. Spells trump feats.

DM: Okay, you he casts hold person on you, and you failed you save. It's your turn, do you want to roll again?

PC: No, I Cleave him

DM: You can't, you're paralyzed.

PC: I read on the forums that feats always happen last. So even though I'm paralyzed, that happens first, and then Cleave says I CAN make a single attack at my full BAB as a standard action, so that's the ONLY thing I can do, but I CAN do it.

The spell doesn't care what the feat says. It scoffs at the puny restrictions, does what it was cast to do, and the feat cries quietly in the corner.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

by the strictest RAW interpretation, they definitely stack, but the feat imposes a hard cap on your sneak attack dice pool that can supersede the benefits of the spell. in the OP's example, the character would only get 4d6 sneak attack dice total.

that said, it seems like a safe bet that the feat was intended to work like boon companion and similar feats to help you catch back up to a full rogue (at the expense of a feat) without surpassing them rather than imposing a hard limit on your sneak attack dice from all sources (which is sort of unprecedented in this sense).

it seems as though there may be an underlying assumption that permanent bonuses are considered first. if this were the case, the wording on the feat is consistent with the effects provided by similar feats in that it would limit your base abilities not how much you can benefit from temporary effects of spells and the like. *shrug*

the bottom line is that they stack, but RAW the limit imposed by the accomplished sneak attacker feat limits the benefit of the sense vitals spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dallium wrote:

Specific trumps general. Spells trump feats.

DM: Okay, you he casts hold person on you, and you failed you save. It's your turn, do you want to roll again?

PC: No, I Cleave him

DM: You can't, you're paralyzed.

PC: I read on the forums that feats always happen last. So even though I'm paralyzed, that happens first, and then Cleave says I CAN make a single attack at my full BAB as a standard action, so that's the ONLY thing I can do, but I CAN do it.

The spell doesn't care what the feat says. It scoffs at the puny restrictions, does what it was cast to do, and the feat cries quietly in the corner.

"I have a feat that allows action while paralyzed"

"Doesn't matter the spell says you're paralyzed"

Yeah that's dumb. And also something I've never heard of.


I’ve never heard of “spells trumps feats” either. Sounds like a house rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would let them stack, I think people are getting too hung up over the feat.
The feat sets a restriction for how much it can add to your sneak attack, not how high your sneak attack can advance thru other means. It wants you to know that if you keep taking the feat, it can only go so high.

The Rogue Sneak Attack ability description has no such restrictive language, only the feat does. Other classes that get Sneak attack, such as the Slayer, Ninja, Vigilante, also don't say anything about how much sneak attack dice you can have. There's no rule ANYWHERE else that puts a cap on Sneak attack dice, you would have to know about this one specific feat to have any idea about a cap at all.

If a Rogue didn't take the feat at all, and had Sense Vitals cast on them, why would anyone then say it wouldn't work? Nothing in the Rogue class says so, and the spell says it stacks.

You could have the newest editions and errata of the Core Rulebook, Advanced Players Guide, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Intrigue, Advanced Class Guide, Ultimate Wilderness, Pathfinder Unchained, Advanced Race Guide, and NONE of these books says anything about Sneak Attack being limited to half your level.

But then some feat appears in a book and now there's a restriction that didn't exist before, but doesn't ever get put into a new errata to change how it worked before that. I wouldn't bother putting in that restriction now, especially since it's just from one feat.


Again this isn't about the spell. It's about the hard cap in the feat. The spell would stack with existing sneak attack just fine. The feat itself doesn't stack if you have more than half hit die. The spell stacks and therefore adds in more than half hit die in the example given. In other examples I gave it wouldn't and therefore would work just fine.

And it's a poor excuse to say that part was added to limit keeping from taking the feat again as you cant take the feat again. It may only be taken once. It Carrie's no such clause to allow repetitive choice.


Melkiador wrote:
I’ve never heard of “spells trumps feats” either. Sounds like a house rule.

It's not a rule, it's an axiom. Specific trumps general. Spells are more specific and/or less general than feats. Ergo, Spells trump feats.


It’s an axiom I’ve never heard. And I am on these kinds of boards and discussions a lot. Like, a lot a lot.

And I see nothing about spells that’s anymore specific then feats. They can each be varying degrees of specific.

Edit: I also did a search for the phrase “spells trumps feats” on google and it returned no results.


Melkiador wrote:

It’s an axiom I’ve never heard. And I am on these kinds of boards and discussions a lot. Like, a lot a lot.

And I see nothing about spells that’s anymore specific then feats. They can each be varying degrees of specific.

Edit: I also did a search for the phrase “spells trumps feats” on google and it returned no results.

I'd never heard it before I said it. It's still demonstrably axiomatic. If spells aren't automatically more specific than feats, that player is 100% correct about being able to Cleave despite being paralyzed.

Scarab Sages

specific does trump general, however a feat that specifically limits how many sneak attack dice you get is more specific about limitations than a spell that adds sneak attack dice and doesn't mention limitations or ignoring them.

spells trump feats is NOT a thing however.


Yeah it's not a thing of you just made it up. This is the rules forum. I showed how that statement can be false. I will show it again now.

As magicdealer said, the feat has a specific cap. The spell does not. Specific trumps general. So no, the feat does not "cry quietly in a corner".


There's also a general rule that bonuses from different types usually stack but only the highest bonus from each type count.

We have a feat that grants extra sneak attack but only up to 1/2 class levels. That is what you get from feat and class levels.

The spell is another source of bonus that specifically says it stacks with sneak attack from other sources.

I'm sorry, I feel saying it doesn't stack is completely inconsistent with other similar rules. This feat works like Boon Companion and that one has bizarre wording as well, but nearly everyone agrees it helps bring your animal companion or familiar up to total character level for multiclass characters for the class you get the creature from. It's hard for me to see how any other interpretation using RAW is feasible.

Scarab Sages

This feat doesn't work like boon companion. It works like itself. There's no bizarre wording here. It's extremely clear. To interpret it otherwise takes a lot of mental hoop jumping.

These are the rules you're thinking of, I believe.

1: "The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source."

2: "Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths

In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies."

Now, those are general rules governing bonuses and stacking and overlapping and such. The feat has a very specific limitation. Specific trumps general, so once you've added up your dice total, you still apply the limitation the feat implements. Moreover, it doesn't actually prevent you from stacking your sources from wherever. It just sets a cap on the maximum number of sneak attack dice so that, after a certain point, you're not seeing any extra benefit from certain things.

At this point the arguments have been made over and over again. You're welcome to do what you want in your home game but the feat itself is very clear.


It's very clear that it does stack. The spell specifically says it stacks with sneak attack from other sources, so "specific trumps general".

To me, it obviously stacks and it is unreasonable to say it does not.


We have different views of "stack" floating around here.

View 1: Only the strongest ability applies
View 2: The two abilities work together, but can't raise you over the limit imposed by accomplished sneak attacker.
View 3: The two abilities stack and ignore the restriction of accomplished sneak attacker.

I believe View 2 is the most likely to be correct.

Scarab Sages

The general rule for sneak attack dice is that they stack together. The spell reiterating that rule is not more specific than a feat that has a unique cap to sneak attack dice that is not found anywhere else.

More importantly, the feat doesn't prevent the spell, or any other ability, from working. It just limits how much of the sneak attack dice you can actually use regardless of the source. There's no conflict between the two abilities that would require a comparison. You're still going to be stuck with the limit at the end.

Grand Lodge

Let's just say...I'm glad you aren't my GM. I play rogues and rogue-like characters all the time, they are my favored style of character. I have multiple characters who use the accomplished sneak attacker feat, multiple characters who use the sense vitals spell, and a couple characters who use both. Out of all the GMs I have played PF with (All of them PFS GMs), not one has ever ruled that Sense Vitals doesn't raise your sneak attack above half level because of that feat.

Every single one of them sees that line of text as a measure to prevent multi-class shenanigans that would allow someone to build a character who could potentially end up doing more sneak attack dice than their total character level on every single attack without expending extra resources like spells/scrolls. 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.

There are a number of classes which grant 1d6 of sneak attack at first level, if you mix them together with something like a Tengu, give them a claw/claw/bite routine you can do ridiculous levels of damage (a level 3 character doing 3 attacks at their highest attack roll for 1d4+5+3d6 each hit puts an equal level barbarian to shame)...if they had not included that line in the feat it could get even more obscene.

Sense Vitals has its own set of limitations...only working with manufactured weapons stops the natural attack routine from working, it has a short duration (1 round/level) so it eats up a lot of spell slots, scrolls will only last 3 rounds and eat up a lot of gold, etc.


Slyme wrote:
Every single one of them sees that line of text as a measure to prevent multi-class shenanigans that would allow someone to build a character who could potentially end up doing more sneak attack dice than their total character level on every single attack without expending extra resources like spells/scrolls. 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.

It's interesting that you mention Magical Knack, because that trait only provides its benefit if it wouldn't raise your CL over your hit dice.

So if you were one caster level behind your hit dice, Magical Knack raises that to CL=HD.
If you then bought an Orange Prism to raise your CL by 1, Magical Knack wouldn't provide you with any benefit and you'd still have CL=HD.

Your stance on Accomplished Sneak Attacker seem to be that you'd have CL=(HD+1) in the above example, which is ignoring the hard limit imposed by the feat and the trait.

In both cases, it's just a question of when the apply the limitation. And if you benefit from deciding on when, you're probably doing it wrong.

Grand Lodge

There aren't any spells I am aware of that raise your CL the way Sense Vitals does for sneak attack. If you base your rules lawyering around that premise, then everyone I know interprets 3/4ths of the game wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slyme wrote:
There aren't any spells I am aware of that raise your CL the way Sense Vitals does for sneak attack. If you base your rules lawyering around that premise, then everyone I know interprets 3/4ths of the game wrong.

Could you explain what you mean by that? I'm having trouble understanding how my statement in any way could be in conflict with 3/4ths of the game.

I was trying to make a point about how Magical Knack interacts with other Caster Level increases. You brought up Magical Knack yourself, as an ability you think follow the same rules as Accomplished Sneak Attacker.

Quote:
similar to the way magical knack helps multi-class casters not lose so much power.

1 to 50 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.