Also what wording of the sneak attack class feature are you using to infer a pool of dice?It only comes into play if you multiclass, unless your Sneak Attack ability actually says something along the lines of
If an assassin gets a sneak attack bonus from another source, the bonuses on damage stack.
then they don't stack. Since the Strangler archetype (and also the slayer and possibly ranger?) does not have any wording along those lines then the sneak attack damage they do doesn't stack.
Stangler does 1d6 sneak attack damage with the strangle ability, that means a multiclassed strangler/rogue with the Strangler combat feat can only do up to -1d6 of their total sneak attack bonus for the rest of the attack, since if they do the full bonus the total for the round would be their total +1 (aka their sneak attack stacked with strangler sneak attack).
I'd say no to my player. Technically by the book I think you could do it, but I'd say it's against the spirit of the rules. As a compromise if my player was giving me grief I'd require it only apply to sneak attack damage from another source.
I don't get why you say you can only use a flat amount of SA dice at a time. From everything I've seen, it's not a pool that you take dice out of until you're out, it applies the full amount each time. When you land five attacks while flanking, if you have 2d6 sneak attack, you add the 2d6 for each attack. It's the same here, you add the sneak attack you have to the archetype ability, then you spent a swift action and add your sneak attack damage for THAT ability.
I don't get why you say you can only use a flat amount of SA dice at a time. From everything I've seen, it's not a pool that you take dice out of until you're out, it applies the full amount each time. When you land five attacks while flanking, if you have 2d6 sneak attack, you add the 2d6 for each attack. It's the same here, you add the sneak attack you have to the archetype ability, then you spent a swift action and add your sneak attack damage for THAT ability.
That's how it would work if they stacked, if you multiclass assasin/strangler thats how it would work (baring the other issue i see with the actions conflicting). I'm saying that if you went strangler/rogue, or strangler/slayer they would not stack, since none of the classes involved have the wording saying that they can.
The feat isn't a source. It specifically says "your" sneak attack which means you must already have sneak attack to use this ability. I've repeated this a bunch, but you keep insisting that the feat is a source of sneak attack and it isn't. Things that give you sneak attack dice do so by specifically saying or using +1d6.
Unfortunately, I think we must agree to disagree at this point. You read it one way (Which I believe I understand), and I read it another (Because similar wording was used in many other feats from the same publication).
I don't think I can convince you to see what I'm seeing, because every time you look at the individual feats, you immediately look to how their effects are applied and suggesting point I was trying to make regarding their wording is flawed. I keep trying to say that it applies X effect using Y action as a separate act from the condition Z, but it seems that you refuse to see it that way because of its reference to 'your sneak attack'. I cannot seem to draw you away from the idea that it's an independent action that depends upon the number of sneak attack dice you have, and not simply enabling the sneak attack class feature itself. You've already seen examples from Johnnycat93 of overlapping feats and abilities that provide the exact same benefit twice in a given scenario, but don't seem to acknowledge those (Probably because most of them are actions, and not additional effects to an action from a similar source). Your "double dip" point isn't an issue read my way, because I do read it as two similar amounts of damage from two separate sources, and damage does always stack. Otherwise I'd be inclined to agree, albeit without a set of rules to reference to support my stance. But...
Either you're not seeing it my way, or we just flat out disagree.
I'm already fairly content with my "Simpler Solution" provided a few posts ago, which avoids the conflict altogether and does not let the Strangle ability qualify for or apply to the feat. It feels thematically correct to me, and if any GM asks, it's what I'd suggest to them. Actually, it uses your interpretation (using 'your sneak attack'). If you happen to find something in the RAW to support your interpretation, I'd encourage you to post it, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find anything except general trends.
I'd say that it's the same attack, not a second attack, as a result you can only apply sneak attack once. All the feat does is closely duplicate the archetypes level 1 ability.
I just want to say that this topic comes off like it's full of people who feel this stacking is overpowered and so are trying to make up ways to prevent it by the rules, rather than just saying "The rules allow it, but that sucks and I hate it, so I refuse."
Well, then I ask you; How do you read it, and why? The key argument between N N 959 and I has been the interpretation of the feat. The other main point brought up was whether the Strangle ability qualifies you for that feat, and if its sneak attack dice are usable for it.
'Bending' rules aside, what's your straight up first impression of how these two work, and do they stack?
EDIT (15 minutes in...sorry...):
That's how it would work if they stacked, if you multiclass assasin/strangler thats how it would work (baring the other issue i see with the actions conflicting). I'm saying that if you went strangler/rogue, or strangler/slayer they would not stack, since none of the classes involved have the wording saying that they can.
Actually...that's interesting. o.o
Granted, it's assuming they outright don't stack at all unless the exception is made. It is another way to interpret this topic without conflict or contradiction though though. That's a really, really poor outcome for the Strangler archetype then.Still...It'd greatly help to have a specific ruling or quote that says "If sneak attack damage is not stated to stack, it does not stack, period."
|
Wow, I didn't intend on such a heated debate.
The intended build that sparked this debate has moved to down a different build idea, but this may still be applicable.
As for me, this is how I'm RaW'ing the combination...
Strangler (Feat) allows an alternate outlet for your Sneak Attack/Precision Damage.
Strangle (Ex) just increases your SA die pool
Since Strangler doesn't have it's own Sneak Attack ability, you don't have any way to apply the Strangler SA to any circumstance of grappling.
That's how it would work if they stacked, if you multiclass assasin/strangler thats how it would work (baring the other issue i see with the actions conflicting). I'm saying that if you went strangler/rogue, or strangler/slayer they would not stack, since none of the classes involved have the wording saying that they can.Actually...that's interesting. o.o
Granted, it's assuming they outright don't stack at all unless the exception is made. It is another way to interpret this topic without conflict or contradiction though though. That's a really, really poor outcome for the Strangler archetype then.Still...It'd greatly help to have a specific ruling or quote that says "If sneak attack damage is not stated to stack, it does not stack, period."
I mean, if you let them all stack then you are ignoring the exception being made in the ones with the correct wording. By putting that exception in the Assassin's ability they tacitly locked down sneak attack stacking for classes and archetypes without it.
EDIT: also, pathfinder works on a permissive system, as in "if a rule says you can do something you can, if it does not say you can do it then you cannot do it". So you aren't ever going to get a rule that says "If sneak attack damage is not stated to stack, it does not stack, period" because you already have the exception in the assassin class. The default state is "no you can't do it", this is what the rules are written to change.
Strangle (Ex) just increases your SA die pool
It doesn't even do that. It just sets a pool to be added to the normal damage you can do while maintaining a grapple.
Normally when maintaining a grapple you get "You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon." This just adds 1 to 4 d6's (depending on strangler level) to that damage.
e.g, if you had 4d6 SA from somewhere else, and were also Strangler 1. Then on the maintain to damage you'd roll your normal damage +1d6 as outlined in the class feature. You would not get to do normal damage +4d6 +1d6.
Considering it's been ruled that an Invulnerable Rager's Invulnerability feature wasn't valid for the Improved Damage Reduction Rage Power (because it follows the Damage Reduction class feature, which Invulnerability apparently is not), it's most likely the case here that the Strangler feature doesn't count as Sneak Attack +1D6 for the purposes of qualifying for the Strangler feat. You'd have to dip a level into Rogue, or some other class/archetype that grants 1D6 Sneak Attack, to qualify for it.
Even if you do pick it up, it scales with your Sneak Attack class feature, not your Strangle class feature.
EDIT: also, pathfinder works on a permissive system, as in "if a rule says you can do something you can, if it does not say you can do it then you cannot do it". So you aren't ever going to get a rule that says "If sneak attack damage is not stated to stack, it does not stack, period" because you already have the exception in the assassin class. The default state is "no you can't do it", this is what the rules are written to change.
If you can find something official supporting that, especially in regards to damage or sneak attacks, that would settle things pretty well. o.o
I've been quite careful in the past to select classes that explicitly state their sneak attack class features stack. The Vivisectionist seems more like a failed experiment. Read a certain way, it can basically conjoin ALL sneak attack class features; It's a mess, attempting to put all classes w/ sneak attack into one progression... which is a strange effect, when some prestige classes progress at a different rate. To avoid all that noise, rule of thumb at the table was to just add all the sneak attacks together, and ask yourself what the total is for the purpose of feat prerequisites and attacks.
I've personally always taken damage to stack, regardless of the source. Hence the argument that this feat is just another source.
@Darksol : The Strangle ability in the prd does say "as per the rogue ability of the same name". That, and its reliable way to add +xd6 sneak attack damage, is what seemed to make it eligible for the feat. Though you could be completely correct.
Let me ask you straight up: Do you believe that if a character uses up their allotment of daily Stunning Fist "effects", they can still use Stunning Pin to initiate a Stunning Fist "effect"?
Unfortunately no; Stunning Pin says you can make a Stunning Fist Attempt, and the Stunning Fist feat states you may only make a certain number of attempts per day. Same wording, same constraints.
You may attempt a stunning attack once per day for every four levels you have attained (but see Special), and no more than once per round.
Whenever you pin an opponent, you can spend a swift action to make a Stunning Fist attempt against that opponent.
It's spelled out in the feat that you cannot. Thus, I respond that no stunning fist attempt may be performed more than once per round, or more than a certain number of times per day. I'd challenge you to find similar rules for a sneak attack, where most cases state that they stack, or otherwise say nothing on the matter.
Where is a prohibition of double dipping fundamentally laid down?Reread what I've posted. I've laid it out several times.
No, you haven't, which is why I asked. Where is an explicit and general prohibition of double dipping laid out?
Also what wording of the sneak attack class feature are you using to infer a pool of dice?From the various feats an abilities that talk about sneak attack. Sap Master and Sap Adept are perfect examples.
What wording of the sneak attack class feature are you using to infer a pool of dice?
So you aren't ever going to get a rule that says "If sneak attack damage is not stated to stack, it does not stackThough this isn't a "stacking" issue because we're not stacking dice. You're trying to apply a single 1d6, twice. Again, this is analogous to you trying to get sneak attack twice because your flanking someone who is flat-footed. Please show me in the rules where it explicitly states you don't get both...because that is essentially what you're asking me to find.
Except it's not like trying to get sneak attack twice for flanking someone who's flat-footed. In the scenario you need to actually take an action to get the second application.
If anything, I'd say it's like reloading a barrel of your gun with your move action, then using a beneficial bandoleer to load another barrel with a swift action.
You're spending two different actions for these, so it should work for both actions.
What wording of the sneak attack class feature are you using to infer a pool of dice?
Sneak Attack(Assassin): This is exactly like the rogue ability of the same name. The extra damage dealt increases by +1d6 every other level (1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th). If an assassin gets a sneak attack bonus from another source, the bonuses on damage stack.
Sneak Attack(Master Spy): 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.
Sneak Attack(Cult Leader):At 3rd level, a cult leader gains the sneak attack ability, as the rogue class feature. If he already has sneak attack from another class, the extra damage from the classes that grant sneak attack stack for the purpose of determining the sneak attack's extra damage dice. This extra damage is 1d6 at 3rd level and increases by 1d6 every 3 levels thereafter. This ability replaces the bonus feats gained at 3rd, 9th, and 15th levels.
Sneak Attack(Vivisectionist): 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.
This is the only way Sneak Attack dice can be added together on a single attack (the 'pool' being referred to). If you have two sources of Sneak Attack but do not also have this wording then you only get to use the class with the larger pool instead of adding both pools together (a.k.a. 'stacking').
No, you haven't, which is why I asked. Where is an explicit and general prohibition of double dipping laid out?
...
What wording of the sneak attack class feature are you using to infer a pool of dice?
N N 959 has not laid out anything of the sort. The argument seems to be steering more towards Ridiculon's claim regarding pathfinder's nature as a permissive system. If something more concrete can be shown to confirm that, it'll partially settle the conflict. It would basically help infer that the Strangler's sneak attack damage dice would not stack with other sources, and the argument on the feat's interpretation would be moot.
I've more or less given up on trying to convince them that the feat itself can be read a different way, dealing sneak attack damage dice in and of itself, drawing the number of them from your total amount. That would also be defeated if the Strangle ability is shown not to contribute in the first place, or not stack with other sources.
Tyinyk's last post it closer to my view.
What wording of the sneak attack class feature are you using to infer a pool of dice?Sneak Attack: This is exactly like the rogue ability of the same name. The extra damage dealt increases by +1d6 every other level (1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th). If an assassin gets a sneak attack bonus from another source, the bonuses on damage stack.This is the only way Sneak Attack dice can be added together on a single attack (the 'pool' being referred to). If you have two sources of Sneak Attack but do not also have this wording then you only get to use the class with the larger pool instead of adding both pools together (a.k.a. 'stacking').
So, if you have a Slayer/Rogue with 2d6 SA from each class, and they flank an enemy, you're saying they can only get 2d6 SA damage?
Because I'm pretty sure that's wrong.
What wording of the sneak attack class feature are you using to infer a pool of dice?Sneak Attack: This is exactly like the rogue ability of the same name. The extra damage dealt increases by +1d6 every other level (1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th). If an assassin gets a sneak attack bonus from another source, the bonuses on damage stack.This is the only way Sneak Attack dice can be added together on a single attack (the 'pool' being referred to). If you have two sources of Sneak Attack but do not also have this wording then you only get to use the class with the larger pool instead of adding both pools together (a.k.a. 'stacking').So, if you have a Slayer/Rogue with 2d6 SA from each class, and they flank an enemy, you're saying they can only get 2d6 SA damage?
Because I'm pretty sure that's wrong.
That is exactly how that works. Neither of those classes has wording saying that their Sneak Attack abilities stack, so they don't.
I think actions spent are completely relevant. It differentiates the two uses of Sneak Attack as separate. So you're not STACKING anything, you're simply dealing sneak attack twice in quick succession.
Also, sneak attack isn't a modifier, so the "Modifiers never stack" argument isn't really applicable here.
That is exactly how that works. Neither of those classes has wording saying that their Sneak Attack abilities stack, so they don't.What wording of the sneak attack class feature are you using to infer a pool of dice?Sneak Attack: This is exactly like the rogue ability of the same name. The extra damage dealt increases by +1d6 every other level (1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th). If an assassin gets a sneak attack bonus from another source, the bonuses on damage stack.This is the only way Sneak Attack dice can be added together on a single attack (the 'pool' being referred to). If you have two sources of Sneak Attack but do not also have this wording then you only get to use the class with the larger pool instead of adding both pools together (a.k.a. 'stacking').So, if you have a Slayer/Rogue with 2d6 SA from each class, and they flank an enemy, you're saying they can only get 2d6 SA damage?
Because I'm pretty sure that's wrong.
I'm still pretty sure that's not right. Even if they don't stack (Which I'm pretty sure they do.) they would still both apply, because the scenario where they're allowed to deal sneak attack is met. They'd literally be dealing 2d6 SA twice, it'd just be the 2d6 from slayer and the 2d6 from rogue.
That said, I'm positive that all your sneak attack dice all apply together. I'm confident that the assassin archetype is just worded like that because it's quite old.
I stand by, you're not actually stacking anything, since it's two separate actions. Believe what you want, since it's obvious you're dedicated to believing what you do, but this is how I'll be ruling it.
So, if you have a Slayer/Rogue with 2d6 SA from each class, and they flank an enemy, you're saying they can only get 2d6 SA damage?
Because I'm pretty sure that's wrong.
That is exactly how that works. Neither of those classes has wording saying that their Sneak Attack abilities stack, so they don't.I'm still pretty sure that's not right. Even if they don't stack (Which I'm pretty sure they do.) they would still both apply, because the scenario where they're allowed to deal sneak attack is met. They'd literally be dealing 2d6 SA twice, it'd just be the 2d6 from slayer and the 2d6 from rogue.
That said, I'm positive that all your sneak attack dice all apply together. I'm confident that the assassin archetype is just worded like that because it's quite old.
This is the definition of stacking, adding 2 things together... not really sure how you're defining it if this is your counterargument.
The age of a rule has absolutely no impact on whether or not it is a rule. If you ignore it you are now in house rule territory and there is no point in posting on this forum. Note: I'm not saying that's a bad thing, im just saying its not going to add to this discussion.
So, if you have a Slayer/Rogue with 2d6 SA from each class, and they flank an enemy, you're saying they can only get 2d6 SA damage?
Because I'm pretty sure that's wrong.
That is exactly how that works. Neither of those classes has wording saying that their Sneak Attack abilities stack, so they don't.I'm still pretty sure that's not right. Even if they don't stack (Which I'm pretty sure they do.) they would still both apply, because the scenario where they're allowed to deal sneak attack is met. They'd literally be dealing 2d6 SA twice, it'd just be the 2d6 from slayer and the 2d6 from rogue.
That said, I'm positive that all your sneak attack dice all apply together. I'm confident that the assassin archetype is just worded like that because it's quite old.
This is the definition of stacking, adding 2 things together... not really sure how you're defining it if this is your counterargument.
The age of a rule has absolutely no impact on whether or not it is a rule. If you ignore it you are now in house rule territory and there is no point in posting on this forum. Note: I'm not saying that's a bad thing, im just saying its not going to add to this discussion.
That first half was an aside. My point was rather that just because assassin says you can, doesn't mean everyone else can't. Old rules often specify things that are obviously do-able these days, because they were the only example back in the day.
Is there any more official quote or excerpt you can find, Ridiculon, regarding your point of pathfinder being a permissive system, particularly regarding sneak attack class features or otherwise?
And @N N 959 .... you accused me before of setting up a strawman. Stop referring to ability score modifiers or bonuses that already have a ruling clear and observed. I think it would better support your stance to prove Ridiculon's point and show that it applies to the sneak attack class feature. Quoting the class feature itself has had no helpful effect, considering you literally just quoted it and asserted what Wasn't there.
Showing Ridiculon's point would swing things, at least partially, in your favor.
That first half was an aside. My point was rather that just because assassin says you can, doesn't mean everyone else can't. Old rules often specify things that are obviously do-able these days, because they were the only example back in the day.
The Assassin is not the only example of this. The Slayer and the Cult Leader (archetype) both have Sneak Attack. The Cult Leader has the Sneak Attack stacking wording and the Slayer does not. They came out in the same book, this means the Slayer is not meant to be able to stack its sneak attack with classes like the Rogue or Ninja whereas the Cult Leader is meant to be able to stack its Sneak Attack with other classes.
EDIT: You'll notice also that the Unchained Rogue does not have the stacking wording, even though it came out just 1 year after the book with the Slayer an Cult Leader. This shows a continued trend of some classes' versions of Sneak Attack not being stackable with other classes' versions.
And @N N 959 .... you accused me before of setting up a strawman. Stop referring to ability score modifiers or bonuses that already have a ruling clear and observed.lol. I can't help you there. Prior to the ability modifier ruling many people thought just as you did; I have two separate rules telling me I can apply my Dex as damage, so therefore I get to apply it twice. So the PDT made it clear. That general rule applies to all forms of extra damage. I can't quote you a rule that says you can't do something you can't do. Pathfinder doesn't use that format for writing rules.
Sneak attack is "extra damage" on an attack, it is not an attack in and off itself and must be attached to some other basis for delivering damage. If you can show me a rule that "explicitly" says I can't apply sneak attack twice, once for flanking and being flat-footed on the same attack, I'll concede your point.
You would be conceding no one's point. Perhaps you've denied the possibility of reading the feat my way so much, you've failed to grasp my stance.
First off, that specific scenario got a specific ruling. Nowhere did I read the PDT that this was a general trend, rather than an answer to the specific issue at hand. Again I suggest that the point has no relevance, this time adding that Ridiculon's point actually would give it some relevance. It would lend weight, mind you, not a deductive proof, considering no amount of wording actually stops multiple sneak attack dice sources from stacking. .. but you could argue, by the raw, and in the Pat finder Society games, there is a Likely conflict.
Secondly, perhaps you've missed some of the posts above or just flat out don't acknowledge them, but I'm working off the argument that it's two different instances of sneak attack damage, triggered by two different actions, that just so happen to both be the same amount of damage dice, and added to the same damage roll. Conceding my point would be to confirm that, and Then resolve the issue of sneak attack dice from multiple class features.
Even if they did mention off handedly that this general rule applied, and it was posted here, I doubt it would have wording to without a doubt encompass sneak attack damage dice. In my games, I would allow the stacking of multiple class features on a single roll, even if they don't mention they do. But I would have to say that is out of personal preference, and I'd still work to find classes that state they stack.
Actually, the feat MAKES it an attack of it's own, in a way.
you can spend a swift action to deal your sneak attack damage to the creature you are grappling.
Since you're ONLY dealing sneak attack damage to him, it's not as part of another attack.
Also, he's not saying it's two sources, he's saying it's two instances of application. If you hadn't cut the sentence in half with your quotes, it's fairly obvious by how he wrote it.
Since you're ONLY dealing sneak attack damage to him, it's not as part of another attack.
This is incorrect. Read the feat again:
Whenever you successfully maintain a grapple and choose to deal damage, you can spend a swift action to deal your sneak attack damage to the creature you are grappling.
When maintaining a grapple you have several options, one of which is 'deal damage with a unarmed, natural, or light weapon'. If you choose this option you are dealing damage, the feat adds on top of that damage your SA damage - but it costs your swift action to do it. It is NOT however a separate attack, it is added into your existing 'grapple to deal damage' attack. It is a rider effect on something else you are doing. Similar to a magus using a swift action to activate one of his various arcana to get a bonus to hit/damage/etc on an attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
....unless you have sneak attack from another classbbangerter, Thanks, I had been considering the verbage RAW as not quite in line with my previous post. You have nailed the discrepancy.
In effect, the Strangler (Feat) adds to a regular attack using the swift action to do additional SA damage that does not stack with other sources of SA damage. So, the Stranger (Archetype) gains no benefit from this feat.
.....that has the stacking wording.
only if it stacked with the Strangler SA which none would b/c strangler SA doesn't say it stacks with other SA effects.
If you have SA from a class that has the stacking wording then they will stack
Strangler + Assassin = SA(S)1d6 + SA(A)1d6 = SA2d6
Stangler + Rogue + Assassin = SA(S)1d6 + SA(A)1d6 =SA2d6
OR
Stangler + Rogue + Assassin = SA(R)1d6 + SA(A)1d6 = SA2d6
.....that has the stacking wording.So you think the feat doesn't let you use your SA from another non-stacking class separately because archetype is using its SA on the grapple?
Not sure that is clear. I think that would have to be FAQ'd for me to be convinced of it one way or the other. I'm not convinced one attack can't allow SA from do different sources if there is a feat granting the second.
not what i meant to say. i think the feat would only stack if you have the stacking wording, otherwise you choose the higher of the two SA pools.