But wouldn't the Strangler (Archetype) have to have the same stacking verbage to stack?
As far as i can tell if you have 1 stackable source and 1 non-stackable source then you can Sneak Attack as the stackable class, which will include the SA from your other sources. As long as you have N-1 stackable sources (where N is the total number of SA sources) you can stack all your sneak attack dice. If you only have N-2 stackable sources (or fewer) then you cannot stack all of your dice and must choose only the number of stackable sources + 1 to stack (whichever combination gets you the highest amount of SA dice in the pool).
|
The trigger doesn't really matter regardless. The source does.
These are two different sources (one class feature, one Feat). Stacking issues aren't a problem.
The main issue is, as Set says, Strangle is not Sneak Attack in the same way Close Combat is not Weapon Training for the purpose of Feats and such. So a Strangler alone does not qualify for the Feat, you'd need to dip a level in Rogue or something.
As already said, the feat don't give sneak attack, it only allow you to apply the sneak attack you already have. You can't add the [b]same[/b+ sneak attack twice. So the sneak attack you get from the strangler archetype can't be added to itself trough the feat.
As already said, the feat don't give sneak attack, it only allow you to apply the sneak attack you already have. You can't add the same sneak attack twice. So the sneak attack you get from the strangler archetype can't be added to itself trough the feat.The trigger doesn't really matter regardless. The source does.
These are two different sources (one class feature, one Feat). Stacking issues aren't a problem.
The main issue is, as Set says, Strangle is not Sneak Attack in the same way Close Combat is not Weapon Training for the purpose of Feats and such. So a Strangler alone does not qualify for the Feat, you'd need to dip a level in Rogue or something.
FTFY.
But if I were to be a Strangler 1/Rogue 1, and I picked up the Strangler feat, wouldn't I be able to apply 1D6 (from Strangler class feature) from Grappling, and then spend a Swift Action to apply my 1D6 from Rogue features via the Feat?
As already said, the feat don't give sneak attack, it only allow you to apply the sneak attack you already have. You can't add the same sneak attack twice. So the sneak attack you get from the strangler archetype can't be added to itself trough the feat.The trigger doesn't really matter regardless. The source does.
These are two different sources (one class feature, one Feat). Stacking issues aren't a problem.
The main issue is, as Set says, Strangle is not Sneak Attack in the same way Close Combat is not Weapon Training for the purpose of Feats and such. So a Strangler alone does not qualify for the Feat, you'd need to dip a level in Rogue or something.
FTFY.
But if I were to be a Strangler 1/
RogueAssassin 1, and I picked up the Strangler feat, wouldn't I be able to apply 1D6 (from Strangler class feature) from Grappling, and then spend a Swift Action to apply my 1D6 from Rogue features via the Feat?
FTFY
because they are both applying the sneak attack damage type to a single attack, which you need special wording in the ability to be able to do (which neither of these classes has)
So... As far as this thread Seems to be going, the argument still seems to surround the exact same isssues, made multiple times by different people:
1) Is the Strangler Archetype's Strangle SA usable as a prerequisite for feats such as SA?
2) Is the Strangler Archetype's Strangle ability stackable with other SA? If not, what is their interaction?
3) Is the Strangler Feat Applying/Dealing your sneak attack damage, or specially allowing a condition where SA may be applied by the class feature?
4) Finally, Does the Strangler Feat work with the Strangle Ability's SA damage dice?
For issue #1, many people seem to have defaulted back to 'No, the Strangle ability does not count'. This makes the feat useless to a Strangler Brawler alone without multiple classes, and causes the original question to be a non-issue for the most part.
For issue #2, Ridiculon and a few others argue that No, because it does not state it stacks, it does not in fact stack with other SA dice. More information is still needed for this issue, particularly information that would suggest:
A- Pathfinder is a permissive system
B- Sneak Attack damage dice are inherently not stackable with other sources of Sneak Attack Damage, for whatever reason.
So far, Pathfinder seems to indeed be a permissive system, but I haven't read any direct quotes or anything on the PRD to confirm this. Secondly, Sneak attack class features does indeed have wording that would make it remarkably similar to a 'bonus' in its own right, but again no further proof.
For issue #3, the largest conflict between N N 959 and myself, it still seems to come down to how the feat itself is read. Others posting have had mixed interpretations as well. It would be easiest to avoid this conflict altogether by solving the other issues instead.
Issue #4, the big money question, seems less likely if issues #1 and 2 are resolved and the conclusion is they do Not stack. IF, and only IF, it happens that both:
A- Strangle's SA stacks
B- The Strangler feat deals its own SA damage equal to the number of SA damage dice you have (Which Strangle's would be a part of)
THEN, Issue #4 would also be resolved. If either of the above points are false, Issue #4 is also false.
Is that a fair summary thus far?
Let's see if I can enter this contortion of different rules readings.
A point that I think you missed in your summary Bane Wraith is the concept that sneak attack damage can not be dealt twice on a single roll. I would urge N N 959 and Rediculon to look into sneak attacks dealing damage in regard to spells. I believe an issue has come up before (I don't remember the ruling off the top of my head) that people wanted to apply sneak attack damage multiple times when using direct target spells ala scorching ray. IIRC the idea was that multiple rays should each receive the full effects of dealing sneak attack damage but the ruling ended up being that the spell could only take effect once -> only 1 target got the sneak attack damage. This would support the idea that: 1 "attack" roll to maintain the grapple = 1 application of sneak attack damage.
That being said, I can see both sides of the argument. Ultimately, I would houserule it as the simple solution Bane Wraith suggested towards the beginning.
A point that I think you missed in your summary Bane Wraith is the concept that sneak attack damage can not be dealt twice on a single roll.
True 'nough. Missed that point. Poor Arcane Trickster...
Issue #3 is due to a possible interpretation of the feat where the sneak attack damage is dealt with a swift action, under certain conditions (Which involves another damage roll with a certain number of sneak attack dice already applied). If it were two separate actions, it avoids that conflict.
If the feat were read as simply allowing applying more SA damage to the primary action(maintain+damage), then it's a compelling argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Bane wasn't convinced by the FAQ which says you can't apply an ability mod twice, there's nothing else that's going to make that more clear, imo.
So...You thought a ruling directly regarding sneak attack damage would be less convincing than a ruling on unrelated modifiers or bonuses?
|
|
As already said, the feat don't give sneak attack, it only allow you to apply the sneak attack you already have. You can't add the same sneak attack twice. So the sneak attack you get from the strangler archetype can't be added to itself trough the feat.The trigger doesn't really matter regardless. The source does.
These are two different sources (one class feature, one Feat). Stacking issues aren't a problem.
The main issue is, as Set says, Strangle is not Sneak Attack in the same way Close Combat is not Weapon Training for the purpose of Feats and such. So a Strangler alone does not qualify for the Feat, you'd need to dip a level in Rogue or something.
FTFY.
But if I were to be a Strangler 1/Rogue 1, and I picked up the Strangler feat, wouldn't I be able to apply 1D6 (from Strangler class feature) from Grappling, and then spend a Swift Action to apply my 1D6 from Rogue features via the Feat?
Absolutely.
The rogue sneak damage isn't part of the damage you are already dealing as a Strangler.
because they are both applying the sneak attack damage type to a single attack, which you need special wording in the ability to be able to do (which neither of these classes has)While I can agree this might be true, I find it to be far less obvious a conclusion than the idea you can't apply the same dice twice. I don't see anything in the rules that you only have a single opportunity to apply sneak attack. That may be true, but I lack any basis to make that assertion, as compared with the idea that you can only use a given sneak attack once.
Ok, so here is where the concept that i have described as a 'permissive' rules system comes in (i'm honestly not sure if there is another/better term for it or not).
If it is true that pathfinder is a permissive system: Every rule must be read with the assumption that everything is illegal until a rule says you may do it. You may apply x number of sneak attack dice under certain conditions (and no more, because there is nothing describing how/how many more).
If it is not true that pathfinder is a permissive system (a dis-missive system?): Every rule must be read with the assumption that everything is legal until a rule says you may not do it. so in addition to the described behavior of sneak attack, i could apply sneak attack twice on any valid sneak attack trigger, or 3 times, or 4 times, etc. unless there is a rule saying that i may not do that.
I am of the opinion that pathfinder is a permissive system, because there is no way to specifically outlaw every unwanted interaction in a 'dismissive' rules system. This seems to support the pattern of rules we have, in this case it supports the idea that only certain classes with the correct permissive wording can stack their sneak attack damage with other classes.
Instead, I see the the Strangler ability as simply an option to apply extra damage that the ability gives you, which is coincidentally called sneak attack. I don't read that as your only option to apply sneak attack of any type. Nor can I point to any other rules which would make me say that once you applied sneak attack extra damage, no other damage sneak attack extra damage is available.I would agree with you here if it were not for the permissive wording in the stackable classes which states:
If an assassin gets a sneak attack bonus from another source, the bonuses on damage stack.
This is not referring to the class ability Sneak Attack, it is referring to the damage type sneak attack. This wording is allowing you to combine two sources of the damage type, therefore (if you agree that pathfinder is a permissive rules system) you cannot do it without this wording.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it is true that pathfinder is a permissive system: Every rule must be read with the assumption that everything is illegal until a rule says you may do it. You may apply x number of sneak attack dice under certain conditions (and no more, because there is nothing describing how/how many more).
If it is not true that pathfinder is a permissive system (a dis-missive system?): Every rule must be read with the assumption that everything is legal until a rule says you may not do it. so in addition to the described behavior of sneak attack, i could apply sneak attack twice on any valid sneak attack trigger, or 3 times, or 4 times, etc. unless there is a rule saying that i may not do that.
It is neither ONE or the OTHER. It is a combination of both based on context.
Dead characters can take no actions. There are no rules that state dead characters can take actions. Therefore it is a permissive system.
What is the DC to slide down a set of stairs on a shield while shooting orcs in the face with my bow? There are no rules that state what this DC is, or what, if any, attack penalty might be associated with such an action. Yet any GM worth his/her salt will come up with something. DC 30 acrobatics, -4 circumstance penalty to your attacks, must also possess the shot on the run feat. So while there aren't any specific rules to spell this out, or even allow it, we see that such could be allowed, thus it is not a permissive system.
It is a mistake to state: The rules don't say I can't, therefore I can.
It is also a mistake to state: The rules don't say you can, therefore you can't.
You have to understand the context, and then apply some GM adjudication in many cases.
It is neither ONE or the OTHER. It is a combination of both based on context.Dead characters can take no actions. There are no rules that state dead characters can take actions. Therefore it is a permissive system.
What is the DC to slide down a set of stairs while shooting orcs in the face with my bow? There are no rules that state what this DC is, or what, if any, attack penalty might be associated with such an action. Yet any GM worth his/her salt will come up with something. DC 30 acrobatics, -4 circumstance penalty to your attacks, must also possess the shot on the run feat. So while there aren't any specific rules to spell this out, or even allow it, we see that such could be allowed, thus it is not a permissive system.
It is a mistake to state: The rules don't say I can't, therefore I can.
It is also a mistake to state: The rules don't say you can, therefore you can't.You have to understand the context, and then apply some GM adjudication in many cases.
Unfortunately, that's not really a help for the arguments present in this thread. We have two issues of ambiguity, and another issue that's simply not covered by rules anywhere.
Those are, respectively: 1) How do you read the feat 2) Do you count the strangle ability for the feat, and 3) Can you Strangle + SA whilst applying both sets of damage.
I think, given the time spent on this thread, we've all but skipped the ambiguities and moved on to the gray area not covered by the rules. Unfortunately, simply saying "It's covered by neither, so it's up to the GM!" when it comes to sneak attack dice stacking is an issue for more than just this thread; It can eliminate whole builds from happening, due to people multi-classing. In my little fits of research, I did not spot any conclusive answers either... but I do encourage others look.
If it is true that pathfinder is a permissive system: Every rule must be read with the assumption that everything is illegal until a rule says you may do it. You may apply x number of sneak attack dice under certain conditions (and no more, because there is nothing describing how/how many more).
If it is not true that pathfinder is a permissive system (a dis-missive system?): Every rule must be read with the assumption that everything is legal until a rule says you may not do it. so in addition to the described behavior of sneak attack, i could apply sneak attack twice on any valid sneak attack trigger, or 3 times, or 4 times, etc. unless there is a rule saying that i may not do that.
It is neither ONE or the OTHER. It is a combination of both based on context.
Dead characters can take no actions. There are no rules that state dead characters can take actions. Therefore it is a permissive system.
What is the DC to slide down a set of stairs on a shield while shooting orcs in the face with my bow? There are no rules that state what this DC is, or what, if any, attack penalty might be associated with such an action. Yet any GM worth his/her salt will come up with something. DC 30 acrobatics, -4 circumstance penalty to your attacks, must also possess the shot on the run feat. So while there aren't any specific rules to spell this out, or even allow it, we see that such could be allowed, thus it is not a permissive system.
It is a mistake to state: The rules don't say I can't, therefore I can.
It is also a mistake to state: The rules don't say you can, therefore you can't.You have to understand the context, and then apply some GM adjudication in many cases.
That doesn't mean it's a combination of both, it is still a permissive system. The GM is allowed to add new (house) rules to describe unforeseen circumstances. In fact, the reliance on the GM to adjudicate strengthens the case of it being a permissive system. You didn't assume that the character had the ability to slide down the stairs from the get go, you wanted a ruling to say that he may do so.
It's the same in the case of the op for this thread, if the rules are unclear or don't reflect the game you ultimately want to play then the GM may add new ones to describe the game you do want to play.
Pathfinder is permissive, except where it is not.
It can't be both. Ridiculon is right in suggesting that it is one way or the other, and I'm beginning to agree that it is a permissive system only. The key, of course is the "Most Important Rule", which allows for exceptions to existing rules according to a GM's whims. Pathfinder has virtually everything covered, from eating, breathing, walking, aging, fighting and magic. It just happens to be the case of most GMs that they assume you can do other things according to somewhat regular laws of reality, and can do so without interrupting the game with a rule check.
There are so many logical inconsistencies in how PF rules have been applied, one cannot use strict formalism to determine what is intended.
That's what the rules forum and erratas / FAQs are for. There are even existing rules just to cover inconsistencies in the rules, such as prioritizing the precise over the general.
The problem I have with your approach is that it results in the ability precluding all forms of sneak attack that don't stack. I don't see that as an intended design restraint.
I don't like it either- But there is such thing as poor writing, and perhaps it can only be hoped that they correct the ability, or create an FAQ with regards to sneak attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure it can. There's absolutely nothing that says it can't use both approaches.
No. It can't. Something cannot simultaneously allow and restrict something. A permissive system would restrict you from doing anything not included in the rules. A restrictive system would allow you to do anything not included in the rules. The only thing you could really argue is that it was intended to be neither, and I think that's what you're trying to say. But it still leans towards an explicitly Permissive system (With the Most Important Rule as a kind of arbitrary/vetoing power, and helping to streamline the whole thing). Looking for a quote to support this just brings up hundreds of posts, so I'm not going to bother right now.
Anyways. Took a bit of time to specifically address the stacking sneak attack class features question... Kicking myself for not doing do before.
No—unless an ability specifically says it stacks with similar abilities (such as an assassin's sneak attack), or adds in some way based on the character's total class levels (such as improved uncanny dodge), the abilities don't stack and you have to use them separately. Therefore, cleric channeling doesn't stack with paladin channeling, necromancer channeling, oracle of life channeling, and so on.
Emphasis mine. So, that pretty much settles the stacking sneak attack question; No, they don't stack. The Strangle ability and Strangler feat w/ some other class's sneak attack would probably use the larger of the two.
At least the Assassin's sneak attack would stack with the Strangler's Strangle. However... the FAQ does seem to imply that you need really do need the "Sneak attack class feature" to qualify for any requirements- feats and prestige classes included.
So... With all that out of the way, all that's left is the perceived ambiguity in the feat's wording. As far as I can tell, there's no real way to answer that, and in just about all cases it doesn't really matter anyways; The above solves most scenarios.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
um, Bane? you know N N 959 brought that up on page 2 right?
um, Bane? you know N N 959 brought that up on page 2 right?
Huh. Guess they did. Surprised, actually. As far as I can tell, the argument was more on the ambiguity in the feat than it was about stacking sneak attack from sources that don't explicitly say they don't stack, and just got flat-out overlooked by me.
yeah, we kinda got away from the specific case and got into a more general discussion about the sneak attack damage type/rules system