This is a very interesting case, because they don't stack, but you still have both abilities with the same trigger. I definitely want to keep an eye on this thread.
I would run it as 2d6 myself.
Given that rogue and slayer sneak attack don't stack, wouldn't that be sufficient reason not to try that multiclass combination?
what happens if you are a Rogue 1/Slayer3/Snakebite Striker 1.
Hybrid rules may say Slayer SA won't stack with Rogue sneak attack, but Snakebite Striker says SA from other classes stack with its own SA....
so now, when you attack, you just have to say you are making the attack as a Brawler, that way you will get the full +3d6 SA damage???
Snakebite Striker sneak attack damage stacks with sneak attack damage "from another source" -- it does not on its own make multiple other sources of sneak attack damage stack with each other.
Snakebite Striker sneak attack damage stacks with sneak attack damage "from another source" -- it does not on its own make multiple other sources of sneak attack damage stack with each other.
So now your Rogue SA is +2d6 and your Slayer becomes +2d6 because Snakebite improves each by +1d6.
But when you attack, do you then deal 2d6 twice since they don't stack?Or since they don't stack does it work like bleed where you roll both taking only the highest.
So Rogue SA roll a 5, but you roll a 8 with your Slayer, so you deal 8 Sneak Attack.
|
The problem is that by raw, some sources of sneak attack damage stack and some don't.
Snakebite Striker brawler stacks with everything. nature Fang Druid stacks with everything. Slayer doesn't stack. Sanctified Slayer Inquisitor doesn't stack. Vivisectionist alchemist has the worst written stacking rules in the game, where you have to combine alchemist levels with rouge levels to determine the dice damage instead of just stacking normally. Monk of the Mantis doesn't stack. Prestige classes stack.
What we have is an incredibly confusing mess where some sneak attacks stack and some don't. It's like the weapon training FAQ where some weapon training replacements count as weapon training and some don't.
A reasonable house rule would be that all sneak attack damage stack, with the limitation your sneak attack damage cannot exceed half your character level.
The problem is that by raw, some sources of sneak attack damage stack and some don't.
Snakebite Striker brawler stacks with everything. nature Fang Druid stacks with everything. Slayer doesn't stack. Sanctified Slayer Inquisitor doesn't stack. Vivisectionist alchemist has the worst written stacking rules in the game, where you have to combine alchemist levels with rouge levels to determine the dice damage instead of just stacking normally. Monk of the Mantis doesn't stack. Prestige classes stack.What we have is an incredibly confusing mess where some sneak attacks stack and some don't. It's like the weapon training FAQ where some weapon training replacements count as weapon training and some don't.
A reasonable house rule would be that all sneak attack damage stack, with the limitation your sneak attack damage cannot exceed half your character level.
But Sanctified Slayer (Inquisitor) with Crocodile Domain has 3d6 by 7th. VMC Rogue stacks so you have 4d6 by 7th.
Now, it slows after 7th unless you multiclass.
Choosing to not play by the rules as written is not cheating. It's just altering the game. I don't play with the rule that says you need to have an ability before you can take the FCB for it. That has nothing to do with cheating, it's just a rule I don't like so I don't use it.It seems to me it's pretty clear that it's 1d6. If a GM wants to not play by the rules and do 2d6 that's his perogative, but it's not supported by the rules.Thats not what anyone is doing. You can disagree without accusations of cheating.
Is it impossible to hide within 60' of someone with Darkvision in your game? If not, you are not following the RAW, but we all know that the rule is wrong. It isn't the only example, just the most glaring.
Interpretation of the rules is super important.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I sure wish that, instead of creating "hybrid classes," Paizo had just fixed multiclassing. If they had done so, the slayer would be a Rogue/Ranger, easily able to more heavily invest in rogue levels for more sneak attack dice, and we wouldn't be having this debate.
The problem is that by raw, some sources of sneak attack damage stack and some don't.
Snakebite Striker brawler stacks with everything. nature Fang Druid stacks with everything. Slayer doesn't stack. Sanctified Slayer Inquisitor doesn't stack. Vivisectionist alchemist has the worst written stacking rules in the game, where you have to combine alchemist levels with rouge levels to determine the dice damage instead of just stacking normally. Monk of the Mantis doesn't stack. Prestige classes stack.What we have is an incredibly confusing mess where some sneak attacks stack and some don't. It's like the weapon training FAQ where some weapon training replacements count as weapon training and some don't.
A reasonable house rule would be that all sneak attack damage stack, with the limitation your sneak attack damage cannot exceed half your character level.
But Sanctified Slayer (Inquisitor) with Crocodile Domain has 3d6 by 7th. VMC Rogue stacks so you have 4d6 by 7th.
Now, it slows after 7th unless you multiclass.
In HeroLab they stack. Not definitive, but it is an example of a licensed program and how it handles it.
|
|
In HeroLab they stack. Not definitive, but it is an example of a licensed program and how it handles it.The problem is that by raw, some sources of sneak attack damage stack and some don't.
Snakebite Striker brawler stacks with everything. nature Fang Druid stacks with everything. Slayer doesn't stack. Sanctified Slayer Inquisitor doesn't stack. Vivisectionist alchemist has the worst written stacking rules in the game, where you have to combine alchemist levels with rouge levels to determine the dice damage instead of just stacking normally. Monk of the Mantis doesn't stack. Prestige classes stack.What we have is an incredibly confusing mess where some sneak attacks stack and some don't. It's like the weapon training FAQ where some weapon training replacements count as weapon training and some don't.
A reasonable house rule would be that all sneak attack damage stack, with the limitation your sneak attack damage cannot exceed half your character level.
But Sanctified Slayer (Inquisitor) with Crocodile Domain has 3d6 by 7th. VMC Rogue stacks so you have 4d6 by 7th.
Now, it slows after 7th unless you multiclass.
Crocodile Domain stacks with sanctified Slayer because crocodile domain has the magic words "This increase to sneak attack damage stacks with sneak attack damage you may have from other sources."
Sanctified Slayer doesn't, so if you rippled a level of rouge, the rouge sneak attack dice would not stack by RAW.
"not stacking" is not the same as "overlapping".
Is it impossible to hide within 60' of someone with Darkvision in your game? If not, you are not following the RAW, but we all know that the rule is wrong. It isn't the only example, just the most glaring.
Interpretation of the rules is super important.
What?
Which part of Darkvision makes it impossible to hide within 60'?
Is it impossible to hide within 60' of someone with Darkvision in your game? If not, you are not following the RAW, but we all know that the rule is wrong. It isn't the only example, just the most glaring.
Interpretation of the rules is super important.
What?
Which part of Darkvision makes it impossible to hide within 60'?
A creature can’t hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover.
I was recalling this rather than looking it up earlier so my statement was not exact. But we all know there are many ways to hide from a creature with Darkvision other than being invisible or with cover. Concealment works as well and doesn't require any special skill or ability to enact. Also, the 60' is crap because it is really the range of the darkvision, not a static 60'.
Furthermore, it says nothing about hiding FROM the character with darkvision, just hiding at all. Again, we all know this is not true and that the interpretation of the rule is just as important as RAW.
The hybrid rule on stacking is because the Sneak Attack class feature has progression baked in and it's different for Rogue & Slayer:
This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter.This additional damage is 1d6 at 3rd level, and increases by 1d6 every 3 levels thereafter.If the stacking rule wasn't there, people would just take 1 level of Rogue and switch to Slayer for faster SA progression.
I realize this is firmly in the realm of RAI but they really do need to clarify this. It's the only instance I know of where you essentially lose abilities for multiclassing since you're never going to be able to use that extra d6 of SA if we follow the logic of 2 sources of sneak attack not being able to trigger on the same attack. That's a HUGE middle finger to the rogue/slayer combo and no other hybrid multiclass is penalized so severely.
brawler 3 fighter 3 is a 3rd level fighter twice for feats.
brawler 3 fighter 3 has IUS damage of 1d6 and counts as monk 3 twice.rage and bloodrage can't be on as same time.
a lot don't get penalized much, some do. It's better that we have the ability to multiclass and miss out than not multiclass at all.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Also, vmc rouge doesn't stack. It doesn't have the line that states it stacks.
Neither does the original rogue class in the CRB. The stacking language always has to come from the other class.
Also, vmc rouge doesn't stack. It doesn't have the line that states it stacks.Neither does the original rogue class in the CRB. The stacking language always has to come from the other class.
Which could be easily fixed with an errata or FAQ statement that is something along the lines of "All Sneak Attack dice stack, but cannot have more than a full rogue of the same character level.."
I believe (and hope) that they stack. However, the rules are ambiguous enough to warrant a FAQ click.