"Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source."Meaning, for the purposes of Offensive Defense, you can't triple-dip your sneak-attack die-count as multiple stacking Dodge bonus to AC if you connect with three sneak-attacks that round.
No offense, but you should really read more carefully before posting. "Bonuses always stack, unless they are from the same source." A dodge bonus or circumstance bonus is not a bonus without a type, and thus the sentence doesn't apply.
Circumstance bonuses stack with all other bonuses, including other circumstance bonuses, unless they arise from essentially the same source.
Stop using d20pfsrd.com to look up rules. You should also source your quotes. What you've quoted is copied into d20pfsrd from the 3.5 SRD, which in turn copied it from the 3.5 Player's Handbook (pg. 306), they just didn't mark it in any way. It is not from a Pathfinder book, and thus not valid for Pathfinder.
Indeed, the 3.5 Player's Handbook explicitly prevents any same-source stacking, but that text was not copied into the CRB.
"" 3.5 PHB pg. 305
"" 3.5 PHB pg. 310
For comparison, here's the respective entry from the CRB's shoddy-excuse-for-a-glossary:
"" CRB pg. 11 There is no entry for "modifier". The proper rules on pg. 208 include the exceptions for dodge bonuses, circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses.
There are literally only two instances of the phrase "same source" in the CRB, what I've posted, and something about preparing spells from a borrowed spellbook. They did mostly copy-paste the stacking rules on pg. 208, and added the sentence about untyped bonuses form the same source. They could have easily made that sentence without the words "without a type", but they didn't.
No offense, but you should really read more carefully before posting."Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source."Meaning, for the purposes of Offensive Defense, you can't triple-dip your sneak-attack die-count as multiple stacking Dodge bonus to AC if you connect with three sneak-attacks that round.
No offense, but you should really dial back this snippy attitude which has been on-display for awhile now. (This game has how many rules?)
There's no reason this can't be a pleasant conversation.
For comparison, here's the respective entry from the CRB's shoddy-excuse-for-a-glossary...
There are other things to be read in addition to these "shoddy-excuses", such as the FAQs:
(Last updated: August 19, 2016.)
Rogue: Does the dodge bonus from the “offensive defensive” rogue talent (page 131) stack with itself? Does it apply to everyone, or just to the target I’m attacking?
There are two issues relating to this rogue talent.
One, in the first printing it provided a +1 circumstance bonus against the attacked target, which was a very weak ability. The second printing update changed it from a circumstance bonus to a dodge bonus, but accidentally omitted the “against that creature” text, which made it a very strong ability.
Two, it doesn’t specify whether the dodge bonus stacks with itself, and because this creates a strange place in the rules where bonuses don’t stack from the same source but dodge bonuses always stack. While we haven’t reached a final decision on what to do about this talent, we are leaning toward this solution: the dodge bonus only applies against the creature you sneak attacked, and the dodge bonus does not stack with itself. This prevents you from getting a dodge bonus to AC against a strong creature by sneak attacking a weak creature, and prevents you from reaching an absurdly high AC by sneak attacking multiple times in the same round.
TL;DR version: they "haven't reached a final decision", but are "leaning toward" that interpretation.
I am reasonably certain that if a PFS table judge (PFS being the context of this particular thread's OP character) cites such dev response after a Hasted 7th-level ITWF sneak attempts to claim a quintuple-same-source-stacking +20 dodge bonus to AC, that the player isn't going to be posing counterarguments. He'll get his +4 and be happy with it, because that's still really baller for a scaling widget that grants its cheese without an attendant penalty (such as forfeiture of sneak-attack damage, or diminished attack-bonus, etc).
Additionally power attack on a halfling means getting 15 in the stat to qualify. Not the best use of points.I was suggesting Power Attack because Power Attack gives a Damage bonus that does not scale down with size but does scale up with BAB.Power Attack makes rogues MAD in point-buy.
TWF uRogues should dump strength to jack dex, and take Piranha Strike instead. (And if they're a halfling, there's also Risky Striker -- although I would be leery of diminishing AC until Mirror Image is a commonly-received or self-administered buff.)
Yup: Just getting strength to a 15>13 in a halfling costs 7 build points, which is slightly over a third of PFS-mandated 20pt-buy total. Relative to a strength-eschewing halfling (who gains 4 points trashing his classic dump-stat down to 7>5), you're effectively allocating up to *11* build points just to Power Attack, which is absolutely horrid given that a small-sized TWF is almost certainly using Piranha Strike-applicable light weapons if they're a "matched pair" for the purposes of Weapon Focus, etc. And/or he's a River Rat-traited Knife Master.
--This isn't to say that it's impossible to design a decent point-buy-built Power Attacking TWF rogue, but you certainly wouldn't want to be a small race. (You probably also won't want to be straight-class rogue, but more likely some other full-BAB martial emphasis with only four levels of rogue in the stack. For example, a fighter with Effortless Duel Wielding and Trained Grace, who dips into rogue for a host of other abilities, considering the -1 BAB to be worth it for four levels of other goodies.)
It is almost always mathematically best to have TWF on a rogue, especially a URogue who can lower the targets AC.
|
It is almost always mathematically best to have TWF on a rogue, especially a URogue who can lower the targets AC.
From a purely damage based outlook, perhaps.
But when you start considering feat investments, defenses, natural flow of combats etc, it starts to play out differently.
The most fun I ever had was when I played a spring attack rogue with the scout archetype.
Used an elven curved blade and eventually gave it impact.
Around level 9 or so, picked up vital strike and used it in tandem. So every round, I was doing (with a good shot at hitting) 4d8+10+4d6. And could reliably end up out of full attack distance to most enemies.
Eventually, you could take piranha strike and furious focus.
Sure, its not quite the same as a twf rogue that somehow manages to stand behind the enemy and drop a full attack with SA into him. Though, the realityis that (most likely) only two of the attacks are gonna hit anyway. Which is suddenly 2d6+12+8d6.
Not that much more, and with the downside that you have a harder time getting SA, and are in a much deadlier position.
You only need the first one. The first one ups the damage of the class significantly, it doesn't require the full investment, and with a 3/4 bab class the full investment is way too late in the game to matter much. You take it because every campaign has points in time when you have to plant your feet and murk something.
It also offers one of the easiest and most action efficient ways to ensure sneak attack damage
|
|
Agree to disagree here I suppose. The easiest way imo to ensure SA is the afore mentioned scout archetype. And its just much more efficient in fluid combats as well.
Lot of enemies? Doesn't matter, you planned on moving anyway. One big scary enemy? All you have to do is stay 10 ft out of its reach, and it likely won't look at you, while you can easily set up flanking for SA even if you didn't want to take the scout archetype.
And when you, for some reason, have no choice but to stand there and hit, you don't hit too much softer from the other one. What with debilitating injury likely making your secondary attack hit.
But if you want to spend that turn in full attack range of whatever big scary creature you are fighting is, go ahead.
Regarding Power Attack: Well, both PA and Pirantha Strike are completely crap for TWF, as they have a 1:1.5 ration in that case. The value of the attack roll malus also increase the higher the damage roll is, while the damage bonus is static, meaning that the higher your damage bonus is, the worse the feats are, and when Sneak Attacking, Rogues do have a rather high damage bonus. Power Attakc might be worth it with a two-handed weapon thanks to the 3:1 ratio, but since you probably don't want to use it before applying Debilitating Injury, and the strength requirement, I would advice against it in even that case. Piranha Strike is easier to qualify for, but never 3:1, and machanically not actually worth it on most Rogues, at least not in tougher fights (which is where you want your feats the most).
The most fun I ever had was when I played a spring attack rogue with the scout archetype. (...) Around level 9 or so, picked up vital strike and used it in tandem.
How? Spring Attack doesn't work with either the Scout's Skirmisher ability, or Vital Strike.
But if you want to spend that turn in full attack range of whatever big scary creature you are fighting is, go ahead.
There are ways for a Rogue to buff AC (ask Slim Jim about that!), and at 10th level, you can have both the AC lowering and the attack roll lowering Debilitating Injury on the target. The main issue is that in this game, you basically need to full attack to be viable as a martial character.
There's no reason this can't be a pleasant conversation.
I have a little trouble having "pleasant conversation" with someone who apparently doesn't actually read anything I say. "This game has how many rules?" is not a valid explanation for your mistake - you don't need to know any rules, because I quoted the relevant one. You even copied, and edited that rule-quote. Before that, I explicitly said there was no general no-stacking rule, and also said that as a dodge bonus, OD is unaffected by the rule. Apparently, not only did you not properly read the rule quote you posted yourself, you also didn't actually read my argument, or you would have noticed that I already made an argument based on that exact rule quote, with emphasis on the term "dodge bonus". How am I supposed to have a "pleasant conversation" with you when you act that way?
Regarding the "FAQ": Do you really think I haven't seen that FAQ? I had actually written something about it, but I deleted it before posting because I had hoped to keep my post and the discussion regarding this topic short (until Lelomenia and you had to post counter-arguments not based on any actual rules).
*takes deep breath*
That FAQ is about the worst waste of space in the history of mankind - an FAQ answer telling us that there is no answer yet. In addition, the existence of that "pseudo-FAQ" probably made them forget to make a proper answer, and as if that wasn't bad enough, they also get the actual rules wrong
"we haven’t reached a final decision", by the very definitions of the words, can not possibly be a decision. Changing (or keeping) the rules would require such a decision. Therefore, the FAQ answer (that does't answer the question) can not possible be a ruling. Making a rule call based on that FAQ goes against RAW, period. The "suggestion" is a houserule if you apply it. If a PFS GM makes a ruling based on that FAQ, they're in the wrong.
The fun part? They're leaning towards changing the wording so that it says that it doesn't stack with itself, which acknowledges that it does currently stack with itself. Seriously, even though they got the actual rules wrong, the FAQ proves me right.
You can attempt to make a RAI argument (although with no actual action taken in the over seven years since that FAQ, I would challenge that it was current RAI), but you simply cannot say that Offensive Defense does not stack with itself RAW.
|
|
@derklord
admittedly I, and many of the GMs I've known through life, disregard that silly aspect of an FAQ/reprinting so apologies that I do often forget it exists. Its not like its overly strong, as you say, its limited in its uses quite heavily(normally used to get a flanking hit in and get out. However, my build still stands, even if you are the stick in the mud that paizo is, as all you really lose is 2d8 damage (eventually 4d8, but at that point no one cares you can hit things hard anyway) the easiest way to game this is to get a flight speed and take fly by attack. (easiest way that comes to mind is an aasimar, OR, get an animal companions, and take the ride-by-attack feat. Which again is legal RAW (unless I am missing some obscure silly PFS ban) And is no more feat intensive than the others.
My basic point is that the FAQ adds unneeded restrictions that are quite easily worked around, if at the cost of character flavor. I will admit, if you are running a rogue in PFS, its harder to make it work, but still possible.
Stating that spring attack doesn't work with the scouts ability is also questionable. But re-reading the ability I can see why people would make this claim due to the wording. Even if you play at a table enforcing it this way, it is still a good way to get a flank attack in, and get out of reach.
This is actually making me want to try out a mounted rogue with the scout archetype now. Though, for PFS, probably best to use a small character. Which means 2d6 instead of 2d8, but that's almost more fun. Or perhaps using a spiked chain for the reach.
if you had actually read my post, it essentially said “it appears that Derklord is right”. Glass houses etc.
Wait, wat? Your post contains a single word written by you. One. Single. Word. You're saying I didn't read it?
But I apparently misunderstood you, I had presumed that 3.5-quote to be regarding Emboldening Strike (that I had mentioned). Only now do I understand the argument you were making. I sincerely apologize for the unjust accusation!
Stating that spring attack doesn't work with the scouts ability is also questionable.
That's not really true. The FAQ isn't even needed. Skirmisher explicitly says "attack action", and Spring Attack is "a full-round action". The "attack action" is not any action that contains an attakc, but a very specific action, namely the standard action called "attack", CRB pg. 182, a "basic attack" if you will. Any time a feat, class feature, general rule et al. states an action type for an ability, it's not the attack action*. Only things phrased "when using the attack action" or similar do so. Short version: If something does not use the exact phrase "attack action" (not "full-attack action"), it's not the attack action. Which is why you can't use Vital Strike with charge or Cleave.
All this comes strictly from the original CRB, no errata or FAQs needed.Ride-by Attack wouldn't work with Skirmisher either, but of course already works with Scout’s Charge.
Flyby Attack is very likely to be veto'd by the GM, or at least the race is. Mounts have, of course, their own problems, although being small helps. If you can keep it alive.
*) The only exception that I know of is the ill-written erratum of the double-barreled musket.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet, it is their "last word" that the devs have given us, and it is not a "mistake" to relay it no matter how much what they say may or may not be to your liking.There's no reason this can't be a pleasant conversation.I have a little trouble having "pleasant conversation" with someone who apparently doesn't actually read anything I say. "This game has how many rules?" is not a valid explanation for your mistake...
(snip)
That FAQ is about the worst waste of space in the history of mankind - an FAQ answer telling us that there is no answer yet. In addition, the existence of that "pseudo-FAQ" probably made them forget to make a proper answer...
Therefore, the FAQ answer (that does't answer the question) can not possible be a ruling. Making a rule call based on that FAQ goes against RAW, period.
You know what? --Putting up with this kind of distinctly unpleasant wrangling on a daily basis would make *me* want to blow up my own game and rewrite it from scratch too.
|
|
the only issue I have with that ruling for the wording of "attack action" is that, IIRC, and admittedly I may be misremembring, paizo has stated that several of their abilities used the "attack action" wording when they should not have, or that they stated an "attack" when it should have been an "attack action" in varios FAQs over the years, of which I cannot recall the exact nature, nor do I particularly care enough atm to try and find them. Otherwise, this is why I said I could see someone stating that, and will concede the point with the caveat that I just don't agree.
Fly-by attack being veto'd is in the same field as me ignoring the FAQ of vital-strike/spring attack. etc.
RAW, it works, and RAW there are races that can totally get it. As in all things, it comes down to GM. If the GM wants to limit the player, or enable the player.
Mounts aren't hard to keep alive honestly. They usually get ignored anyway unless there is an AoE. The harder part is getting them down into dungeons. The easiest way around this is getting a wand of carry companion. Or, you could get an animal companion that has a climb speed. Actually kind of interested in the idea, and if it can realistically work in Pathfinder society.
And yet, it is their "last word" that the devs have given us, and it is not a "mistake" to relay it no matter how much what they say may or may not be to your liking.
I completely agree with this.
Of course, the '"last word" that the devs have given us' is "we haven’t reached a final decision on what to do about this talent".
Because that is what they wrote in that FAQ. That is the actual statement. So don't give me your crap about "not be to your liking", you're the one blatantly disregarding what's actually written because you don't like it.
This topic is finished as far as I'm concerned. Everyone can see that what I've said is RAW, because I've proven it. I don't care what people do at their own tables, and it will be a cold day in hell before I play a cRogue in PFS. So have a nice day, but don't expect me to take you serious ever again.
IIRC, and admittedly I may be misremembring, paizo has stated that several of their abilities used the "attack action" wording when they should not have, or that they stated an "attack" when it should have been an "attack action" in varios FAQs over the years, of which I cannot recall the exact nature, nor do I particularly care enough atm to try and find them.
That doesn't ring any bells, to be honest.
Again, Spring Attack + Vital Strike/Skirmish never did work RAW. You can take the CRB 1st printing and ignore all errata and FAQs, and you still can't combine them. That FAQ doesn't make that rule, it only clarifies it.
Limiting races if fairly normal*. Limiting Monster feats, while not under explicit "GM must allow this" ruling (for the Bestiary ones, they made such a clause for the ones from Horror Adventures), is also very common, especially when they're so much better than similar regular feats (Flyby Attack vs. Spring Attack). Fact is, you can not rely on being able to pick up Flyby Attack on a Rogue at early levels.
*) "" ARG pg. 82
RAW, any race beyond the seven core races requires explicit GM permission.
Of course, the '"last word" that the devs have given us' is "we haven’t reached a final decision on what to do about this talent".I haven't witnessed irritation like this since the Cha7 PFS druids were deprived of their armies of sword-swinging apes.Because that is what they wrote in that FAQ. That is the actual statement. So don't give me your crap about "not be to your liking", you're the one blatantly disregarding what's actually written because you don't like it."...While we haven’t reached a final decision on what to do about this talent, we are leaning toward this solution: the dodge bonus only applies against the creature you sneak attacked, and the dodge bonus does not stack with itself. This prevents you from getting a dodge bonus to AC against a strong creature by sneak attacking a weak creature, and prevents you from reaching an absurdly high AC by sneak attacking multiple times in the same round."
it will be a cold day in hell before I play a cRogue in PFS.I played a halfling chained rogue in PFS, and had a ball. Never took Offensive Defense. Didn't dip a dex-rage class either.
So have a nice day, but don't expect me to take you serious ever again.
<pinches brim of tricorn>
"And a good day to you also, Sir!"
To the OP to sum up, sure get TWF. Dont invest in the whole feat tree unless you've got some major ways to stack flank bonuses.
Cavall's correct. (An ITWF attack will be the fourth or fifth (after Haste) one in an attack sequence, and ideally most successfully full-attacked opponents will be dead before it is needed. The feat thus has very low utility compared to initial TWF.)
If you don't intend to take ITWF, then some Brawler into your martial stack will provide a huge pile of front-loaded goodies. Just two levels grant you:
* d10 hit-dice (+3hp in PFS if Brawler at 1st) and +3 fort-save (rogues everywhere rejoice!)
* Improved Unarmed Strike
* proficiency in "close" fighter-group weapons (why, hello there, waveblade)
* Brawler's Flurry is better than TWF because you can make your attacks with the same weapon, and do full attribute-bonus damage will all attacks.
* proficiency in shields (alleviating the non-prof'd rogue of the minor expense of making a shield mithral for 0 ACP). This means you can flurry with your weapon in one hand while keeping a heavy shield in the other.
* combat feat at 2nd
* Martial Flexibility = any other combat feat as a roving opportunity
* If brawler2/rogue4, you'll be BAB5 at 6th, meaning that at 7th you can dip any other full-BAB class to take BAB6-required feat(s) in the slot(s), then continue on in rogue thereafter.
Brawler's Flurry is better than TWF because you can make your attacks with the same weapon, and do full attribute-bonus damage will all attacks.You can Brawler's Flurry with a 2 handed Weapon like the Sansetsukon, and get +1.5 Damage for a 2 handed weapon!
Not out-of-box they can't, at least not without additional widget investment. (Brawlers do not receive 1.5x str when two-handing in a flurry. Also, while the Sansetsukon is a flurry-applicable weapon, the brawler is not proficient in it. Since brawlers are not proficient in martial weapons, an opalescent white pyramid ioun won't get it for them either; they'll need full-blown EWP or some other means.)