I was reading Iluzry's guide to the Slayer where he suggests taking one level of Alchemist (Vivisectionist) to increase the Slayer's sneak attack damage to equal a Rogue's of the same character level.
The archetype's class feature in question is-
"Sneak Attack
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)."
I bolded part of of the text as it is important. I agree with Iluzry that this is a good idea and also that this isn't the clearest worded rule Paizo ever produced.
What the RAW is, in my opinion, is that if you add a level of Vivisectionist to any class that gives you sneak attack equal to a Rogue of the same level. So a Slayer, which will normally top out at 6d6 at level 20 would be increased to 10d6 as a level 19 slayer/ Level 1 Alchemist. 4d6 more sneak attack damage for a one level dip? Sign me up.
Then my genius [I am joking] started working on Iluzry's idea and came up with a better one: adding a one level Vivisectionist dip to a Nature Fang Druid, which only ever gets 1d6 sneak attack. This nets you +9d6 by level 20 at the cost of a one level dip. This is precisely 225% as good as the dip for the Slayer.
My genius continued to work, suggesting combining the idea with the Ratfolk's swarming-
"Offense Racial Traits
Swarming: Ratfolk are used to living and fighting communally, and are adept at swarming foes for their own gain and their foes’ detriment. Up to two ratfolk can share the same square at the same time. If two ratfolk in the same square attack the same foe, they are considered to be flanking that foe as if they were in two opposite squares."
This is a very efficient way of two Ratfolk who both have sneak attack to be able to get the extra damage most of the time.
I am interested in others ideas on possible uses of a Vivisectionist dip. Particularly with Ratfolk.
Oh boy, this again. There have been long and bitter disputes about this idea, I won't rehash them but if you are curious you can find them.
Spoiler, basicly no one agrees with that guide writer.
I see what you mean. Long does not cover it, interminable is a better word.
Certainly the majority view is Iluzry is wrong. The majority view is certainly more balanced and is what the rule should have said. But it does not say that.
Even if the majority view is accepted and Vivisectionist shenanigans are ruled out, having an even number of Ratfolk with sneak attack is a very efficient way to do a lot of damage.
Thanks I grok do u.
Scurrying Swarmer is an amazing trait. And it certainly makes sneaky stabby Ratfolk amazing.
But having 2 Ratfolk with sneak attack beating down on an enemy will still be doing more damage than one. And you economise on a feat.
I know there are lots of creatures immune to precision damage. But most are not.
Outflank would be a great addition to this glorious mess as well.
PFS is mostly dead and I don’t know a regular GM who would allow that interpretation of Vivisectionist. So this just comes down to some sort of theory crafting. Which can be fun but not very practical.
Hello Melkiador, and how are you?
I too would not allow vivisectionist to operate as it is written. It isn't an interpretation it is a house rule.
What caused the PFS to [nearly] die? I know that is what happened but don't know why.
|
Hello Melkiador, and how are you?
I too would not allow vivisectionist to operate as it is written. It isn't an interpretation it is a house rule.
What caused the PFS to [nearly] die? I know that is what happened but don't know why.
This whole edition hasn't had support in about 8 years. PFS moved on to the next edition, which is mostly threw it's lifespan.
I know that.
So PFS only refers to PF 1st ed?
In the context of the 1st Edition forum, we usually assume you are talking about the 1st edition iterations of things. While you probably could still find 1st edition PFS, it would be difficult. And PFS is what led to so much of the player base going RAW over RAI in their readings.
Makes sense.
I was a bit worried I had killed off the PFS myself. About 15 years ago I was at the same venue as a PFS session and pointed out the path near the venue. Logically this rendered the PFS redundant and it should have been disbanded.
|
Oh boy, this again. There have been long and bitter disputes about this idea, I won't rehash them but if you are curious you can find them.
Spoiler, basicly no one agrees with that guide writer.
That writer's guides would not be my first (or second, etc.) choice for any class. He spent a huge amount effort, even soliciting advice from others, on ways to twist the rules language to get moar powr! Didn't have much focus on balance, uniqueness, or fun.
As for the specifics of the vivisectionist ability, the silliest thing is that it was written in a way to prevent exploitation but still give players something nice. Instead of taking the "W" people tried to exploit further.
However it became apparent that using language of "If class X gets a sneak attack bonus from another source, the bonuses on damage stack" was exploitable. Especially with Prestige Classes as a rogue 5/Assassin 1/Red Mantis Assassin 1/Master Spy 1 (for example) would be rocking 6d6 sneak attack despite having only 8 character levels.
So the vivisectionist language is basically "We're going to be nice and let you stack them, but only up to the progression rate as if you were a full rogue." No having your rogue take a 1-level dip in vivisectionist for a flat 1d6 increase.
But rules lawyers going to lawyer...
Belafon I agree on some things and not on others.
I can't comment on whether Iluzry is an obsessive power gamer or not. I would have to go re-read his guide with that in mind.
I too would not allow vivisectionist to operate as it is written. It isn't an interpretation it is a house rule.
Now I am literally a rules lawyer in that I have a Law degree with honors and used to be a solicitor. And a big part of what you learn is how to properly interpret what is written. I also studied a lot of philosophy which requires and develops the same skills.
The piece of rules in question reads-
"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."
That is entirely lacking in ambiguity. Both a Slayer and a Nature Fang are other classes that give sneak attack. Now it is true that this is over powered with regard to Slayers and insanely so in the case of Nature Fang. It seems near certain whoever wrote the rule didn't realise this and the RAI would read-
"If a character already has sneak attack from another class which gives sneak attack which progresses at exactly the same rate as a rogue the levels from the classes that grant sneak attack stack to determine the effective rogue level for the sneak attack’s extra damage dice."
I added the section of text in bold type to change what the rules say to what the majority thinks the rules say.
But they do not say the same thing and there is no question that they do. Iluzry isn't twisting words he can just read.
What is wrong with the majority interpretation is obscured by this example. Here it is practically certain that whoever wrote the offending section of rules made a mistake the results are clearly totally unbalanced.
So the RAW and RAI obviously differ.
But generally, when do you actually know what whoever wrote the rules intended? Remember this is almost always someone you never met. When the design team make this public and you know it really is the design team and what they said.
If the RAI are not known it is just something said by someone that at best seems reasonable to them. Or allows them to to win an argument or allows their character to do what they want it to do.
It is always possible to say the RAI is [anything] therefore the rules are [anything].
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to point out that Vivisectionist was published in Ultimate Magic back in May, 2011: At the time, there probably weren't any classes/archetypes with a 'slower advancement' version of Sneak Attack*, so this feature would have been just fine at that point.
Also, the PFS ban was more likely due to the flavor of this archetype than any mechanical issue (the Slayer in particular wouldn't be published for another three years). Organized Play Campaigns are primarily a sales/recruitment tool (no one is going to buy a game if there is no one to play it with) and parents might be reluctant to let their kids join if they will be sitting next to someone who cuts open living creatures to see how they work...**
You also have to remember that Pathfinder, especially the early stuff, is not meant to be read as a legal document. It did head in that direction over time, again mostly fueled by PFS arguments. But you were originally intended to play the game under reasonable interpretations of your friendly GM. The rules were not intended to be read in an adversarial manner.
But honestly, most of these cases aren’t that OP. The slayer gets those extra dice slowly but steadily through his career where the difference in interpretations should barely be noticeable in average damage per round. The nature fang would be the worst because they only ever get the single 1d6.