PDA

View Full Version : The Most Sneak Attack Dice?



gallagher
2010-06-19, 07:32 PM
is there a build out there that has an obscenely high amount of sneak attack (or other precision attack) die? i saw a thread with "fist-full of d6s" and i wonder if that is accurate.

i am thinking of having a hilariously low damage weapon that does massive amounts of damage based on a sneak attack.

Greenish
2010-06-19, 07:33 PM
Unseen Seer with Assassin's Stance and persisted Hunter's Eye has quite a few.

Myou
2010-06-19, 07:41 PM
Factotum can get 65d6.

Pink
2010-06-19, 07:43 PM
Factotum can get 65d6.

bwuh?

I know I'm going to regret this but....Are you sure a straight factotum can get 65d6 in sneak attack? I thought, RAW, they could only get 1d6 a turn through their ability.

Greenish
2010-06-19, 07:44 PM
Factotum can get 65d6.91d6. Elf with Dark Chaos Shuffle. That is, if Cunning Strike stacks, some claim it doesn't.

Myou
2010-06-19, 07:47 PM
bwuh?

I know I'm going to regret this but....Are you sure a straight factotum can get 65d6 in sneak attack? I thought, RAW, they could only get 1d6 a turn through their ability.


91d6. Elf with Dark Chaos Shuffle. That is, if Cunning Strike stacks, some claim it doesn't.

By RAW it doesn't - I was the one who brought this up before. :smallamused:

But by all reasonable RAI it does.
And I assume the 91d6 is by shufflnig racial proficiencies? I don't exactly see how that can be justified though. :smallconfused:

ZeroNumerous
2010-06-19, 07:49 PM
And I assume the 91d6 is by shufflnig racial proficiencies? I don't exactly see how that can be justified though. :smallconfused:

Embrace/Shun the Dark Chaos changes feats into other feats. It doesn't care where the feats came from, and thus converts racial proficiencies as well.

Greenish
2010-06-19, 07:50 PM
And I assume the 91d6 is by shufflnig racial proficiencies? I don't exactly see how that can be justified though. :smallconfused:Justified?

This. Is. RAW!

Pink
2010-06-19, 07:50 PM
Embrace/Shun the Dark Chaos changes feats into other feats. It doesn't care where the feats came from, and thus converts racial proficiencies as well.

...I think I'm gonna be sick...

Myou
2010-06-19, 07:53 PM
Embrace/Shun the Dark Chaos changes feats into other feats. It doesn't care where the feats came from, and thus converts racial proficiencies as well.

I didn't say I didn't understand it. I said you can't justify it. A proficiency isn't a feat. It doesn't say you get a feat, it says you're proficient.


Justified?

This. Is. RAW!

No, it isn't, as far as I know it's wishful thinking. :smalltongue:

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-19, 07:54 PM
Justified?

This. Is. RAW!Unfortunately it seems like Cunning Strike only works via RAI, so we're out of luck. I recall a previous thread discussing pumping caster level on a casting of Hunter's Eye as its main trick.

ZeroNumerous
2010-06-19, 07:54 PM
I didn't say I didn't understand it. I said you can't justify it. A proficiency isn't a feat. It doesn't say you get a feat, it says you're proficient.


Weapon Proficiency: Elves receive the Martial Weapon Proficiency feats for the longsword, rapier, longbow (including composite longbow), and shortbow (including composite shortbow) as bonus feats.

Except it does say you gain those feats.

EDIT:


Unfortunately it seems like Cunning Strike only works via RAI, so we're out of luck. I recall a previous thread discussing pumping caster level on a casting of Hunter's Eye as its main trick.

CL boosts to 30, cast Greater Consumptive Field for +60 more CL and cast Hunter's Eye for +90d6 sneak.

An intelligent item of Greater Consumptive Field and Hunter's Eye could, theoretically, combine both for 181d6 Sneak.

Pink
2010-06-19, 07:55 PM
Except...it is justified...

"Weapon Proficiency: Elves receive the Martial Weapon Proficiency feats for the longsword, rapier, longbow (including composite longbow), and shortbow (including composite shortbow) as bonus feats."

Dusk Eclipse
2010-06-19, 07:55 PM
Plzbrkmycmpng (did I spell that right?) had a build with obsene amount of SA dice... I think he had showed tha particular build in a thread similar like this. I will try to find it.

Greenish
2010-06-19, 07:56 PM
By RAW it doesn't - I was the one who brought this up before. :smallamused:Sneak Attack dice stack. Cunning Strike is a non-action. So, while you only get 1d6 SA per Cunning Strike, nothing stops you from using it n times per attack.

Myou
2010-06-19, 07:57 PM
Except it does say you gain those feats.

EDIT:



CL boosts to 30, cast Greater Consumptive Field for +60 more CL and cast Hunter's Eye for +90d6 sneak.

An intelligent item of Greater Consumptive Field and Hunter's Eye could, theoretically, combine both for 181d6 Sneak.

Well I'll be....

I should have checked that really. :smalltongue:

gallagher
2010-06-19, 08:02 PM
Except it does say you gain those feats.

EDIT:



CL boosts to 30, cast Greater Consumptive Field for +60 more CL and cast Hunter's Eye for +90d6 sneak.

An intelligent item of Greater Consumptive Field and Hunter's Eye could, theoretically, combine both for 181d6 Sneak.

what level would one be able to dish out such delicious sneak attacks???

Myou
2010-06-19, 08:03 PM
Sneak Attack dice stack. Cunning Strike is a non-action. So, while you only get 1d6 SA per Cunning Strike, nothing stops you from using it n times per attack.

I'm AFB, but it was generally agreed that by RAW it doesn't stack.

Greenish
2010-06-19, 08:06 PM
I'm AFB, but it was generally agreed that by RAW it doesn't stack.I'd like to know why not.

ZeroNumerous
2010-06-19, 08:10 PM
what level would one be able to dish out such delicious sneak attacks???

Theoretically, 20th. As Greenish pointed out, you simply need to replace all your feats with Font of Inspiration for 91 Inspiration points and use an intelligent weapon capable of casting Greater Consumptive Field and Hunter's Eye. Though that starts to get into a gray area of "If my weapon has sneak attack dice, does it count when attacking?"

Curmudgeon
2010-06-19, 08:10 PM
Sneak Attack dice stack. Cunning Strike is a non-action. So, while you only get 1d6 SA per Cunning Strike, nothing stops you from using it n times per attack.
Nothing except the basic stacking rule, that is.
Stacking

In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). You get 1d6 from Cunning Strike. After that, each use gives you the same 1d6, without stacking, because it's the same source (Cunning Strike) each time.

Greenish
2010-06-19, 08:12 PM
Nothing except the basic stacking rule, that is. You get 1d6 from Cunning Strike. After that, each use gives you the same 1d6, without stacking, because it's the same source (Cunning Strike) each time.But the SA dice aren't modifiers to a roll (or are they?).

[Edit]:
Theoretically, 20th. As Greenish pointed out, you simply need to replace all your feats with Font of Inspiration for 91 Inspiration pointsWorth noting that you can't take more Fonts of Inspiration than your Int modifier (so better take an elven subrace with Int bonus).

PId6
2010-06-19, 08:14 PM
Rogue 3/Ninja 1/Spellthief 1/SA Fighter 3/Scout 1/Psychic Rogue 1/Assassin 1/Avenger 1/Guild Thief 1/Invisible Blade 1/Shadow Thief of Amn 1/Master of Masks 1/Unseen Seer 1/Nightsong Enforcer 1/Psychic Assassin 1/Dread Commando 1

Take Martial Study and Martial Stance for Assassin's Stance.

This build has:

17d6 Sneak Attack
2d6 Sudden Strike
1d6 Skirmish

I'm sure it can be improved (even ignoring Hunter's Eye/Cunning Strike).

Curmudgeon
2010-06-19, 08:14 PM
But the SA dice aren't modifiers to a roll (or are they?).
Absolutely: they modify your damage roll.

Pink
2010-06-19, 08:14 PM
But the SA dice aren't modifiers to a roll (or are they?).

Wouldn't they be a modifier to a damage roll? Can't do sneak attack if you aren't already doing base damage of some sort, right?

Frog Dragon
2010-06-19, 08:15 PM
bwuh?

I know I'm going to regret this but....Are you sure a straight factotum can get 65d6 in sneak attack? I thought, RAW, they could only get 1d6 a turn through their ability.
Sage disagrees. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070412a) Whatever worth Sage is, but that should sort out what is the.. expected way of playing. (Also known as Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove Me Wrong Nyah!) So by RAIITAYCPMWN factotums can do that. I suspect getting the necessary amount of inspiration points relies on taking Font of Inspiration over 9000 times.
On how to get that SA pumped. Taking 1-3 level dips of SA granting classes and nabbing swordsage at level 9 to get assassin's stance (+2d6 Sneak Attack) should prove pretty good for this.
Edit: Mega-swordsage'd

Myou
2010-06-19, 08:15 PM
But the SA dice aren't modifiers to a roll (or are they?).

It applies to bonuses and abilities of any kind. You can't put the same enhancement on a weapon twice either. (eg, flaming)

Greenish
2010-06-19, 08:16 PM
Absolutely: they modify your damage roll.Ah, right, so much for that then.

[Edit]:
I suspect getting the necessary amount of inspiration points relies on taking Font of Inspiration over 9000 times.FoI has… whatever that's opposite of diminishing returns. 13 feats is enough for 91 points of inspiration from Fonts, and then of course as a factotum 20 you've got 10 already.

Oh, and then you can get 15 levels or rogue SA with Cunning Brilliance.

ZeroNumerous
2010-06-19, 08:16 PM
It applies to bonuses and abilities of any kind. You can't put the same enhancement on a weapon twice either. (eg, flaming)

Technically you could, it'd just be eating an extra +1 for no actual benefit.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-19, 08:18 PM
Sage disagrees. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070412a)
The FAQ is worth exactly what you pay for it.

(Actually, I kid. For me, it's worth quite a lot because the questions make me think through the rules. And sometimes I read the answers there, too. :smallamused:)

Myou
2010-06-19, 08:24 PM
Technically you could, it'd just be eating an extra +1 for no actual benefit.

You know what I mean. XD


And nice thought, Greenish, so that's 116d6.

But you can swap out factotum levels for other classes that give sneak attack, for example, you can dip swordsage for 1 level at 20th to add that 2d6.
I don;t know any other ways to get more than 1d6 for one class level though.

Still, that;s 117d6, right?

Then there are a few items that add a few d6.

Pink
2010-06-19, 08:27 PM
Again, maybe this is something that was figured out somewhere else, but aren't you not allowed to dip in swordsage for assassin's stance because the first stance you take needs to be 1st level RAW?

...I'll just stop and watch from the corner now.

Greenish
2010-06-19, 08:27 PM
You know what I mean. XD


And nice thought, Greenish, so that's 116d6.

But you can swap out factotum levels for other classes that give sneak attack, for example, you can dip swordsage for 1 level at 20th to add that 2d6.
I don;t know any other ways to get more than 1d6 for one class level though.

Still, that;s 117d6, right?

Then there are a few items that add a few d6.Cunning Brilliance eats 4 inspiration points, and you lose two if you don't take Factotum 20.

Myou
2010-06-19, 08:31 PM
Cunning Brilliance eats 4 inspiration points, and you lose two if you don't take Factotum 20.

Ack, I forgot that level 20 gives 2 IP instead of 1. And about the activation cost for brilliance.

Oh well, so 112d6 before items then?

Frog Dragon
2010-06-19, 08:34 PM
Again, maybe this is something that was figured out somewhere else, but aren't you not allowed to dip in swordsage for assassin's stance because the first stance you take needs to be 1st level RAW?

...I'll just stop and watch from the corner now.
Ewf. Two levels then.

ZeroNumerous
2010-06-19, 08:35 PM
Again, maybe this is something that was figured out somewhere else, but aren't you not allowed to dip in swordsage for assassin's stance because the first stance you take needs to be 1st level RAW?

By strict RAW, multiclassing into Swordsage does not even give a stance, as the quote involves the phrase "You begin play ...".

Myou
2010-06-19, 08:40 PM
By strict RAW, multiclassing into Swordsage does not even give a stance, as the quote involves the phrase "You begin play ...".

Wow, I never knew that. WoTC really should have taken more care writing this stuff. :smallsigh:

Ravens_cry
2010-06-19, 08:55 PM
Wow, I never knew that. WoTC really should have taken more care writing this stuff. :smallsigh:

Or people should stop reading the books like litigation loving legalistic lawyers looking for a loophole.

Greenish
2010-06-19, 08:57 PM
Or people should stop reading the books like litigation loving legalistic lawyers looking for a loophole.Awesome alliteration, but theoretical rules-lawyering is fun. :smallcool:

ZeroNumerous
2010-06-19, 08:59 PM
Or people should stop reading the books like litigation loving legalistic lawyers looking for a loophole.

Agreed. That's why I allow Swordsage dips to get stances above 1st level.

Ravens_cry
2010-06-19, 09:02 PM
Awesome alliteration, but theoretical rules-lawyering is fun. :smallcool:
Awesome alliteration aside, yes, it can be fun, as long as you keep it theoretical. It's when you bring it to the table it gets stupid, like the kid who tried to play Pun-Pun in an actual game.

Pink
2010-06-19, 09:04 PM
Awesome alliteration aside, yes, it can be fun, as long as you keep it theoretical. It's when you bring it to the table it gets stupid, like the kid who tried to play Pun-Pun in an actual game.

Personally I've always wanted to try that. Not so much for the god-like powers and sneaking it into the game, but just seeing the look on my DM's face and how he reacts. It would be fun to see him ask for the character sheet and burn it or something.

Greenish
2010-06-19, 09:05 PM
It's when you bring it to the table it gets stupid, like the kid who tried to play Pun-Pun in an actual game.Is this a hypothetical "kid" or a real example? :smalleek:

ZeroNumerous
2010-06-19, 09:15 PM
Is this a hypothetical "kid" or a real example? :smalleek:

You think someone wouldn't try to play Pun-Pun, despite everyone else saying "Don't do this!"?

Greenish
2010-06-19, 09:18 PM
You think someone wouldn't try to play Pun-Pun, despite everyone else saying "Don't do this!"?It seems to defeat the point of going out to play with other people.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-19, 09:49 PM
By strict RAW, multiclassing into Swordsage does not even give a stance, as the quote involves the phrase "You begin play ...".
No, it gives a 1st-level stance whenever you begin being play as a Swordsage -- regardless of how many other previous levels you get. It's the same way you begin play as a Wizard with a spellbook -- again, without regard to previous class levels.

Ravens_cry
2010-06-19, 10:13 PM
Is this a hypothetical "kid" or a real example? :smalleek:
It was in a thread about horror stories about players. Unfortunately, I can' t find it now. But unless my memory is faulty or they were lying, yes, it's real.

Pink
2010-06-19, 10:16 PM
Yes, I think I recall that post as well. I think the kid was using an older build of punpun or something. definitely a kobold though, as punpun must be :P

ZeroNumerous
2010-06-19, 10:43 PM
No, it gives a 1st-level stance whenever you begin being play as a Swordsage -- regardless of how many other previous levels you get. It's the same way you begin play as a Wizard with a spellbook -- again, without regard to previous class levels.

Except, again, a strict RAW reading is that you must "begin play" to gain these benefits. By strict RAW, you gain a spellbook everytime you "begin play".

Anything else is RAI, and not subject to RAW. :smalltongue:

Gadora
2010-06-19, 10:50 PM
Except, again, a strict RAW reading is that you must "begin play" to gain these benefits. By strict RAW, you gain a spellbook everytime you "begin play".

Anything else is RAI, and not subject to RAW. :smalltongue:

So you're saying a wizard gains a free spellbook at the start of every session?:smalltongue:

Curmudgeon
2010-06-19, 11:12 PM
Except, again, a strict RAW reading is that you must "begin play" to gain these benefits. By strict RAW, you gain a spellbook everytime you "begin play".
I think the RAW disagrees with you. You "begin play" only once per class.

Both the Wizard's spellbook and Swordsage's 1st-level stance are discussed under the Class Features sections of their classes; this is where the "begin play" lines are in each case. The "Level Advancement" steps on pages 58-59 of Player's Handbook dictates how you add your character's capabilities at each level. Step 9. Class Features is the last step:
9. Class Features: Check your character’s class description in this chapter for any new capabilities your character may receive. Many characters gain special attacks or new special powers as they advance in levels. Your Wizard's spellbook, or Swordsage's 1st-level stance, are only new once: the first time you enter the class.

Referring to the "begin play" instructions other than when specified by the Player's Handbook rules isn't the RAW; it's failing to understand the RAW.

Ravens_cry
2010-06-19, 11:28 PM
Yes, I think I recall that post as well. I think the kid was using an older build of punpun or something. definitely a kobold though, as punpun must be :P
If I remember correctly, they were using the 6th level version and had the gall to be mad when their DM clued in and smote them mightily. The gall I say!

ZeroNumerous
2010-06-19, 11:29 PM
I think the RAW disagrees with you. You "begin play" only once per class.

Au contraire my friend, as you yourself pointed out that pertains only to Level Advancement, not to multiclassing. So if our hypothetical Wizard is a Swordsage/Wizard, then his "begin play" phrase would be adjudicated as per what multiclassing has to say about Class Features.


Class Features: A multiclass character gets all the class features
of all his or her classes but must also suffer the consequences of the
special restrictions of all his or her classes. (Exception: A character
who acquires the barbarian class does not become illiterate.) Some
class features don’t work well with the skills or class features of
other classes. For example, although rogues are proficient with light
armor, a rogue/wizard still has an arcane spell failure chance if
wearing armor.

Bolding mine. So, once again, strict RAW that ignores any common sense dictates that our hypothetical Swordsage/Wizard gains a spellbook everytime play begins.


So you're saying a wizard gains a free spellbook at the start of every session?:smalltongue:

If you can dunk your head underwater to heal yourself then I don't see why not. :smalltongue:

Curmudgeon
2010-06-19, 11:56 PM
Au contraire my friend, as you yourself pointed out that pertains only to Level Advancement, not to multiclassing.
What? That's nonsense. From Player's Handbook, page 58:
LEVEL ADVANCEMENT

When your character attains a new level, make these changes.

1. Choose Class: A typical character has only one class, and when he or she attains a new level, it is a new level in that class. If your character has more than one class or wants to acquire a new class, you choose which class goes up one level. The other class or classes stay at the previous level. (See Multiclass Characters, page 59.) It's always good to read the rules before claiming what they do or don't pertain to. :smallwink:

Ravens_cry
2010-06-20, 12:08 AM
Now this is probably rather harsh, but in the opinion this roleplayer, one of the few things that are worse then an anal retentive rules lawyer is an unskilled anal retentive rules lawyer.:smallannoyed:

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2010-06-20, 01:26 AM
not gonna quote that grossness. Curmudgeon is quite skilled. His arguments are 99% spot-on.

I also proclaim the OPs topic dead. Check the sig's shao khan moment

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 01:32 AM
CL boosts to 30, cast Greater Consumptive Field for +60 more CL and cast Hunter's Eye for +90d6 sneak.
There's a failure to read both spells carefully here.
Additionally, your effective caster level increases by one per death caused by this spell, to a maximum increase of half your original caster level, improving spell effects that are dependent on caster level. That's half, not double. If you can get your CL up to 30 first (and I'm not sure how reasonable that number is), Greater Consumptive Field will boost it to 45, not 90.

This spell grants you the sneak attack ability. You deal an extra 1d6 points of damage per three caster levels.
45 caster levels will add +15d6.

Only off by a factor of 6. :smallsigh:

Ravens_cry
2010-06-20, 01:35 AM
not gonna quote that grossness. Crumudgeon is quite skilled. His arguments are 99% spot-on.

I also proclaim the OPs topic dead. Check the sig's shao khan moment
Curmudgeon is indeed skilled, and wasn't who I was referring too, but I still wouldn't want to play with them.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-20, 01:39 AM
What book are embrace/shun the dark chaos from?

PId6
2010-06-20, 01:42 AM
What book are embrace/shun the dark chaos from?
Fiendish Codex I

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 01:54 AM
The Dark Chaos Shuffle will set you back 4,900 gp per feat traded, so it's not exactly cheap. But it is the only way you can trade feats that you didn't select. I've used it for Ranger characters to swap Track and Endurance for better choices. (I've never gone as far as swapping Elf racial weapon proficiencies, though; my cheese tolerance isn't that high.)

candycorn
2010-06-20, 09:30 AM
Um, so people are saying that sneak attack is a damage bonus because it's a bonus to a roll?

...I thought that it wasn't a bonus to a roll. I thought that 1d6 damage was a roll in its own right.

Pink
2010-06-20, 10:25 AM
It's a variable bonus, yes, but it's a bonus nonetheless. I think that anything that can't be delivered without a base would be considered a bonus no? It's not like you can sneak without a weapon damage roll or a spell damage roll.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-06-20, 10:41 AM
I can't remember the exact logic behind bonus sneak attack dice stacking from Factotum shenanigans, but I think it works under the same - or at least similar - principle that allows multiple Dragon Fire Inspiration bards to rock out together to stack.

My two cents as I'm away from book at the moment.

candycorn
2010-06-20, 10:42 AM
But it's still a roll. If modifiers are bonuses and penalties applied to rolls, then it stands to reason that things that are rolls in their own right are not modifiers.

Rothen
2010-06-20, 10:55 AM
I don't have the factotum ability ready here, but it probably talks about -extra damage- and not a bonus.

Unnamed bonuses stack with everything but themselves, so if SA dice were a bonus to damage rolls, then only the highest SA bonus would stack.

However, SA dice are not bonuses, but extra damage. This can be stacked as many times as you want.

This post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2252831) about the mechanics of Arcane Strike is a good example.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 11:46 AM
I don't have the factotum ability ready here, but it probably talks about -extra damage- and not a bonus.

Unnamed bonuses stack with everything but themselves, so if SA dice were a bonus to damage rolls, then only the highest SA bonus would stack.

However, SA dice are not bonuses, but extra damage. This can be stacked as many times as you want. Bonus is a defined term in D&D, and your "extra damage" meets that definition: a positive modifier to your damage roll.

bonus

A positive modifier to a die roll. In most cases, multiple bonuses from the same source or of the same type in effect on the same character or object do not stack; only the highest bonus of that type applies. Bonuses that don't have a specific type always stack with all bonuses. The Rogue class lists progressively larger sneak attack bonuses every odd level, and not just +1d6. So even within that class sneak attack doesn't stack with itself, but rather a new, higher number replaces the older one each time.

Other classes are written to deal with the rule, and also explicitly state that sneak attack is a bonus.
Sneak Attack: This is exactly like the rogue ability of the same name. The extra damage dealt increases by +1d6 every other level (2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th). If an arcane trickster gets a sneak attack bonus from another source the bonuses on damage stack.
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.
Sneak Attack: This ability, gained at 4th level, is like the rogue ability of the same name. The extra damage increases by +1d6 every third level beyond 4th (7th and 10th). If a blackguard gets a sneak attack bonus from another source the bonuses on damage stack.
If a dark hunter gets a sneak attack bonus from another source (such as rogue levels), the extra damage stacks. As it's written the Factotum's sneak attack bonus from Cunning Strike doesn't stack with any other sneak attack bonus, including itself.

candycorn
2010-06-20, 12:01 PM
Modifier is also defined, Curmudgeon.


The modifier is the number you apply to the die roll when
your character tries to do something related to that ability.

1d6 is not a number. It is a variable.

Since a bonus has to be a modifier, and a variable cannot be a modifier, then any roll cannot be a modifier.

Since sneak attack is a roll, it cannot be a modifier, and cannot be a bonus.

None of those abilities say that they are a bonus. They talk about other bonuses. Since those abilities do not meet the definition of a bonus (a positive modifier applied to a roll), and are not stated to be a bonus (such as Gloves of Dexterity providing a Bonus to Dexterity), then it cannot be a bonus.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 12:26 PM
None of those abilities say that they are a bonus. They talk about other bonuses.
I suggest you read my previous post more carefully. In most of those quotes (Arcane Trickster, Assassin, Blackguard) the rules refer to a "sneak attack bonus" from another class and all the bonuses to damage stacking. What other bonuses to damage besides sneak attack would they be talking about under the heading of Sneak Attack in each class? In the case of Dark Hunter they refer to the sneak attack bonus stacking with the "extra damage" under the Sneak Attack heading.

Edit:

Modifier is also defined, Curmudgeon.
The modifier is the number you apply ...1d6 is not a number. It is a variable. You took that out of context. The quote you gave is from page 7 of the Player's Handbook, and refers only to ability modifiers. That's rather deceitful when we're discussing damage modifiers. Here's the real rules definition of the term.

modifier

Any bonus or penalty applying to a die roll. A positive modifier is a bonus, and a negative modifier is a penalty. Modifiers from the same source do not stack, and modifiers with specific descriptors generally do not stack with others of the same type. If more than one modifier of a type is present, only the best bonus or worst penalty in that grouping applies. Bonuses or penalties that do not have descriptors stack with those that do. You'll note there's no language that would exclude a bonus expressed in dice from being a modifier to damage.

candycorn
2010-06-20, 03:57 PM
I suggest you read my previous post more carefully. In most of those quotes (Arcane Trickster, Assassin, Blackguard) the rules refer to a "sneak attack bonus" from another class and all the bonuses to damage stacking. What other bonuses to damage besides sneak attack would they be talking about under the heading of Sneak Attack in each class? In the case of Dark Hunter they refer to the sneak attack bonus stacking with the "extra damage" under the Sneak Attack heading.

Edit:
You took that out of context. The quote you gave is from page 7 of the Player's Handbook, and refers only to ability modifiers. That's rather deceitful when we're discussing damage modifiers. Here's the real rules definition of the term.
You'll note there's no language that would exclude a bonus expressed in dice from being a modifier to damage.
Yes, there is. Anything expressed in dice isn't something applied to a roll. It's something that is a roll.

It's hard to be a part of something when you are the whole of something. What you are saying is like saying a whole cake is a slice of cake.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 04:13 PM
Yes, there is. Anything expressed in dice isn't something applied to a roll. It's something that is a roll.
It is a roll, and it also modifies another roll. This use is entirely consistent with the D&D definitions of "bonus" and "modifier".

You may not like how the terms are used, but those are the actual rules for the game.

candycorn
2010-06-20, 04:36 PM
So, then, you're saying that they do not stack, and they overlap?

Would that mean (in your opinion) that if you spent more than one inspiration point, you would roll multiple dice, and only the best would apply?

More precisely, it says that only the greatest bonus applies, then which is greater?

1d4

1d4+1d6

1d4+2d6

And if you say the third is a greater bonus, then it's easy enough to point out how 1 or two can each be greater, in some cases. That points to the concept that a die is not a bonus, even if the number it rolls is one.

And if the die is not a bonus, there should be no problem with it adding with other die, which are also not bonuses.

Even if what you say is correct, what about a Rogue / Spellthief / Assassin ? The ability says that if you get sneak attack from another source, they stack. It doesn't say anything about multiple sources. So would such a character only benefit from 2d6 sneak attack, because each can only stack with 1 other source?

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 04:48 PM
So, then, you're saying that they do not stack, and they overlap?

Would that mean (in your opinion) that if you spent more than one inspiration point, you would roll multiple dice, and only the best would apply?
No, because the overlap occurs before there are multiple dice to roll. The benefit of Cunning Strike is 1d6 sneak attack. Multiple inspiration points spent on Cunning Strike all give you 1d6 sneak attack, overlapping. You never have more than one die to roll.

candycorn
2010-06-20, 04:49 PM
No, because the overlap occurs before there are multiple dice to roll. The benefit of Cunning Strike is 1d6 sneak attack. Multiple inspiration points spent on Cunning Strike all give you 1d6 sneak attack, overlapping. You never have more than one die to roll.

What's a greater bonus, then between 1d4, 1d6, and 1d8?

Gametime
2010-06-20, 04:51 PM
So, then, you're saying that they do not stack, and they overlap?

Would that mean (in your opinion) that if you spent more than one inspiration point, you would roll multiple dice, and only the best would apply?

More precisely, it says that only the greatest bonus applies, then which is greater?

1d4

1d4+1d6

1d4+2d6

And if you say the third is a greater bonus, then it's easy enough to point out how 1 or two can each be greater, in some cases. That points to the concept that a die is not a bonus, even if the number it rolls is one.



I don't claim to be nearly as good at interpreting the rules as Curmudgeon, but it seems fairly trivial to simply roll the dice to determine which is the highest. :smallconfused:

candycorn
2010-06-20, 04:54 PM
I don't claim to be nearly as good at interpreting the rules as Curmudgeon, but it seems fairly trivial to simply roll the dice to determine which is the highest. :smallconfused:

Then the dice aren't bonuses. Their results are.

If the dice are not bonuses, then anything that gives you dice wouldn't run into stacking issues. They would always add together because it's not a bonus until it's rolled. At that point, it's not a die. It's a number.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 05:22 PM
What's a greater bonus, then between 1d4, 1d6, and 1d8?
I don't know of a case in the rules where this comes up. Cunning Strike is the same source, and provides the same overlapping bonus in each case; it's always 1d6.

If you can give me an actual example maybe I can figure out how the rules apply.

Myou
2010-06-20, 05:27 PM
Then the dice aren't bonuses. Their results are.

If the dice are not bonuses, then anything that gives you dice wouldn't run into stacking issues. They would always add together because it's not a bonus until it's rolled. At that point, it's not a die. It's a number.

The issue to me is that sneak attack is an ability, and just like all other abilities it doesn't stack with itself. See divine grace for example.

Gametime
2010-06-20, 08:55 PM
Then the dice aren't bonuses. Their results are.

If the dice are not bonuses, then anything that gives you dice wouldn't run into stacking issues. They would always add together because it's not a bonus until it's rolled. At that point, it's not a die. It's a number.

...This seems excessively pedantic and utterly unsupported by actual rules text. However, it still doesn't seem to do what you say it is.

Let's assume dice aren't bonuses, their results are. Therefore, the Factotum ability gives you 1d6 sneak attack damage, and then another 1d6 sneak attack damage, and then another 1d6 sneak attack damage, and so on.

Then you roll all that sneak attack damage and only get the highest die anyway because the results don't stack.

Isn't that exactly what I was advocating a few posts back, with a short detour to account for a discrepancy that doesn't exist anywhere except in your own personal rules for this discussion?

candycorn
2010-06-20, 09:57 PM
I don't know of a case in the rules where this comes up. Cunning Strike is the same source, and provides the same overlapping bonus in each case; it's always 1d6.

If you can give me an actual example maybe I can figure out how the rules apply.

Even 1d6 and 1d6 are not the same.

They have the same odds, but they are not the same bonus. My point is that the bonus isn't known until it's rolled.

1d4 can , in some cases, roll higher than 2d6. It's not common, or likely, but that's why it's random. And it's why you cannot resolve equal and greater bonuses for stacking purposes. Because if rolls can be bonuses, then there is no established way to determine which die rolls are greater than others, until they're rolled. At that point, the number becomes the bonus, not the die. A bonus to damage.

Your mind seems made up. That's usually what I see from people who are really confident of how good they are at something. You make up your mind, and that's the way it is, and any other view is wrong.

I haven't been playing long, so I go and read the rules for everything, before I say something about it. You'd be surprised how many people are wrong because they take their own view for granted.

And part of modifiers is "If more than one modifier of a type is present, only the best bonus or worst penalty in that grouping applies."

But you haven't yet informed us how you can determine what the best bonus is in this case, aside from rolling it and finding out.


...This seems excessively pedantic and utterly unsupported by actual rules text. However, it still doesn't seem to do what you say it is.

Let's assume dice aren't bonuses, their results are. Therefore, the Factotum ability gives you 1d6 sneak attack damage, and then another 1d6 sneak attack damage, and then another 1d6 sneak attack damage, and so on.

Then you roll all that sneak attack damage and only get the highest die anyway because the results don't stack.

Isn't that exactly what I was advocating a few posts back, with a short detour to account for a discrepancy that doesn't exist anywhere except in your own personal rules for this discussion?
If dice aren't bonuses, then stacking rules don't apply. The idea of "variable dice can be bonuses" is also unsupported by rules text. If dice aren't bonuses, then 1d6+1d6 = 2d6, because there is no rule that says otherwise.

That means that you spend 5 inspiration and 1d6+1d6+1d6+1d6+1d6=5d6. Why? Because stacking restrictions only apply to bonuses and penalties. And if it's not a bonus or penalty, and you try to treat it as one (as you do in the text I underlined), you're unsupported by rules text.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 10:40 PM
Even 1d6 and 1d6 are not the same.

They have the same odds, but they are not the same bonus. My point is that the bonus isn't known until it's rolled.
OK, let's say that I buy this interpretation. You still have to decide how many inspiration points to spend before making the attack roll, which precedes rolling for damage (including all your overlapping Cunning Strike d6s). So you could miss with the attack, or discover that the target is immune to sneak attack, or roll 5 Cunning Strike dice and get a high roll of 2 for your sneak attack damage.

Does this help?

candycorn
2010-06-20, 10:49 PM
OK, let's say that I buy this interpretation. You still have to decide how many inspiration points to spend before making the attack roll, which precedes rolling for damage (including all your overlapping Cunning Strike d6s). So you could miss with the attack, or discover that the target is immune to sneak attack, or roll 5 Cunning Strike dice and get a high roll of 2 for your sneak attack damage.

Does this help?
Well, firstly, the bolded section is what I call "bad luck". It has nothing to do with the actual point.

And at that point, the bonus isn't "1d6". It's "2".
And if that bonus isn't "1d6", then stacking/overlapping rules do not apply to it.
And if they don't, then the base rule of thumb is "1+1=2"...
or "1d6+1d6=2d6".

If the only way you can determine the bonus is to roll it, then it isn't a bonus until it's rolled. It's a roll. And if, before rolling, you get this ability (which, unlike other sneak attacks, does not refer to itself as a bonus), then it's not a bonus when you get it.

Stacking/Overlap rules cannot even apply.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-20, 10:59 PM
And at that point, the bonus isn't "1d6". It's "2".
And if that bonus isn't "1d6", then stacking/overlapping rules do not apply to it.
I don't follow you there. The source is still Cunning Strike in all cases. The "2" from Cunning Strike is a modifier to your damage roll, and it does not stack with any other modifiers from Cunning Strike.

Gametime
2010-06-20, 11:38 PM
If dice aren't bonuses, then stacking rules don't apply. The idea of "variable dice can be bonuses" is also unsupported by rules text. If dice aren't bonuses, then 1d6+1d6 = 2d6, because there is no rule that says otherwise.



And yet, a few posts ago, you said:


Then the dice aren't bonuses. Their results are.



...which would mean that the dice results could not be added together, because the results are bonuses. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the rules that indicates that pooling dice together means that their results must also be pooled together, and if the results are bonuses (as you said) then they can't stack.

Either dice are bonuses, or the results are bonuses, or neither dice nor their results are added to rolls. There doesn't, to the best of my reasoning, seem to be any other possibility. Since dice (or their results, if we're sticking with the pedantry) are added to rolls, they (or their results) must be bonuses, which means that somewhere along the line stacking can't occur.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that dice aren't bonuses but their results are, but it doesn't matter because the dice are added even though their results shouldn't be. Bwuh?




Your mind seems made up. That's usually what I see from people who are really confident of how good they are at something. You make up your mind, and that's the way it is, and any other view is wrong.

I haven't been playing long, so I go and read the rules for everything, before I say something about it. You'd be surprised how many people are wrong because they take their own view for granted.

Also, this comes off as condescending. I haven't seen a lot of give-or-take from either side of this discussion, so accusing Curmudgeon of being unwilling to re-evaluate his position seems unfair.




If the only way you can determine the bonus is to roll it, then it isn't a bonus until it's rolled. It's a roll. And if, before rolling, you get this ability (which, unlike other sneak attacks, does not refer to itself as a bonus), then it's not a bonus when you get it.


Wait, why does the bonus have to be a known number to be a bonus? Why can't the bonus be a variable, again? :smallconfused:

candycorn
2010-06-21, 07:00 AM
...which would mean that the dice results could not be added together, because the results are bonuses. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the rules that indicates that pooling dice together means that their results must also be pooled together, and if the results are bonuses (as you said) then they can't stack.The dice results cannot be, no.

The dice themselves can be.
1d6+1d6 = 2d6.

At this point, the two dice are rolled, and the result is a single bonus. Just as 1d6 is a random number between 1 and 6... And 1d8+3 is a random number between 4 and 11... 2D6 is a random number between 2 and 12.

So you roll that, and you calculate that random number between two and twelve, and that is your bonus.


Either dice are bonuses, or the results are bonuses, or neither dice nor their results are added to rolls. There doesn't, to the best of my reasoning, seem to be any other possibility. Since dice (or their results, if we're sticking with the pedantry) are added to rolls, they (or their results) must be bonuses, which means that somewhere along the line stacking can't occur.Only if you consider each die to be its own little empire.

How much damage does a greatsword do? Between 2 and 12. That's a single random result, even if two dice are rolled to get it.


If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that dice aren't bonuses but their results are, but it doesn't matter because the dice are added even though their results shouldn't be. Bwuh?
The dice are combined, yes. Because they are not bonuses. Results from dice are. When you roll 2d6, you get a random number between 2 and 12. Just because the method you use to get it is adding two random numbers together doesn't change that. And that random number between 2 and 12 is the bonus. Not the bonuses. At least if you spend 2 inspiration.


Also, this comes off as condescending. I haven't seen a lot of give-or-take from either side of this discussion, so accusing Curmudgeon of being unwilling to re-evaluate his position seems unfair.I don't mean to condescend. I say what I see. Tell me you've never taken something you thought you knew for granted, and been wrong. It happens more to people who are confident enough to speak from memory than people who read the words before they talk. Overconfidence is something that's unique to people with confidence. People who are unsure are much more apt to look at what they're talking about. Every time I talk about this, I read the stuff.

And Rogue doesn't make a single mention of sneak attack being a bonus. Nor does Factotum. In fact, the rogue text goes to great lengths to avoid it. The only things I've seen in the PHB talking about bonuses use them with reference to specific numbers.


Wait, why does the bonus have to be a known number to be a bonus? Why can't the bonus be a variable, again? :smallconfused:
Well for one, you can't determine overlap until it's not a variable. So you can't apply the rules for bonuses for any result which is not known, as long as the possible results could go either way.

5d4 is greater than 1d4. Why? Because every result of 1d4 is less than the lowest result of 5d4.

But 1d4 is neither less nor greater than 1d20. Because until the result is known (until it is no longer a variable), you cannot apply the rules for stacking and overlapping to it. And if the rules cannot apply, outside of a whimsical "1d6 equals 1d6 always" with no rules support, then they don't.

You can argue that assassin calls rogue sneak attack a bonus, and so any sneak attack ability that says it functions like the rogue ability is one also. Just as Gloves of Dexterity +4 give a bonus to Dexterity. It's not a modifier that applies to a roll, but it's still a bonus, because it says it is.

But factotum doesn't say that it functions like the rogue's sneak attack. The only time it talks about the rogue at all is when it talks about getting past uncanny dodge.

So factotum sneak attack isn't called a bonus.
It's not tied to any ability which is called a bonus.
It's arguable that you can even use the overlap rules to explain it, and doing so requires you use opinions that are not laid out by rules.

How is it a bonus again?

Gametime
2010-06-21, 12:05 PM
I don't mean to condescend. I say what I see. Tell me you've never taken something you thought you knew for granted, and been wrong. It happens more to people who are confident enough to speak from memory than people who read the words before they talk. Overconfidence is something that's unique to people with confidence. People who are unsure are much more apt to look at what they're talking about. Every time I talk about this, I read the stuff.

See, I'm sure you aren't meaning to do it, but right here is what I'm talking about. You are making the assertion that the people against whom you are arguing haven't read the rules, without any basis in fact. That sort of thing irks me. Please don't do it. Please do me the favor of assuming that I'm a competent human being, and that my disagreement with you is for some reason other than laziness.


The only things I've seen in the PHB talking about bonuses use them with reference to specific numbers.

The Rules Compendium has this sentence:


If the bonus damage from a precision damage ability is expressed as extra dice of damage, the damage from those dice is never multiplied when the attack receives a damage multiplier (such as from a
critical hit).

You could argue that the use of "bonus" there is colloquial, but it seems pretty clear to me, at least, that the damage is a bonus.


Well for one, you can't determine overlap until it's not a variable. So you can't apply the rules for bonuses for any result which is not known, as long as the possible results could go either way.

So explain to me again why the fact that the overlap isn't known until they're rolled is an issue. Why can't you just roll the dice and then not add them together?


But factotum doesn't say that it functions like the rogue's sneak attack. The only time it talks about the rogue at all is when it talks about getting past uncanny dodge.

So are you arguing that sneak attack works fundamentally differently depending on the class granting it? That's hard to believe, especially since the line about it being a bonus in the assassin class doesn't reference rogues at all.


If an assassin gets a sneak attack bonus from another source (such as rogue levels), the bonuses on damage stack.

It just refers to "sneak attack" as a bonus. Rogue levels are just an example given (unsurprisingly, as the only base class with sneak attack in core).

So, the Rules Compendium calls it a bonus, the assassin class calls it a bonus, and nothing in the rules prohibits it from being treated like a bonus except your insistence that variables can't be bonuses. This is based on the fact that you can't prevent overlap among variables; I contend that you could just roll the dice and apply the highest result, thus achieving consistency with all relevant rules.[/QUOTE]

candycorn
2010-06-21, 12:54 PM
See, I'm sure you aren't meaning to do it, but right here is what I'm talking about. You are making the assertion that the people against whom you are arguing haven't read the rules, without any basis in fact. That sort of thing irks me. Please don't do it. Please do me the favor of assuming that I'm a competent human being, and that my disagreement with you is for some reason other than laziness.
That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that people who have read the rules, time and time again, don't always refer back to them. Do you look at the SRD every time you need to figure out the BAB of a level 5 barbarian? Probably not.
Does that mean you're a lazy person who doesn't read the rules? Not at all.
It means that someone like me, who isn't as familiar with the rules, is going to read them every single time to make sure I don't get anything wrong.

Someone who's been playing for a while, and is more familiar, will take things from memory. And that opens up the chance of mistaking a small detail in the wording.

I am not saying you're lazy. I'm not saying you're not reading things. So please, stop putting those words in my mouth. They're not my words. It's not that I'm not meaning to do it. I'm not doing it at all, and you keep saying I am, and it's getting really frustrating to read you telling me what I am saying. I know what I am saying. You are the one misunderstanding it, and if I was unclear, I apologize, but lecturing me on what I mean is like lecturing Doogie Howser on basic medicine. It's silly.



The Rules Compendium has this sentence:

You could argue that the use of "bonus" there is colloquial, but it seems pretty clear to me, at least, that the damage is a bonus.You could also argue that "bonus damage" only refers to damage that is actually called a bonus. The Factotum's is not.



So explain to me again why the fact that the overlap isn't known until they're rolled is an issue. Why can't you just roll the dice and then not add them together?Because of how overlap works. If the dice are bonuses, and none of them can be said to be greater, less than, or even equal to each other, there is no way to adjudicate which bonus is greatest.

You CANNOT apply the rules for overlap to a bonus which is not defined. Since you cannot apply overlap rules, you are left with 2 choices:
1) Houserule it until you can
2) Accept that a rule that cannot be applied cannot apply in this case.

In which case, it cannot overlap.


So are you arguing that sneak attack works fundamentally differently depending on the class granting it? That's hard to believe, especially since the line about it being a bonus in the assassin class doesn't reference rogues at all.This is exactly what I was talking about above.

DMG, p.180: "If an assassin gets a sneak attack bonus from another source (such as rogue levels), the bonuses on damage stack."

And I am arguing that the abilities which are given by classes function as they are listed in the description of the class that grants them.

For example: Sneak attack accrues at a different rate for rogues than it does for Assassins.
Spellcasting is different based on the class that grants it.

Factotum does not list sneak attack as a bonus, nor does any other class refer to a Factotum's class ability as a bonus, nor does Factotum refer to any class that does list sneak attack as a bonus.

And yet, you say it's a bonus.


It just refers to "sneak attack" as a bonus. Rogue levels are just an example given (unsurprisingly, as the only base class with sneak attack in core).Yes, an example given of another source which provides a sneak attack bonus... Which establishes that a Rogue's sneak attack is a bonus, even if the Rogue class does not.


So, the Rules Compendium calls it a bonus, the assassin class calls it a bonus, and nothing in the rules prohibits it from being treated like a bonus except your insistence that variables can't be bonuses.No. The rules compendium states how you treat sneak attack bonuses. That is not the same as saying all sources of sneak attack are bonuses. All basketballs are round. That doesn't mean that all round things are basketballs.


This is based on the fact that you can't prevent overlap among variables; I contend that you could just roll the dice and apply the highest result, thus achieving consistency with all relevant rules.I contend that if you have to roll the dice, you've already advanced past what the ability does. The ability grants 1d6 sneak attack. Not "4", not "2". Once rolled, it is a specific result, not a class ability. And if you can't seperate it at the class ability level, then it combines before you ever reach the step you talk about.

That's why Curmudgeon stated:
No, because the overlap occurs before there are multiple dice to roll. The benefit of Cunning Strike is 1d6 sneak attack. Multiple inspiration points spent on Cunning Strike all give you 1d6 sneak attack, overlapping. You never have more than one die to roll.
Once you admit that you cannot determine which die is the greater bonus, you have to accept that at the point the overlap occurs (before there are dice to roll), you cannot apply the overlap rule.
....

It's like if I have a Shapechange spell on, and it has 1 round left, and I'm in the form of an undead. You hit me with something that does strength damage, but I'm immune. Strength damage doesn't apply to me, because I'm undead. Now, next round, my effect wears off, and I go back to a human. Does that mean you can apply last round's strength damage to me? No. Because at the time it came up, it couldn't apply.

Gametime
2010-06-21, 05:11 PM
I am not saying you're lazy. I'm not saying you're not reading things. So please, stop putting those words in my mouth. They're not my words.

So if we're in agreement that I am reading the rules, just like you, why am I more likely to make a mistake? :smallconfused:


DMG, p.180: "If an assassin gets a sneak attack bonus from another source (such as rogue levels), the bonuses on damage stack."

And I am arguing that the abilities which are given by classes function as they are listed in the description of the class that grants them.

But the rogue class ability doesn't say that sneak attack is bonus damage. The assassin's class ability does. We have a case of a class ability being defined by another class's reference to it. There's no reason to assume that all instances of sneak attack aren't identical to the rogue's in terms of triggering and immunities; in fact, the rules treat them as such. Rate of acquisition differs, but so does BAB - and that still works the same way across multiple classes. So does Turn Undead level, but that still works the same way when applied.

If you're arguing that the Factotum's ability is distinct from the rogue ability, then I'm not sure what the Factotum's even does since Cunning Strike doesn't say what "sneak attack" is. Our only real reference is the rogue ability, and others like it, which define it. Since these descriptions aren't mutually exclusive, I don't see why we wouldn't use them.


Factotum does not list sneak attack as a bonus, nor does any other class refer to a Factotum's class ability as a bonus, nor does Factotum refer to any class that does list sneak attack as a bonus.

And yet, you say it's a bonus.

It does say it gains "sneak attack" without saying what that is. What is your definition for sneak attack, then?

If it's like the rogue ability, it's a bonus.

If it's not like the rogue ability, what is it? I can't find any other definitions for it.


No. The rules compendium states how you treat sneak attack bonuses. That is not the same as saying all sources of sneak attack are bonuses. All basketballs are round. That doesn't mean that all round things are basketballs.

True, but there's no reason to think that sneak attack works differently across multiple classes (aside from rate of acquisition), especially since the rogue description is the only definition of the ability I could find. Also, that sentence explicitly allows for bonus damage in the form of dice, which negates your main argument against sneak attack being bonus damage.


If the bonus damage from a precision damage ability is expressed as extra dice of damage

So dice can be bonus damage, evidently.


I contend that if you have to roll the dice, you've already advanced past what the ability does. The ability grants 1d6 sneak attack. Not "4", not "2". Once rolled, it is a specific result, not a class ability. And if you can't seperate it at the class ability level, then it combines before you ever reach the step you talk about.

Okay, I can see that. So if you can get multiple sneak attack dice, they'd stack. You're right.

Right now, it seems to me that the ability just can't give you more than 1d6 sneak attack damage.

UndeadCleric
2010-06-24, 03:54 PM
I interupt this interesting argument to say:


Or people should stop reading the books like litigation loving legalistic lawyers looking for a loophole.

Lovingly layed alliteration!


If you can dunk your head underwater to heal yourself then I don't see why not. :smalltongue:

What??????


Yes, I think I recall that post as well. I think the kid was using an older build of punpun or something. definitely a kobold though, as punpun must be :P

Where is this thread?

PId6
2010-06-24, 04:33 PM
What??????
If you start drowning, your HP is set to 0, so if you had massive negative HP, drowning heals you. However, since nothing can actually stop drowning, it doesn't help. :smalltongue:

Pink
2010-06-24, 04:53 PM
Where is this thread?

Dunno. I think it was in one of the D&D horror story threads that pop up every now and then.

Icewraith
2010-06-24, 07:52 PM
1st level medium sized rogue sneak attack damage with a +1 flaming medium sized short sword (wielded in one hand)
Str 12

Calculating attack and damage:

attack:
0 base attack bonus
+1 strength bonus
+1 Enhancement Bonus

damage
1d6 base weapon damage
+1 strength bonus
+1 enhancement bonus
+1d6 fire damage from flaming weapon
+1d6 sneak attack

Pretty sure sneak attack damage is bonus damage. If the target is undead, immune to critical hits, or has concealment, its bogus damage instead :p.

lsfreak
2010-06-24, 11:44 PM
1st level medium sized rogue sneak attack damage with a +1 flaming medium sized short sword (wielded in one hand)

I'd like to know how a 1st-level character got 8000gp for a +2 sword.

AdamSmasher
2010-06-24, 11:52 PM
I don't know if this has been mentioned or not, but a simple Rogue 1/Scout 19 with Improved Skirmish, Craven, and Martial Stance (Assassin's Stance) will dish out 7d6 skirmish and 12d6+20 sneak attack and it's MUCH easier to get passed your DM than a lot of the other things out there.

Thespianus
2010-06-25, 12:59 AM
I don't know if this has been mentioned or not, but a simple Rogue 1/Scout 19 with Improved Skirmish, Craven, and Martial Stance (Assassin's Stance) will dish out 7d6 skirmish and 12d6+20 sneak attack and it's MUCH easier to get passed your DM than a lot of the other things out there.
How do you get 12D6 worth of Sneak Attack from one level of Rogue and Assassin's Stance (which grants +2D6 SA only?). It sums up to 3D6+20 in my book, but I might miss something?

gallagher
2010-06-25, 01:04 AM
I'd like to know how a 1st-level character got 8000gp for a +2 sword.

his older brother is a level 10 wizard, gave him a good discount and a loan. otherwise his mom wouldnt let him come back home for sunday dinner (prestidigitation doesnt make food taste nearly as good as moms sunday dinner)

and moms have incredible willsaves, especially wheon considering her favorite child, the rogue. no enchantment spell will work against her

Gametime
2010-06-25, 01:24 AM
I don't know if this has been mentioned or not, but a simple Rogue 1/Scout 19 with Improved Skirmish, Craven, and Martial Stance (Assassin's Stance) will dish out 7d6 skirmish and 12d6+20 sneak attack and it's MUCH easier to get passed your DM than a lot of the other things out there.

There's no way to stack sneak attack by taking Scout levels. You can go Scout 3/Rogue 17 to get full skirmish progression and nearly full sneak attack, though, which accomplishes the same thing. You'll top out at 11d6+20 sneak attack, but it's close enough.

AdamSmasher
2010-06-25, 02:21 AM
How do you get 12D6 worth of Sneak Attack from one level of Rogue and Assassin's Stance (which grants +2D6 SA only?). It sums up to 3D6+20 in my book, but I might miss something?

I forgot to mention the Swift ambusher feat, it turns out. makes scout and rogue stack for sneak attack and skirmish.

EDIT: Apparently it doesn't work for sneak attack... so you would have to take rogue levels. My DM may not be happy with me.

Popertop
2010-06-25, 04:20 AM
ya, good job getting all those dice,
then the DM throws you up against
an undead
a construct
a fighter with fully fortified armor

have fun with that

Curmudgeon
2010-06-25, 07:37 AM
ya, good job getting all those dice,
then the DM throws you up against
an undead Add a Greater Truedeath weapon augment crystal (Magic Item Compendium), or Use Magic Device plus a wand of Grave Strike, and deal full sneak attack damage. :smallsmile:

a construct Add a Greater Demolition weapon augment crystal (MIC also), or UMD plus a wand of Golem Strike, and deal full sneak attack damage. :smallsmile:

a fighter with fully fortified armor Add the Penetrating Strike ACF (Dungeonscape) and deal ˝ normal sneak attack dice when you flank this fighter, plus your full Craven bonus. :smallamused:

have fun with that
Oh, I do. :smallbiggrin:

Evil the Cat
2010-06-25, 10:12 AM
Rogue 3/Ninja 1/Spellthief 1/SA Fighter 3/Scout 1/Psychic Rogue 1/Assassin 1/Avenger 1/Guild Thief 1/Invisible Blade 1/Shadow Thief of Amn 1/Master of Masks 1/Unseen Seer 1/Nightsong Enforcer 1/Psychic Assassin 1/Dread Commando 1

Take Martial Study and Martial Stance for Assassin's Stance.

This build has:

17d6 Sneak Attack
2d6 Sudden Strike
1d6 Skirmish

I'm sure it can be improved (even ignoring Hunter's Eye/Cunning Strike).

My favorite part is the BAB of 7.

candycorn
2010-06-25, 10:42 AM
So if we're in agreement that I am reading the rules, just like you, why am I more likely to make a mistake? :smallconfused:First, you're taking me out of context. Second, I wasn't even talking to you when I made that comment. I was talking to Cumudgeon, and you got all up in arms. I never said you were more likely to make a mistake.

The difference is? When I read this post, and I make a reply, I read the text every single time. If we're talking about grapple rules, I re-read the grapple text before each post I make. Beginning to end. To see if anything disagrees with what I say, because I'm not as familiar with the rules as some.

Are you telling me that before you answer any question about the rules, you read the section? Did you read the section on Base Attack Bonuses before you made this reply? I did, before I responded.

There is something to be said for having something fresh in your mind. That is all I meant. You are taking it as some sort of personal attack, and it's not. That is the last I'm going to say on that. If you want to keep twisting what I say and taking it out of context, that's your decision.

But if you keep doing this, I'm not going to discuss this with you. Please. I'm not trying to twist your words into things you didn't say. Do me the same favor.



But the rogue class ability doesn't say that sneak attack is bonus damage. The assassin's class ability does. We have a case of a class ability being defined by another class's reference to it.
Correct. Nothing in the Rogue's entry contradicts it, though.


There's no reason to assume that all instances of sneak attack aren't identical to the rogue's in terms of triggering and immunities; in fact, the rules treat them as such.Correct. Then again, all instances of Sneak Attack and Favored Enemy are identical in terms of triggering and immunities.

Lucky that triggering and immunity aren't any part of what the game calls a "bonus".


Rate of acquisition differs, but so does BAB - and that still works the same way across multiple classes. So does Turn Undead level, but that still works the same way when applied.BAB is also defined at a central source, and is not defined with each class as a class ability. Turn undead special abilities all refer back to the Cleric base ability.


If you're arguing that the Factotum's ability is distinct from the rogue ability, then I'm not sure what the Factotum's even does since Cunning Strike doesn't say what "sneak attack" is. Our only real reference is the rogue ability, and others like it, which define it. Since these descriptions aren't mutually exclusive, I don't see why we wouldn't use them.Because it doesn't say you use them. +1d6 sneak attack damage. That's what it says.


It does say it gains "sneak attack" without saying what that is. What is your definition for sneak attack, then?I'd say it's a descriptor. For the next word. It says gains sneak attack "damage". So, I'd say it's damage.


If it's like the rogue ability, it's a bonus.No, if it's identical to the rogue ability, it's a bonus. It doesn't say it is. That's what you say it is. Every other instance of sneak attack uses a boilerplate that includes a reference to rogue. This doesn't.

It doesn't say it IS the rogue ability, even if it may be similar in some ways.


If it's not like the rogue ability, what is it? I can't find any other definitions for it.Look under "damage", and then exempt anything that states that it's not vulnerable to sneak attacks, such as undead, oozes, creatures in concealment, and the like.

By your logic, "Bludgeoning" isn't defined anywhere. Does that mean we can't use it?


True, but there's no reason to think that sneak attack works differently across multiple classes (aside from rate of acquisition), especially since the rogue description is the only definition of the ability I could find.There's no reason to think that spellcasting works differently across multiple classes.

There's no reason to think smiting works differently across multiple classes.

There's no reason to think breath weapons work differently across multiple races of dragon.

Each of these abilities has a description that is different. When determining the rules for the ability, you go to the ability. You don't go to another class or race that has the ability, and use that.

Why do you think it's ok here?


Also, that sentence explicitly allows for bonus damage in the form of dice, which negates your main argument against sneak attack being bonus damage.It allows for a Core class violation of the basic definition, sure.

Just as MIC allows for creation of items with enhancement bonuses to Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, etc. They're all bonuses, but clearly none are a modifier applied to a roll. They're a modifier, applied to a number, from which another modifier is derived via a formula, that is sometimes used in rolls.

Why is it a bonus? Because the rules say so. That does not mean that any ability that increases strength is a bonus. In fact, if not explicitly called one, it doesn't meet the definition of a bonus (it doesn't apply to a roll). Since it doesn't, it's only a bonus when the rules make that Exception. Even if it's a very, very common exception, it's still an exception, and it needs the word "bonus" to make it one.

So dice can be bonus damage, evidently.When they are explicitly called as such in the rules, yes. If the rules called a specific Goblin an Ooze, guess what? Goblins can be oozes. That doesn't mean that all goblins are oozes.

Okay, I can see that. So if you can get multiple sneak attack dice, they'd stack. You're right.And when you use the ability twice, you get multiple dice. 1d6 and 1d6 is 2d6. Since the overlap rule cannot be applied at this step, you don't apply it. Now, you have sneak attack 2d6.


Right now, it seems to me that the ability just can't give you more than 1d6 sneak attack damage.Unless you use it twice. Now you have multiple dice, and by what you just said, they'd stack.

PId6
2010-06-25, 11:40 AM
My favorite part is the BAB of 7.
Or fractional BAB of 16.

I still wouldn't actually recommend anyone to play the build though; it basically sacrifices everything for moar Sneak Attack. Between feat and skill prereqs, you'll likely be far less effective than even a Rogue 20 despite the massive precision damage.

Gametime
2010-06-25, 12:31 PM
First, you're taking me out of context. Second, I wasn't even talking to you when I made that comment. I was talking to Cumudgeon, and you got all up in arms. I never said you were more likely to make a mistake.

I apologize. I realized that I'd misconstrued something after posting, but I didn't want to edit my post until you'd responded.


The difference is? When I read this post, and I make a reply, I read the text every single time. If we're talking about grapple rules, I re-read the grapple text before each post I make. Beginning to end. To see if anything disagrees with what I say, because I'm not as familiar with the rules as some.

Are you telling me that before you answer any question about the rules, you read the section? Did you read the section on Base Attack Bonuses before you made this reply? I did, before I responded.

Yes, actually, I did. For the sake of brevity, just assume that I read the relevant rules sections before I post. That way, everyone wins.


Look under "damage", and then exempt anything that states that it's not vulnerable to sneak attacks, such as undead, oozes, creatures in concealment, and the like.

By your logic, "Bludgeoning" isn't defined anywhere. Does that mean we can't use it?

"Bludgeoning" works as a pure descriptor because nothing about "bludgeoning" damage matters except that it is bludgeoning. Other than its interaction with certain damage reduction and the occasional buff spell, a bludgeoning source of damage works exactly like any other.

Sneak attack damage doesn't. Aside from the interaction with immunities, it also has specific conditions to trigger. The Player's Handbook only defines it in the section about the Rogue ability; the Dungeon Master's Guide doesn't define it at all, nor does the Rules Compendium. The Factotum entry doesn't either.

So if we aren't referring to the Rogue ability, we have no information about the Factotum's sneak attack trigger. We can still tell what creatures are immune to it, but we have no way to determine the conditions that apply it. Do you think it makes more sense to refer to the Rogue ability, then, implying that they work the same way, or to ignore the Rogue ability text and simply apply Factotum sneak attack damage on every attack because there is no textual limitation on when it applies?


There's no reason to think that spellcasting works differently across multiple classes.

There's no reason to think smiting works differently across multiple classes.

There's no reason to think breath weapons work differently across multiple races of dragon.

Each of these abilities has a description that is different. When determining the rules for the ability, you go to the ability. You don't go to another class or race that has the ability, and use that.

Because each of those abilities is always explicitly described in the text of the relevant class. There isn't a single instance of spellcasting that just say "This class gains spellcasting" and leaves it at that. Ditto for smite - the damage and legal targets are always spelled out. Ditto for breath weapons.

So the difference here is that I assume abilities with the same name work the same unless otherwise specified, and you assume abilities with the same name work distinctly unless otherwise specified. The problem with that is that we have no way to tell how they work, in the case of the Factotum, above.


When they are explicitly called as such in the rules, yes. If the rules called a specific Goblin an Ooze, guess what? Goblins can be oozes. That doesn't mean that all goblins are oozes.

A profound and stunning rebuttal to my point. If I may, though, let's consider a Goblin statblock. The Goblin has an ability called "Ooze Goblin (Ex): This Goblin also counts as an Ooze, and has the benefits and drawbacks of that type."

Later, Wizards prints a new monster book. In it is a goblin, with the ability "Amorphous Form (Ex): When this creature's hit points are reduced to half their total, it gains the ability Ooze Goblin."

No definition is offered of what "ooze goblin" does for this specific monster. No explanation is given in that book, or in the core books, or in the specifically rules-oriented book. I am likely, in this case, to assume the ability works exactly the same as the prior instance of "ooze goblin," because 1) I have no idea how it works otherwise, and 2) there is no text suggesting that it doesn't.

Now, if some random Goblin showed up and I started calling it an ooze even if it didn't have that ability, you'd be right that I was jumping to conclusions. I don't think this case is quite that absurd, however.


Unless you use it twice. Now you have multiple dice, and by what you just said, they'd stack.

I'm not convinced that's how it works. As you've so kindly pointed out, sneak attack text isn't always the same. The Assassin text, and many other prestige classes, specify that their sneak attacks stack. The Factotum doesn't. Further, the entry for sneak attack as a normal class progression doesn't say +1d6 every time - it goes up. A 3rd level rogue doesn't have 1d6+1d6 sneak attack damage, he has 2d6. I don't see anything in the ability that would suggest getting 1d6 sneak attack damage twice means you have 2d6; seems to me you'd just have, like the ability says, 1d6 sneak attack damage.

Of course, since you haven't yet said what the Factotum sneak attack does, it may be that I'm working on faulty information.