Dual-classing feats?

[Morph Bark]

Complete Adventurer has Ascetic Hunter/Knight/Mage/Rogue, Devoted Inquisitor/Performer/Tracker.

Complete Scoundrel has Ascetic Stalker, Daring Outlaw/Warrior, Martial Stalker, Master Spellthief, Swift Ambusher/Hunter.


Are there any more of these feats that progress class abilities even when taking levels in a certain other class?

I was hoping there'd be something like that also for classes like the Samurai and Knight, or psionic classes, but haven't found that yet. :smallfrown:

[AslanCross]

Tashalatora from the Eberron book Secrets of Sarlona is a Monk/Psychic Warrior dual-class. (Though what it actually does is obviate the need to take further monk levels and allows you to think muscles onto yourself AND punch things really hard at the same time; you can pretty much dump the rest of your levels into PsyWar.)

[PId6]

Dragon 357 has Sacred Outlaw for stacking rogue and cleric levels on Sneak Attack and Turning. Rogue 3/Cleric X works well, or just Cleric 20 with Assassin's Stance.

[TooManyBadgers]

I was hoping there'd be something like that also for classes like the Samurai and Knight, or psionic classes, but haven't found that yet. :smallfrown:
There aren't many, but they aren't exactly difficult to homebrew.

[Kylarra]

Tashalatora from the Eberron book Secrets of Sarlona is a Monk/Psychic Warrior dual-class. (Though what it actually does is obviate the need to take further monk levels and allows you to think muscles onto yourself AND punch things really hard at the same time; you can pretty much dump the rest of your levels into PsyWar.)Technically it's a monk/one psionic class multiclass, psywar just tends to be the usual choice.

[Mongoose87]

Technically it's a monk/one psionic class multiclass, psywar just tends to be the usual choice.

I've heard good things about using Ardent.

[true_shinken]

Dragon 357 has Sacred Outlaw for stacking rogue and cleric levels on Sneak Attack and Turning. Rogue 3/Cleric X works well, or just Cleric 20 with Assassin's Stance.

That sounds interesting. Hope Dragon has more of those!

I believe 314 had some Soulknife advancing feat or something like that.

[Keld Denar]

I've heard good things about using Ardent.

Terribly feat starved though...The advantage to PsyWar is all the tasty bonus feats you need to pimp out your UAS damage and up your action economy. Thus you have to choose between feats and BAB but no PP (PsyWar), feats and PP but no BAB (Psion), or PP and BAB but no feats (Ardent).

They all come out about equal, depending on what your real goal is. If you want to be a psionically augemented melee machine, PsyWar is your best bet. If you want to be a full manifester, you probably shouldn't be a Tashalatoran.

[Person_Man]

Homebrew multi-class feats or classes are common. Basically just take the 2 class abilities you find most appealing and put them together. (If you were a player in one of my games and wanted to play a Samurai/Knight, I'd basically just let you play a Knight with all of the Samurai abilities filling in your dead levels, and without requiring a multi-class feat tax either).

But you should note that multi-classing denies or delays access to higher level class abilities, nerfs abilities based on class level, and often introduces MAD into a build. So multi-classing in order to take advantage of a specific Feat is sometimes a poor choice.

For example, Anything X/Full Custer Y delays caster progression by X levels. Since having a higher caster level and access to higher level spells is almost always more powerful then other class abilities, taking levels of Anything other then more levels of your Full Caster class usually (but not always) weakens your build, even if the multi-class synergy Feat happens to be useful. Anything X/Scout Y delays or denies access to higher level Scout abilities (Flawless Stride, Hide in Plain Site, Free Movement). Rogue X/Swashbuckler Y has MAD problems, has delayed or denied access to the Rogue's Special Abilities, and has delayed/denied access to a nerfed Improved Uncanny Dodge. And so on.

Such builds tend to work at very specific ECL's for specific combos. But they're often fraught with inefficiencies.

[Morph Bark]

I see, so just two others I hadn't found yet then. Thanks anyhoo. At least I got a little wiser.


...perhaps a rather unrelated question, but one thing has been bugging me: in a round during which you perform a full-round action, can you still use a swift action? Until finding out about swift actions, I simply thought "full-round action = 1 standard action + 1 move action; or full-round action = 1 move action + 1 more move action" in the actions it consumes.

And in relation to that, is a 5-ft step still a free action, or is it a swift action now? We've been playing using swift actions for a while, but these two things never really became clear from what we've read.

[Snake-Aes]

Dragon 357 has Sacred Outlaw for stacking rogue and cleric levels on Sneak Attack and Turning. Rogue 3/Cleric X works well, or just Cleric 20 with Assassin's Stance.

Assassin's stance doesn't advance sneak attack(nor is it coming from a rogue level). A cleric 20 with assassin's stance gains nothing from Sacred Outlaw.

[Keld Denar]

A 5' step is a free action, provided you haven't actually moved in your turn. If you stand up (move equivalent) and attack (standard), you could take a 5' step (or draw a weapon and attack, or ready a shield and attack, etc), but you couldn't take a 5' step and charge (since charging involves moving), nor could you move, attack, and then 5' step back.

[true_shinken]

Assassin's stance doesn't advance sneak attack(nor is it coming from a rogue level). A cleric 20 with assassin's stance gains nothing from Sacred Outlaw.

Well, if it works like Daring Outlaw, I'd say it works.

[Curmudgeon]

Assassin's stance doesn't advance sneak attack(nor is it coming from a rogue level). Those aren't requirements of the Sacred Outlaw feat.

A cleric 20 with assassin's stance gains nothing from Sacred Outlaw. No, they gain the sneak attack of a 20th level Rogue (+10d6). What they don't gain is any stacking with other sneak attack (since the Rogue class ability doesn't include any language to that effect), so as soon as they qualify for Sacred Outlaw the benefit of Assassin's Stance is nil.

[Kobold-Bard]

You may either take a Standard and Move action or a full round action in a turn. Regardless of which you do you also get a swift action; the exception to this is if you've used an Immediae action slob someone elses turn dice your last turn ended, because that counts as your Swift for this turn.

Confused yet? :smallwink:

[Andion Isurand]

ASCETIC PSION (Secrets of Sarlona, PG. 115)

[Prime32]

There are some feats which let you stack levels in other classes for determining special mount abilities.

Then there's Initiate of Milil (http://www.realmshelps.org/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Initiate_of_Milil), though that's basically a cleric feat which makes you also a bard. Well, technically you can take Tashalatora without monk levels, but the first 2 are juicy enough that most don't.

[tonberrian]

No, they gain the sneak attack of a 20th level Rogue (+10d6). What they don't gain is any stacking with other sneak attack (since the Rogue class ability doesn't include any language to that effect), so as soon as they qualify for Sacred Outlaw the benefit of Assassin's Stance is nil.

But Assassin's Stance includes stacking language.

[Coidzor]

There actually a way to get bardic music as a LG Pally?

[Keld Denar]

Harmoneous Knight Pally sub levels from the Champions of Valor web enhancement. Also gets Perform as a class skill.

Well, it doesn't give the "Bardic Music" class feature, but it does give a couple of the more inspiring Bardic abilities.

Alternatively, the Devoted Performer allows you to be a LG Bard, even though lawful bards are technically not allowed. You'd probably have to change alignments at some point, though.

[Curmudgeon]

But Assassin's Stance includes stacking language.
It's always helpful to actually read such language to see how (or if) it applies.
If you already have the sneak attack class feature, your existing sneak attack ability deals an extra 2d6 points of damage.

You don't have sneak attack as a class feature.
In fact, you don't have any existing sneak attack at all.
When you later get sneak attack it's from the Sacred Outlaw feat rather than from a class feature. There's no stacking.

[true_shinken]

It's always helpful to actually read such language to see how (or if) it applies.

Your reading would also mean most sneak attack granting prestige classes don't stack with Rogue and similar classes...

[PlzBreakMyCmpAn]

This is an instance I disagree with crumudgeon, though he could still be right.

His interpretation is a very, very literal one. So a DM could pull that one you and you don't have much to argue against it. That said most people see the class feature distinction as only a semantic one which means there isn't a stacking problem.

[Curmudgeon]

Your reading would also mean most sneak attack granting prestige classes don't stack with Rogue and similar classes...
That's not the case, because nearly all such PrCs have language like the following:
If an arcane trickster gets a sneak attack bonus from another source the bonuses on damage stack.
If an assassin gets a sneak attack bonus from another source the bonuses on damage stack. There are very few prestige classes that don't include such language.

[Mongoose87]

I wouldn't argue with Curmudgeon on Rogue RAW. You're likely to lose.

[Curmudgeon]

That said most people see the class feature distinction as only a semantic one which means there isn't a stacking problem.
So you don't see a problem if a pure Cleric, (no Rogue levels), gets better sneak attack than a pure Rogue ─ i.e., they stack both Rogue sneak attack and Assassin's Stance?

From my point of view, this is a big stacking problem.

[T.G. Oskar]

Well, it doesn't give the "Bardic Music" class feature, but it does give a couple of the more inspiring Bardic abilities.

Depending on the interpretation, an Initiate of Milil can effectively qualify for Sublime Chord without having a single level in Bard. The whole point is that your Cleric levels stack with your Bard levels for purposes of determining your access to bardic music abilities, but not your daily uses. However, the key point is that it doesn't say anything that "if you don't have Bard levels, this feat grants you no benefit", nor does it require Bardic Music as a class feature. So technically, you get "Bardic Music" but not daily uses; if you treat it as such, you qualify for Extra Music and use those features as a Bard of your Cleric level, which is awesome for Clerics, or get into Suel Arcanamach/Knight of the Weave (the latter is in the same Champions of Valor supplement that has Initiate of Milil) in order to qualify for Sublime Chord

[Coidzor]

So you don't see a problem if a pure Cleric, (no Rogue levels), gets better sneak attack than a pure Rogue ─ i.e., they stack both Rogue sneak attack and Assassin's Stance?

From my point of view, this is a big stacking problem.

What are the requirements for the feat such that this is possible for a character without rogue levels to qualify for it, anyway?

[Kylarra]

What are the requirements for the feat such that this is possible for a character without rogue levels to qualify for it, anyway?Turn/rebuke undead and sneak attack 2D6, not sure how a base cleric is qualifying for the sneak attack thing, but I've always been weak on ACFs.

[Mando Knight]

So you don't see a problem if a pure Cleric, (no Rogue levels), gets better sneak attack than a pure Rogue ─ i.e., they stack both Rogue sneak attack and Assassin's Stance?
Because ClericZilla needs support so badly in order to stay viable in a game full of Rogues and Paladins and Fighters. They don't get bonus feats or special mounts or anything. They don't even get a familiar!

:smallwink:

[Curmudgeon]

Turn/rebuke undead and sneak attack 2D6, not sure how a base cleric is qualifying for the sneak attack thing, but I've always been weak on ACFs.
It's not an ACF; it's the combination of two feats from Tome of Battle: Martial Study and Martial Stance. With a high enough class level, those feats together can grant you 2d6 sneak attack ─ exactly enough to satisfy the requirement of Sacred Outlaw.

[Iferus]

There was a nice homebrew thread on this some time ago.

Link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146980)

[Kylarra]

It's not an ACF; it's the combination of two feats from Tome of Battle: Martial Study and Martial Stance. With a high enough class level, those feats together can grant you 2d6 sneak attack ─ exactly enough to satisfy the requirement of Sacred Outlaw.I can't say that I'd allow special abilities granted by a stance to qualify for a feat, but I can see why some would interpret it that way.

[Prime32]

I can't say that I'd allow special abilities granted by a stance to qualify for a feat, but I can see why some would interpret it that way.It's well within the rules. Heck, there's a teleport-focused PrC with notes on fighters with helms of teleportation who take levels in it.

[Curmudgeon]

I can't say that I'd allow special abilities granted by a stance to qualify for a feat, but I can see why some would interpret it that way.
To select a feat, you need to meet the requirements. To use a feat, you also need to meet the requirements. Stances persist indefinitely as long as you're able to move. So, excepting when you're asleep or prevented from moving, you could maintain Assassin's Stance and thus meet the 2d6 sneak attack requirement of Sacred Outlaw.

[Person_Man]

I see, so just two others I hadn't found yet then. Thanks anyhoo. At least I got a little wiser.


...perhaps a rather unrelated question, but one thing has been bugging me: in a round during which you perform a full-round action, can you still use a swift action? Until finding out about swift actions, I simply thought "full-round action = 1 standard action + 1 move action; or full-round action = 1 move action + 1 more move action" in the actions it consumes.

And in relation to that, is a 5-ft step still a free action, or is it a swift action now? We've been playing using swift actions for a while, but these two things never really became clear from what we've read.

This is how actions in combat occur:

Surprise Round: Optional, based on whether or not the DM thinks it is warranted. Combatants determine awareness, usually by rolling Listen or Spot checks, though Sense Motive is sometimes used if you're in a room with someone you don't perceive as a threat (at a bar, party, in a crowd) and then they decide to start combat. Combatants who start the battle aware roll for Initiative. Once it's a Combatant's turn, they get 1 Standard Action, 1 Swift or Immediate Action (which they can take at any time before the start of their next turn), and unlimited Free Actions within the limits of Free Actions (5 ft step is limited to 1 per turn, most other Free Actions like talking or dropping objects is limited by DM discretion). Until a Combatant has acted, they are Flat Footed - they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC, and cannot take Immediate Actions.

1st Round of Combat: Everyone who was not aware of combat is now. They roll Initiative, and are slotted into the Initiative order (although for ease of book keeping, most DMs have everyone roll during the Surprise Round even if they can't act). Once it's a Combatant's turn, they get:

1 Full Round Action + 1 Swift or Immediate Action + unlimited Free Actions

OR

1 Move Action + 1 Standard Action + 1 Swift or Immediate Action + unlimited Free Actions


It's a bit confusing because WotC didn't dream up Swift and Immediate Actions until a few years into the game, which is why things like 5 ft steps (which should be Swift Actions, IMO) were written as Free Actions.

[Kylarra]

To select a feat, you need to meet the requirements. To use a feat, you also need to meet the requirements. Stances persist indefinitely as long as you're able to move. So, excepting when you're asleep or prevented from moving, you could maintain Assassin's Stance and thus meet the 2d6 sneak attack requirement of Sacred Outlaw.As I said, I can see why some people would allow it, however, I personally would not allow it.

It's well within the rules. Heck, there's a teleport-focused PrC with notes on fighters with helms of teleportation who take levels in it.I am aware that there are rules for qualifying for PrCs using items, however, I don't allow that either, so my stance, hah, is consistent.

[Lhurgyof]

As I said, I can see why some people would allow it, however, I personally would not allow it.
I am aware that there are rules for qualifying for PrCs using items, however, I don't allow that either, so my stance, hah, is consistent.

Yeah, using those stances from ToB to qualify for free cleric sneak attack seems a little cheesy.

[Mongoose87]

Yeah, using those stances from ToB to qualify for free cleric sneak attack seems a little cheesy.

It's hardly free when it costs you three feats.

[Tyndmyr]

It's well within the rules. Heck, there's a teleport-focused PrC with notes on fighters with helms of teleportation who take levels in it.

IIRC, Rules Compendium specifically noted that this sort of thing is ok. It did also note that if you depend on a magic item to meet the prereqs, it would be unfortunate if you lost said item.

A stance is definitely safer than that.

[Curmudgeon]

Yeah, using those stances from ToB to qualify for free cleric sneak attack seems a little cheesy.
Let's be fair here; it's not "free sneak attack". It does cost 3 feats (Martial Study, Martial Stance, Sacred Outlaw) and a character level of at least 10 (without martial adept classes) before you can select the second feat in the chain. So we're talking level 15 to get more than 2d6 sneak attack using general feat slots. But then ─ bam! ─ you suddenly jump to 8d6 sneak attack (replacing the 2d6). That's a much higher return than other feats give you; other choices (Martial Study + Martial Stance, the Epic feat Improved Sneak Attack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#improvedSneakAttack)) maintain a ratio of 1d6:1 feat. And Sacred Outlaw keeps on boosting your sneak attack as you take more Cleric levels, so your sneak attack:feat ratio starts at 8d6:3 and keeps getting better.

As a dual-classing feat with actual Rogue levels, Sacred Outlaw is still a strong choice. For a Cleric it discourages you from taking prestige classes, and (more significantly) the Rogue levels delay your spellcasting progression. Bypass that latter detriment and you're way past a little cheesy.

[Zaydos]

I know items can be used for feat prerequisites, and that wild shape can be used to qualify for feats requiring fly speeds, but I couldn't find the rule in the Rules Compendium.

I know it is somewhere in Savage Species where they just have an off-hand mention that you can get Power Attack via a Belt of Giant's Strength.

Either way leaves me curious if you can use those things to qualify for PrCs and how it works if you lose the prerequisite for them (I think Savage Species might mention what happens if you lose the Power Attack feat and it was a prerequisite for the PrC).

That said if a DM really has a problem with clerics getting sneak attack this way they could rule that while their levels stack for determining effectiveness they don't have the base class feature and must first gain it from a level of rogue or some other source. That still lets them get by with only 1 level of rogue but that costs 3 feats and a level. Not RAW, probably RAI.

[Curmudgeon]

I know items can be used for feat prerequisites, and that wild shape can be used to qualify for feats requiring fly speeds, but I couldn't find the rule in the Rules Compendium.
You're looking for a special rule that doesn't (need to) exist. If you qualify for a feat, you qualify for a feat. There's no special rule that says you need to qualify without inherent ability boosts, say, to make the 13 STR requirement for Power Attack. The same goes for bonuses from race, from class abilities, from spells, and from magic items. You just need to meet the requirements.

While you're looking for that rule about feat prerequisites, why don't you look for a rule about magic items allowing you to qualify to hit an enemy? After all, the summary at the beginning of the Combat chapter only specifies BAB, STR, and size:

Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is:

Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier

We all know that magic weapon enhancements can allow you to meet the requirements to hit (that requirement = the enemy's AC). The same goes for feat requirements. There's no need for special rules if the basic rules already cover things.

[true_shinken]

That's not the case, because nearly all such PrCs have language like the following: There are very few prestige classes that don't include such language.
Yeah, I meant those that don't have that.

[PlzBreakMyCmpAn]

I wouldn't argue with Curmudgeon on Rogue RAW. You're likely to lose.Trust me, I don't (argue. I also don't win against him either btw :smallbiggrin:)


Because ClericZilla needs support so badly in order to stay viable in a game full of Rogues and Paladins and Fighters. They don't get bonus feats or special mounts or anything. They don't even get a familiar!

:smallwink:You win the thread good sir


So you don't see a problem if a pure Cleric, (no Rogue levels), gets better sneak attack than a pure Rogue ─ i.e., they stack both Rogue sneak attack and Assassin's Stance?

From my point of view, this is a big stacking problem.I never said it was balanced... I'm just saying a lot of people will interpret it differently. C'est la vie. Rogues aren't the quintessential SA class anyways. A 12d6 Cleric20 with 2 feats and a 12d6 Rogue20 with 1 feat is still an underwhelming comparison due to those damned 9th level spells... I daresay the cleric hasn't pulled ahead by much more than she already was.


It's a bit confusing because WotC didn't dream up Swift and Immediate Actions until a few years into the game, which is why things like 5 ft steps (which should be Swift Actions, IMO) were written as Free Actions.In your opinion does this weaken spellcasters more or martial characters more that the 5' move isn't a swift action?

[Curmudgeon]

Yeah, I meant those that don't have that.
Yeah, those handful of PrCs are slightly screwed, because they require some third sneak attack class other than Rogue to be able to stack their Rogue sneak attack. So a Fatemaker (Planar Handbook) would need to add another class with stacking language, else their Rogue and Fatemaker sneak attack wouldn't stack because neither of these classes have such language.

Really, it's not that big of an issue. There are many dozens of ways to get sneak attack, and most combinations of these stack just fine.