Cunning Strike Stacking? [dnd3.5]

[Macrovore]

Does the Factotum ability Cunning Strike allow you to spend multiple inspiration points to gain multiple sneak attack dice? I don't think it allows it RAW, but I think it makes sense RAI. Factotums have the ability to nova, but they're screwed both offensively and defensively the rest of the fight.
What do you think?

[Gametime]

This is the third thread on the topic in a few weeks, so the discussions for and against have been pretty hashed out.

Short version: It stacks if you disagree that sneak attack damage dice constitute a bonus to damage. There are arguments for and against that position. If it is a bonus, it cannot stack with itself.

RAI...well, who knows. Ask your DM.

[Coplantor]

Most people go by letting them stack multiple uses, though mixed with FoI, that´s a lot of d6. Personally, I wouldn´t allow more than a rogue of the same level.

[Draz74]

(ninja'd!) We had this same topic discussed just a couple days ago. Better to dig up that thread, read it, and Reply if you still have any questions, rather than starting another one so soon.

Most people go by letting them stack multiple uses, though mixed with FoI, that´s a lot of d6. Personally, I wouldn´t allow more than a rogue of the same level.

A lot of d6 ... On. One. Single. Attack. Which might not even hit.

Even with Font of Inspiration, Cunning Strike is rather underpowered unless you combine it with some other nasty tricks.

[Awnetu]

I don't have the link at this point in time, but on the FAQ for Factotum, it is stated that the Sneak Attack dice DO stack.

[JaronK]

Indeed, the FAQ says they stack. However, as soon as you hit level 8 it's worthless, as an extra attack is worth far more than 3d6 sneak attack damage. Some exceptions apply for use of ambush feats and qualification for Craven, but it's still probably the worst and most situational of all the Factotum abilities.

JaronK

[Morph Bark]

A lot of d6 ... On. One. Single. Attack. Which might not even hit.

Even with Font of Inspiration, Cunning Strike is rather underpowered unless you combine it with some other nasty tricks.

Like Manyshot combined with Truestrike?

[Tshern]

Indeed, the FAQ says they stack. However, as soon as you hit level 8 it's worthless, as an extra attack is worth far more than 3d6 sneak attack damage. Some exceptions apply for use of ambush feats and qualification for Craven, but it's still probably the worst and most situational of all the Factotum abilities.

JaronK

Also, if it didn't stack, what would happen if you took several classes that have sneak attack?

[Curmudgeon]

Also, if it didn't stack, what would happen if you took several classes that have sneak attack?

You'd need to look for language like the following:

If an assassin gets a sneak attack bonus from another source the bonuses on damage stack.

If an arcane trickster gets a sneak attack bonus from another source the bonuses on damage stack.

[Tshern]

Aye, those two do state it, but far as I remember Rogue's version doesn't. There might be other classes that neglect to mention that as well.

[Curmudgeon]

Aye, those two do state it, but far as I remember Rogue's version doesn't.

Rogue is a base class, and the iconic implementation of sneak attack. Other classes need to conform to it, and are written accordingly.

[Tshern]

Rogue is a base class, and the iconic implementation of sneak attack. Other classes need to conform to it, and are written accordingly.

Then again, even this method has been proven not to be totally reliable. For example, by strict reading, Dread Necromancer's Rebuke undead is based on Cleric levels, not Dread Necro levels. Writers are not infallible.

But, unless I am mistaken, you too think Factotums can stack SA dice?

[Curmudgeon]

But, unless I am mistaken, you too think Factotums can stack SA dice?

Nope. The class doesn't include an exception to the basic stacking rule which keeps you from getting a bonus from the same source (Cunning Strike) more than once.

[Tshern]

How would you handle the sneak attack granted by the Thief of Life PrC then?

Sneak Attack (Ex): Beginning at 2nd level, you deal extra damage when you are flanking an opponent or at any time when the target would be denied its Dexterity bonus. This extra damage applies to ranged attacks only if the target is within 30 feet. (See the rogue class feature, PH 50). The amount of extra damage dealt is 1d6 at 2nd level, and it increases by 1d6 for every four thief of life levels thereafter (at 6th and 10th).

Edit: Handle it in case of multiclassing, that is.

[Curmudgeon]

How would you handle the sneak attack granted by the Thief of Life PrC then?

Since this PrC's sneak attack doesn't mention stacking, it only stacks in combination with some other class which does allow stacking.

Edit: It's worth noting that the Thief of Life's sneak attack is an Extraordinary ability, while the Rogue's sneak attack is not.

[Tshern]

So the sneak attack dice from, say, Magelord and Thief of Life would not go together? If so, I must that's one interesting ruling.

[Curmudgeon]

So the sneak attack dice from, say, Magelord and Thief of Life would not go together? If so, I must that's one interesting ruling.

It's just the RAW about stacking.

[Tshern]

It's just the RAW about stacking.

But isn't the Factotum technically using the ability only once, but he simply charges it more, not unlike Psions are able to augment their powers?

Also, forgot to comment on the nature of the Rogue's Sneak attack. It must be a mistyping of somekind, because it most certainly isn't a natural ability, because it does not depend on the 'physical nature' of the Rogue in question. Assuming that is true, the ability has to, according to the SRD be either (Ex), (Su) or (Sp).

Here are the relevant quotations:

This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

A special ability is either extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural in nature.

[Coplantor]

A lot of d6 ... On. One. Single. Attack. Which might not even hit.

Even with Font of Inspiration, Cunning Strike is rather underpowered unless you combine it with some other nasty tricks.

On only one? Guess I missed that part. Well, that does change a lot.

[Curmudgeon]

But isn't the Factotum technically using the ability only once, but he simply charges it more, not unlike Psions are able to augment their powers?

Nope. Cunning Strike is very consistent in the use of the singular.

Starting at 4th level, you can spend 1 inspiration point to gain 1d6 points of sneak attack damage. You must spend the inspiration point to activate this ability before making the attack roll.

There's nothing about being able to spend extra inspiration points per use. Absent that, we're back to the basic stacking rule.

[Myou]

I came to post that RAW it doesn't, RAI it does, but Curmudgeon had already given the correct answers with his usual efficiency.

[Curmudgeon]

Here are the relevant quotations:

A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su).

Context is kind of important here. That "SRD" quotation is actually from the Monster Manual on page 6.

From the Primary Sources Errata Rule:

The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. ... The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

So the Monster Manual quote about monster special abilities isn't the primary source for special abilities in the context of base class descriptions. Thus the other quote (the one from the Player's Handbook on page 180) is authoritative.

Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

The Rogue's sneak attack is a natural class ability. Apart from class training it only takes eyesight and the ability to wield a weapon to discern vulnerable spots in a foe's anatomy ─ things inherent in the normal physical nature of a character.

[JaronK]

Edit: It's worth noting that the Thief of Life's sneak attack is an Extraordinary ability, while the Rogue's sneak attack is not.

Yes it is. Rogue sneak attack is definitely Ex. If it was built in to the base shape of the Rogue it would be natural (such as claw attacks or wing based flight). If it were magical it might be Spell like or Supernatural. It's neither. Thus, it must be Extraordinary, as that's the only remaining option. Classes rarely give Natural abilities.

Consider that if you claim that all abilities not explicitly defined as otherwise (as opposed to implicitly) are natural, then Alter Self gives you spellcasting (it grants natural abilities, as per the Rules of the Game discussion on it). It also gives you darn near everything else you want.

This is a case of an implicit designation based on the page 180 PHB descriptions of Natural, Extraordinary, Supernatural, and Spell Like.

And the FAQ on Factotums still says the ability stacks.

JaronK

[Curmudgeon]

Yes it is. Rogue sneak attack is definitely Ex.

That's an interesting opinion, but it's not backed up by the text of the rules.

Consider that if you claim that all abilities not explicitly defined as otherwise (as opposed to implicitly) are natural, then Alter Self gives you spellcasting (it grants natural abilities, as per the Rules of the Game discussion on it).

I'm saying that you apply the Player's Handbook rule about such things for the classes in that book. Alter Self, when applied to creature types, must abide by the somewhat different rules for special abilities in the Monster Manual. In case you didn't get it from the excerpt, here's the whole rule which dictates this:

Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

The Monster Manual statement about special abilities differs from that in the Player's Handbook. When dealing with base classes, the PH rule is correct. When dealing with monster descriptions, the MM rule is correct. So sayeth the Wizards of the Coast.

[JaronK]

I'm using the PHB as my only source (in addition to the FAQ and rules of the games articles on the topics). Page 180 clearly describes what Natural Abilities are. Alter Self, also in the PHB, follows the same rules. I'm fully aware of the priority and primary source rules.

What you're missing here is that many abilities are implicitly, not explicitly, defined in core. Later on, these abilities gained explicit definitions. For example, Fighter Bonus Feats are not listed as anything, but feats are always Ex unless otherwise mentioned. Sneak Attack is not listed as anything, but non magical abilities that are not based on the physical structure of the creature are always Ex unless otherwise mentioned. Later books got a little better about defining what these things were (including that Sneak Attack is Ex) but page 180 of the PHB is clear about what these abilities must be.

So yes, Sneak Attack is ALWAYS Ex unless otherwise defined, because PHB 180 says so. So are Fighter Bonus feats and other non magical class abilities. Classes almost never grant Natural abilities, because those are inherent abilities based on the physical shape of the creature (such as wing based flight, claw attacks, and non magical breathing modes), which is rarely changed by the class itself.

Again, I even stated in my last post that I was using the PHB for this definition. I don't know why you're quoting primary source rules as though the Monster Manual was in disagreement on this issue.

JaronK

[Curmudgeon]

What you're missing here is that many abilities are implicitly, not explicitly, defined in core. ... Sneak Attack is not listed as anything, but non magical abilities that are not based on the physical structure of the creature are always Ex unless otherwise mentioned.

"Implicit" rules aren't RAW; they're house rules, absent some explicit rules to back them up. Your categorization of sneak attack is contrary to the RAW statement from the Player's Handbook. You'll need to supply an actual rule citation if you want to defend your position.

[Tshern]

Nope. Cunning Strike is very consistent in the use of the singular. There's nothing about being able to spend extra inspiration points per use. Absent that, we're back to the basic stacking rule.

Thanks for that! I didn't have the book at hand, so my recollection was wrong, yours correct. The FAQ still seems to disagree, but far as I am concerned, the answer you gave matches with that of the original source.

I do still, however, disagree about the nature of Rogue's Sneak attack.

JaronK: Thank you for that. Always a pleasure to see you at work! Hope you're doing great!