Daring outlaw + non rogue SA'ers

[RagnaroksChosen]

I was curious if I take a get 2d6 sa from some class other then rogue how does it stack with swashbuckler for the purposes of Daring outlaw.


Such as if you qualify through ninja or spell theif
ninja 3/swash 3
or
Spelltheif 5/Swash 3?


Would you just get the +2d6 from the swashbuckler levels or would you progress as normally?

[Runestar]

This would depend if you count the lack of rogue lvs as zero (0) or non-existant (-). Yes for the first, no to the latter, since "-" + any number is still "-".

The distinction was first made because swashbucklers could eventually access the assassin's stance via martial stance, which grants sneak attack, and consequently qualify for daring outlaw (though this comes only at lv15). The question was if this then allowed a pure-classed swashbuckler (or a swasbuckler/swordsage) to effectively get a rogue's sneak attack progression.

Opinions were split quite evenly on both sides. I don't think there is really a conclusive answer here.

[RagnaroksChosen]

This would depend if you count the lack of rogue lvs as zero (0) or non-existant (-). Yes for the first, no to the latter, since "-" + any number is still "-".

The distinction was first made because swashbucklers could eventually access the assassin's stance via martial stance, which grants sneak attack, and consequently qualify for daring outlaw (though this comes only at lv15). The question was if this then allowed a pure-classed swashbuckler (or a swasbuckler/swordsage) to effectively get a rogue's sneak attack progression.

Opinions were split quite evenly on both sides. I don't think there is really a conclusive answer here.

Fair enough that's what i figured.
i always looked at it as 0 instead of -. heh But I can understand. Wouldn't the SA from the feat not qualify because its not always "on" i meen that would be like some one qualifying becuase a spell or power granted them SA.

[Curmudgeon]

This would depend if you count the lack of rogue lvs as zero (0) or non-existant (-). Yes for the first, no to the latter, since "-" + any number is still "-".

I've never seen "-" as a number of class levels in the game; as far as I know, there's no such concept. (Spells per day and caster level yes; class level no.) Lacking this exclusionary construction, Daring Outlaw adds to a base of 0 Rogue levels.

Wouldn't the SA from the feat not qualify because its not always "on" i meen that would be like some one qualifying becuase a spell or power granted them SA.

Feats work when their prerequisites are met, and don't work when they're not; there's no requirement that the prerequisites be "permanent" to acquire the feat. So you could lose the benefit of the feat if you changed your stance with the minimum Swashbuckler levels to get Grace +1. However, once you get to a 3rd Swashbuckler level, having Daring Outlaw will meet its own sneak attack requirements.

[Runestar]

Fair enough that's what i figured.
i always looked at it as 0 instead of -. heh But I can understand. Wouldn't the SA from the feat not qualify because its not always "on" i meen that would be like some one qualifying becuase a spell or power granted them SA.

You qualify whenever you meet the requirements. For example, a PC with 11str and gloves of str+2 can take power attack (which normally requires 13 str). He does not need a "permanent" str of 13. Of course, if he ever takes off his gloves, this means he cannot use power attack for as long as his str is below 13.

[Riffington]

There are a few plausible interpretations.
1: you actually need a rogue level. Simple, but invents a new concept not provided by RAW.
2: you actually need a "permanent effect" to qualify for PrCs/feats/maneuvers. You can qualify for Cleave with Gauntlets of Ogre power, but not with Bull's Strength. You likewise cannot qualify for PrCs that need spellcasting just by having scrolls and UMD. Similarly, you can qualify for this feat with Spellthief, but not with a stance. This is a very commonly-used rule, with no deleterious side-effects that I've ever seen, but not RAW as near as I can tell.
3: temporary effects work fine, and no rogue levels are needed.