PDA

View Full Version : Question on Cunning Strike....



DueceEsMachine
2010-07-09, 06:46 PM
Alright, well, it's been a while since I've been on here thanks to flooding and computer damage, but hooray! I'm back. But that is neither here, nor there.

Anyways. I've been dying to make a factotem character, and have been presented the opportunity in an upcoming game, and my question is this:

With the cunning strike ability, a factotem is allowed to spend 1 inspiration point to gain 1d6 sneak attack, now, can a factotem spend 2 inspiration points to gain 2d6 sneak attack?

I realize that it does not say that they are able to, but as long as they are not allowed to buy more sneak attack than a character of their level would be able to acheive (without tom-foolerey), say 3d6 for a lv. 5 character, it would seem acceptable to me.
My reasoning? well, if you're spending 3 inspiration points to get that extra damage, yes, it has the possiblity to do extra, but it is not over-powering since a rogue/ninja of the same level would do that damage on every hit under proper circumstances, whereas the factotem would be able to maintain it for only a few rounds at best before burning through his inspiration pool, even assuming that they have Font of Inspiration several times.

Also, any reasonably optimized factotem will have a high enough intelligence to allow you to spend 1 inspiration point to add that to damage instead, doing, say 4 points (with 18 intelligence) rather than the average 3.5 for a d6.

So, why bother? Well, I thought it would be very cool to have a factotem with ambush feats that he has to spend inspiration points to be able to use. The character would then have more options, and a bit more versatility, if only for a short while.

So, does this sound like something reasonable, or is my line of thinking completely flawed? I realize that the Factotem would not meed the pre-requisites of the Ambush feats by not having the sneak attack class feature, but would meet them when he spends the inspiration points. Thoughts?

Private-Prinny
2010-07-09, 07:08 PM
This has been debated time and time again. Some people claim that by RAW, you can only have 1d6 max added on. Some people claim the by RAI, you can stack the bonus dice. No one can really agree, so see what your DM says.

As for the Ambush feats, you don't have Sneak Attack dice when you take the feat, so you don't qualify. And that's a good thing.

Keld Denar
2010-07-09, 07:08 PM
The place where this is really good is in combination with the Craven feat. Craven adds your HD to damage as long as you have at least 1 SA die. Cunning Strike gives you that die, so as long as you are in a position to SA, you get a BUNCH of extra damage for just 1 Insp.

JaronK
2010-07-09, 07:18 PM
First off, yes, you can use multiple cunning strikes in a single turn (clarified by the FAQ). Second, you can qualify for ambush feats, as those require sneak attack as a class ability (which you clearly have, though it's not the same as the Rogue's version). That and Craven are the only good uses of the ability, as Cunning Surge is far better (+1 attack is usually much better than +3d6 sneak attack damage). Combined with Terrifying Strike and Sickening Strike, you can greatly reduce saves, making poisons and such much more effective. With that said, getting Assassin's Stance is probably more useful.

JaronK

gbprime
2010-07-09, 07:41 PM
Craven feat plus Deadly Precision on your weapon. Happiness.

Gametime
2010-07-09, 09:24 PM
If you're interested in a far-too-in-depth discussion of why the sneak attack dice should or should not stack, we got into it in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156879) a little while back.

Long story short? There are multiple reasons to believe either interpretation. Ask your DM.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-09, 11:20 PM
First off, yes, you can use multiple cunning strikes in a single turn (clarified by the FAQ).
That is what the FAQ says.

It's just another example of the FAQ being wrong, though.
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 to your damage roll from 1 inspiration point spent on Cunning Strike. Spend more IPs and Cunning Strike is the same source each time, so the bonus to damage doesn't stack: it's always just +1d6.

Craven works here, and even better with a wide threat range (such as a keen rapier). Bonus dice aren't multiplied on critical hits, but Craven provides a constant bonus.

Draz74
2010-07-09, 11:27 PM
Yeah, strictest RAW supports Curmudgeon. Cunning Strike does not stack.

I doubt that's any more widely enforced than Monks not having unarmed strike proficiency, though.

Even with Cunning Strike stacking, it's a pretty weak ability unless you combine it with things like Craven.

Zaq
2010-07-10, 12:53 AM
Yeah, strictest RAW supports Curmudgeon. Cunning Strike does not stack.

I doubt that's any more widely enforced than Monks not having unarmed strike proficiency, though.

Even with Cunning Strike stacking, it's a pretty weak ability unless you combine it with things like Craven.

And it stacking with itself doesn't make Craven any more powerful, either...

Basically, you probably have better things to spend your IP on anyway.

Hague
2010-07-10, 02:34 AM
If you don't actually have Sneak attack as a class feature, you don't qualify for an ambush feat. Otherwise I could qualify for ambush feats when I'm flanking with a Nightsong Infiltrator even without actually having sneak attack as a class feature. If you want ambush feats, get a dip in a sneak attacking class.

Speaking of which, Nightsong Infiltrator + Superior Flank Team Benefit = a pretty decent effect, since now the leader's rogue levels count against Uncanny Dodge on all the flankers who are now flanking (and gaining Infiltrator bonus sneak attack dice) due to Superior Flank (as long as another team member actually flanks) Combine with an Elocator PrC character to achieve any kind of flanking you want.

Gametime
2010-07-10, 11:26 AM
If you don't actually have Sneak attack as a class feature, you don't qualify for an ambush feat. Otherwise I could qualify for ambush feats when I'm flanking with a Nightsong Infiltrator even without actually having sneak attack as a class feature. If you want ambush feats, get a dip in a sneak attacking class.



You don't need it as a class feature. Getting it from flanking with a Nightsong Infiltrator is unlikely to work, unless your DM allows you to choose feats mid-combat, but there are a few other ways of getting sneak attack without it being a class feature. Assassin's Stance is probably the most common.

9mm
2010-07-10, 11:35 AM
That is what the FAQ says.

It's just another example of the FAQ being wrong, though. You get +1d6 to your

no, it's an example of the FAQ ruling in a way people don't like.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-10, 11:58 AM
no, it's an example of the FAQ ruling in a way people don't like.
I don't care one way or the other about which way this goes; I simply want to be consistent with the D&D rules. This "Guest Sage" opinion (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070412a) by Mike Mearls violates the basic stacking (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#stacking) rule because Cunning Strike
fails to include a specific exception statement permitting it to stack.

FWIW, the other answer is also wrong; "It's reasonable to assume" has no basis in the rules, either.
Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like. Sneak attack is a natural class ability, arrived at through study of the anatomy of enemies to discern vulnerable spots; there's nothing Extraordinary about it.

9mm
2010-07-10, 12:42 PM
I don't care one way or the other about which way this goes; I simply want to be consistent with the D&D rules. This "Guest Sage" opinion (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070412a) by Mike Mearls violates the basic stacking (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#stacking) rule because Cunning Strike
fails to include a specific exception statement permitting it to stack.

FWIW, the other answer is also wrong; "It's reasonable to assume" has no basis in the rules, either. Sneak attack is a natural class ability, arrived at through study of the anatomy of enemies to discern vulnerable spots; there's nothing Extraordinary about it.

it also doesn't have any language declaring it a bonus, which means the stacking bonus rules don't apply.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-10, 01:52 PM
it also doesn't have any language declaring it a bonus, which means the stacking bonus rules don't apply.
OK, then. If Cunning Strike doesn't provide a bonus to the Factotum's damage roll, it doesn't affect the enemy at all. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously: There's nothing in the stacking rules that requires specific terminology. Your conclusion is based on a "rule" you made up, not on the RAW.

9mm
2010-07-10, 02:54 PM
OK, then. If Cunning Strike doesn't provide a bonus to the Factotum's damage roll, it doesn't affect the enemy at all. :smallbiggrin:
your right it doesn't, it adds Sneak Attack whitch we both know isn't a bonus at all but precision damage.



Seriously: There's nothing in the stacking rules that requires specific terminology. Your conclusion is based on a "rule" you made up, not on the RAW.

there is nothing requiring a lack of terminology, Your conclusion is based on a "rule" you made up, not on the RAW.

Que circular arguments.

seriously this is like arguing over discarding a card for Lightning Vortex is a cost or not. (fyi, it is)

Gametime
2010-07-10, 03:07 PM
A modifier is any bonus or penalty applying to a die roll. A positive modifier is a bonus, and a negative modifier is a penalty.

Anything positive applied to a die roll is a bonus. Arguably, this only refers to static numbers, but it doesn't seem to exclude die rolls.

Sneak attack damage is also specifically referred to as a bonus by many prestige classes that grant it. Notably, the term is used in a passage clarifying that the sneak attack damage from a prestige class stacks with the damage from a normal class. To me, at least, this implies that the prestige classes are making an exception to the bonus stacking rules to allow prestige classes to continue sneak attack progression.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-10, 03:09 PM
your right it doesn't, it adds Sneak Attack whitch we both know isn't a bonus at all but precision damage.
Precision damage is a bonus to your damage roll. From Rules Compendium, page 42:
PRECISION DAMAGE
A number of abilities in the game allow a creature to deal extra damage by striking a vital area. This category of abilities includes sneak attack and other abilities that work like it ...

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).

9mm
2010-07-10, 03:15 PM
Anything positive applied to a die roll is a bonus. Arguably, this only refers to static numbers, but it doesn't seem to exclude die rolls.
but it doesn't INCLUDE them either. Creating a "can" camp and a "can't" camp who both can both look at the same text, and come to such wildly different determinations because in the end, RaW says nothing EITHER way. this is why FAQ and Sage were established because these disparities show up everywhere, and in this case the "can't" group lost and will ignore the ruling, just like the "can" group ignores the ruling that you can't do karmatic strike and Robliers gambit at the same time.


Sneak attack damage is also specifically referred to as a bonus by many prestige classes that grant it. Notably, the term is used in a passage clarifying that the sneak attack damage from a prestige class stacks with the damage from a normal class. To me, at least, this implies that the prestige classes are making an exception to the bonus stacking rules to allow prestige classes to continue sneak attack progression.

and there are just as many that DON'T which brings us back to the above point. In fact things get even more confusing when you realize there are whole TERMS and RULES that were added halfway through 3.5s life that changed fundamentally "how things work" but they never went back and updated the older material to fit the new Terms and Rules.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-10, 03:21 PM
there is nothing requiring a lack of terminology, Your conclusion is based on a "rule" you made up, not on the RAW.
I can make no sense of this whatsoever. Is English not your native language?

9mm
2010-07-10, 03:27 PM
I can make no sense of this whatsoever. Is English not your native language?

in short:

You: it doesn't have to explicitly use the word bonus to be a bonus
Me: if it doesn't say the word bonus it isn't a bonus
RAW: *sounds of crickets chirping*

Curmudgeon
2010-07-10, 03:46 PM
You: it doesn't have to explicitly use the word bonus to be a bonus
Me: if it doesn't say the word bonus it isn't a bonus
English has a concept called "synonyms", which I encourage you to explore. Regardless, this side-issue is irrelevant for the debate about Cunning Strike because Rules Compendium explicitly calls precision damage a bonus, and thus Cunning Strike must follow the stacking rules.