PDA

View Full Version : Daring Outlaw



Fisticuffs
2010-11-03, 12:56 PM
I'm starting in a friend's campaign and was milling through afew ideas but ended up wanting to play a Swashbuckler idea I had awhile ago for a campaign that never got off the ground.

I think I'm going 1 Swashbuckler/1 Rogue/2 Swashbuckler/3 Swashbuckler/1 Hit-and-Run SA Fighter

I thinking I'm going to play a Stronghold Halfling and my feats will be:
1st TWF, ?(Racial), Weapon Finesse(Swash bonus)
3rd Craven
6th Daring Outlaw

Now my question is, assuming I end up our front-line fighter, is Invisible Blade worth going into at that point knowing that my DM will let the Prereq feats be changed to TWF, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus(dagger, kukri, punching dagger) and that he would put no restrictions on the feinting? On one hand it would greatly increase my potential for damage but on the other hand going from d10's, assuming I stayed the coarse of SB, to the Blade's d6's has me nervous plus it almost seems a waste of Daring Outlaw. And if it's not what would be a better option for the feat slot I would be using up on a Weapon Focus.

gbprime
2010-11-03, 12:59 PM
If you're going Daring Outlaw in the build, stick with Swash or Rogue. The bonus sneak attack dice are too nice. Perhaps throw in Combat Reflexes later so you can get Vexing and Adaptive Flanker, allowing you to flank from any square instead of just the opposite one. And keeping your BAB as high as possible allows you to get Robilar's Gambit that much faster, which is even MORE flanking stabby death. :smallcool:

Jallorn
2010-11-03, 12:59 PM
I just want you to be aware that Swashbuckler is even worse balance-wise than the normal fighter. I've made what I feel is a pretty good fix if you're open to homebrew. Check it out through my sig.

gbprime
2010-11-03, 01:01 PM
I just want you to be aware that Swashbuckler is even worse balance-wise than the normal fighter.

One does not become a Swashbuckler for the efficiency. One becomes a Swashbuckler for the panache. :smallamused:

Mongoose87
2010-11-03, 01:02 PM
Isn't Daring Outlaw + Craven generally considered the fix that makes Swash playable?

the humanity
2010-11-03, 01:10 PM
as somebody currently playing a daring outlaw into invisible blade, it is a character that works best in a party of up front combatants early levels, giving you the niche of being good at maneuvering around tunnels filled with caltrops and the like.
later levels, going through attack phases is going to be like playing a duskblade- heavy fighting yes but if you can't kill it in one turn you need to run back into hiding.

regardless, invisible blade is a great class for it, especially if you are changing the feat requirements.

AtwasAwamps
2010-11-03, 01:12 PM
If you suspect that you will be the frontliner, have you considered ditching rogue entirely?

The Sneak Attack Fighter variant will give you 2d6 SA by level 3, just as a rogue, and it will keep you with full BAB and d10 hitdice the whole way through. Since Daring Outlaw doesn’t actually require rogue levels, just the SA ability, you qualify for it with your swashbuckler levels…and if you want to be very sneaky, you can point out that only your swasbuckler levels count towards sneak attack progression, since you don’t have rogue levels to stack…thus, instead of being at level six with 3d6 SA from your stacked rogue/swashbuckler levels, you’d have 4d6 – 2d6 from three levels of SA Fighter and 2d6 from three levels of Daring Outlaw. Sneaky, but not that powerful in the long run. Still fun to have =P

If Tome of battle is allowed, I’d recommend a two level dip into swordsage, to net you some nice stances and maneuvers that would functionally replace invisible blade’s class features without forcing you into any particular feats, as well as actually providing weapon focus for your invisible blade progression should you choose to. Two levels nets you a handful of great stances, wis to AC in light armor, and the ability to take a feat that lets you get your Dex to damage instead of strength, letting you actually effectively dump strength.

Heck, if you want to get crazy, take invisible blade levels AFTER that. You’re going to end up a frontliner anyways, so might as well get Dex, Int, and Wis to AC for the hell of it. You may have to ditch light armor for that, so check with your DM about swordsage’s Wis to AC bonus and switch to unarmed swordsage variant if he won’t let it count in no armor without that switch. It doesn’t harm anything in the long run.

If you don’t go SS, then hopping straight into invisible blade is still fine. By choosing SA Fighter instead of rogue, you do lose out on some really neat class features, but you do keep near full BAB and have a few extra HP, which can help at lower levels.

true_shinken
2010-11-03, 01:14 PM
One does not become a Swashbuckler for the efficiency. One becomes a Swashbuckler for the panache. :smallamused:

Oh, god. Now you are going to have to hear two thousand people telling you to refluff a wizard into a swashbuckler because fluff is mutable and classes are metagame concepts. :smallsigh:

gbprime
2010-11-03, 01:19 PM
If you suspect that you will be the frontliner, have you considered ditching rogue entirely?

The Sneak Attack Fighter variant will give you 2d6 SA by level 3, just as a rogue, and it will keep you with full BAB and d10 hitdice the whole way through. Since Daring Outlaw doesn’t actually require rogue levels, just the SA ability, you qualify for it with your swashbuckler levels…and if you want to be very sneaky, you can point out that only your swasbuckler levels count towards sneak attack progression, since you don’t have rogue levels to stack…thus, instead of being at level six with 3d6 SA from your stacked rogue/swashbuckler levels, you’d have 4d6 – 2d6 from three levels of SA Fighter and 2d6 from three levels of Daring Outlaw. Sneaky, but not that powerful in the long run. Still fun to have =P

The sneak attack fighter variant is useful for some things, yes. But in this case, I often think that 1 BAB and a few HP are a worthwhile trade off for the extra skill points and Evasion.

Neat trick, though.

AtwasAwamps
2010-11-03, 01:22 PM
The sneak attack fighter variant is useful for some things, yes. But in this case, I often think that 1 BAB and a few HP are a worthwhile trade off for the extra skill points and Evasion.

Neat trick, though.

Agree, in the long run. It was just another option to craft a more front-line capable character at an early level.

Fisticuffs
2010-11-03, 03:43 PM
1 Swashbuckler/1 Rogue/2 Swashbuckler/3 Swashbuckler/1 Hit-and-Run SA Fighter

I already had 1 level of Hit-and-Run SA Fighter in the build(it gets 2d6 at second, not third, and it's not very good with SB unless you take the Hit-and-Run alternate class feature from Drow of the Underdark), I kept the one level of Rogue for the skills, I forgot to mention that we house rule if a skill has ever been a class skill it remains a class skill for any other classes you go into. ToB is frowned upon but not really banned, so if I can get it approved, I'm thinking I might instead go:

1 Sword Sage(Shadow Hand)/1 Swashbuckler/1 Hit-and-Run SA Fighter/2 Swashbuckler/3 Swashbuckler/2 Hit-and-Run SA Fighter/1 Invisible Blade/2 Sword Sage/2-5 Invisible Blade

1st TWF, Shadow Blade, Weapon Focus(SS Bonus)
2nd Weapon Finesse(Swash bonus)
3rd Craven
6th Daring Outlaw
9th ?

Greenish
2010-11-03, 03:46 PM
I already had 1 level of Hit-and-Run SA Fighter in the build(it gets 2d6 at second, not third,SA Fighter gains SA just like a rogue, so 1d6 on 1st level, 2d6 on 3rd level and so on.

[Edit]: And Swordsage doesn't actually give Weapon Focus as the feat, but most DMs will probably allow it to work like that.

Fisticuffs
2010-11-03, 05:32 PM
SA Fighter gains SA just like a rogue, so 1d6 on 1st level, 2d6 on 3rd level and so on.

My mistake, I remember them getting a d6 every level they would have gotten a feat, oops, my apologies.

Curmudgeon
2010-11-03, 06:50 PM
My mistake, I remember them getting a d6 every level they would have gotten a feat, oops, my apologies.
No, it's a swap of one entire class feature for another, not a per-level substitution.

gorfnab
2010-11-03, 11:27 PM
How about this (though not necessarily in this order):
Sneak Attack Fighter (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/soveliorsage/unearthedCoreClass.html#simple-fighter) 3/ Swashbuckler 3/ Feat Rogue (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/soveliorsage/unearthedCoreClass.html#simple-rogue) 14
With the feat Daring Outlaw this nets you 16 BAB, 11d6 sneak attack, and 8 bonus fighter feats.

If you do go Invisible Blade take a look at the feat Surprising Riposte from Drow of the Underdark and the skill tricks Group Fake-Out and Timely Misdirection from Complete Scoundrel.

Curmudgeon
2010-11-04, 01:43 AM
How about this (though not necessarily in this order):
Sneak Attack Fighter (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/soveliorsage/unearthedCoreClass.html#simple-fighter) 3/ Swashbuckler 3/ Feat Rogue (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/soveliorsage/unearthedCoreClass.html#simple-rogue) 14
With the feat Daring Outlaw this nets you 16 BAB, 11d6 sneak attack, and 8 bonus fighter feats.
What amount of sneak attack you get depends on how your DM reads things, but it's never as high as that. You forgot to factor in the D&D stacking limits.

Sneak attack Fighter gets "Sneak attack (as Rogue)". The Rogue Sneak Attack class feature doesn't have any language allowing that to stack with any other sneak attack (including itself ─ note that each new sneak attack value in the class table is a complete replacement), so it only stacks if some other source says so. Daring Outlaw only allows Swashbuckler and Rogue levels to stack for sneak attack, and has no language permitting that total to stack with any other source. So the best you could hope for is the better of 2d6 and 9d6 sneak attack.

Now, many DMs would insist that there's no sneak attack in the combination of Swashbuckler + feat Rogue at all and thus Daring Outlaw provides no sneak attack improvement. So you'd get only 2d6 sneak attack total, but the full Grace as if you were a level 17 Swashbuckler. Or you could get a DM who says only straight Rogue is referenced in the feat, and you get no benefit at all with a variant.

Tytalus
2010-11-04, 09:04 AM
I think I'm going 1 Swashbuckler/1 Rogue/2 Swashbuckler/3 Swashbuckler/1 Hit-and-Run SA Fighter


If you go Rogue1/Swash1 instead of Swash1/Rogue1, you gain 12 skill points for the price of 2 measly HP (on average).

Also, you get to spend your massive 1st-level skill points on a larger list of useful skills, including Use Magic Device.

Urpriest
2010-11-04, 09:50 AM
If you go Rogue1/Swash1 instead of Swash1/Rogue1, you gain 12 skill points for the price of 2 measly HP (on average).

Also, you get to spend your massive 1st-level skill points on a larger list of useful skills, including Use Magic Device.

Yes, but if you start as such a character then you lack Weapon Finesse and thus in order to hit anything in melee at first level you lower the points you can spend on more valuable ability scores.

Quietus
2010-11-04, 09:57 AM
What amount of sneak attack you get depends on how your DM reads things, but it's never as high as that. You forgot to factor in the D&D stacking limits.

Sneak attack Fighter gets "Sneak attack (as Rogue)". The Rogue Sneak Attack class feature doesn't have any language allowing that to stack with any other sneak attack (including itself ─ note that each new sneak attack value in the class table is a complete replacement), so it only stacks if some other source says so. Daring Outlaw only allows Swashbuckler and Rogue levels to stack for sneak attack, and has no language permitting that total to stack with any other source. So the best you could hope for is the better of 2d6 and 9d6 sneak attack.

Now, many DMs would insist that there's no sneak attack in the combination of Swashbuckler + feat Rogue at all and thus Daring Outlaw provides no sneak attack improvement. So you'd get only 2d6 sneak attack total, but the full Grace as if you were a level 17 Swashbuckler. Or you could get a DM who says only straight Rogue is referenced in the feat, and you get no benefit at all with a variant.

Are you really suggesting that all the sneaky monsters out there that have sneak attack, advance by character level, and have rogue as their favored class don't actually get to increase their sneak attack until their Rogue levels are more than twice their sneak attack dice from their racial abilities?

Tytalus
2010-11-04, 10:04 AM
Yes, but if you start as such a character then you lack Weapon Finesse and thus in order to hit anything in melee at first level you lower the points you can spend on more valuable ability scores.

Of course, as a level 1 character with light armor you are much better off using ranged weapons anyway until you can actually take a good hit from level-appropriate opponents (see orcs, for instance).

quiet1mi
2010-11-04, 10:15 AM
Oh, god. Now you are going to have to hear two thousand people telling you to refluff a wizard into a swashbuckler because fluff is mutable and classes are metagame concepts. Should I mention that you can get spell like abilities as a ACF. (complete mage or arcane)

Sorry to butt in but what book is craven from? I look forward to making a NPC that is a Swashbuckler 3/ Rogue 3, for my level 6 Tome of battle Campaign.

1st: TWF
3rd: Craven
6th: Daring outlaw

I am still messing with what race the NPC would be... I am limiting the players to PHB races only....

Curmudgeon
2010-11-04, 10:45 AM
Are you really suggesting that all the sneaky monsters out there that have sneak attack, advance by character level, and have rogue as their favored class don't actually get to increase their sneak attack until their Rogue levels are more than twice their sneak attack dice from their racial abilities? I'm not suggesting anything; I'm stating that the D&D stacking rules apply unless there are exceptions given. For "all the sneaky monsters out there that have sneak attack, advance by character level, and have rogue as their favored class" the designers need to have put in a note like the following:
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 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. The Monster Manual III Errata added a note that gives the Naztharune Rakshasa sneak attack as if all their HD were Rogue levels, so that's "fixed" (in an overly generous manner, because if they take some other class that has sneak attack with a stacking note they'll get even more :smallannoyed:). I only know of one remaining creature in all the MMs that has a problem in this regard. (That's pretty good considering the average error rate in monster writeups.)

Quietus
2010-11-04, 11:07 AM
Fiend Folio is missing that statement from at least one - The Cuprilach (a variety of Rilmani) gains sneak attack with no "bonus stacks with" clause. Though perhaps since it gives HD-based advancement rather than character class, this might be a poor indicator.

Dark Ones, from the same book, have a similar thing. They gain sneak attack dice, but gives no "bonus" wording. The smaller of the two, "Dark Creeper", has only one HD, but LA +3. All it gains for that is some favorable stat bonuses, 1 natural armor, blindsight, a poorly-worded darkness ability, plus sneak attack and evasion. Given that their favored class is Rogue and they start out with +3 LA, I still think that's absolutely ridiculous that by the time they reach level 6, they'd have basically overwritten the racial traits that made them favor Rogue levels in the first place.

::Edit:: You can add Vulvitors, a particular type of Canomorph, to the list, with the same issues as Dark Ones, except in this case they start out as 7th level characters (3 HD, 4 LA), with 5d6 sneak attack - meaning they wouldn't even see an increase in their sneak attack dice until Rogue level 11.

jiriku
2010-11-04, 11:09 AM
That's silly. The obvious intent of the game is that sneak attack gained from all sources stacks. The only reason that there's no statement pointing out that sneak attack gained from multiple base classes stacks is because the game doesn't have multiple base classes that grant sneak attack (and no, thumbnail descriptions of possible class variants don't count).

Curmudgeon
2010-11-04, 01:30 PM
The obvious intent of the game is that sneak attack gained from all sources stacks.
I've got to disagree on that point. The easiest way of making sneak attack stack would have been to add an erratum for the Rogue class ability. As it is we've got dozens of prestige classes that have been forced to add "stacks with" language because of this lack. It seems obvious to me that they went out of their way to avoid this easy correction, so they didn't intend sneak attack to stack except where explicitly stated.

Quietus
2010-11-04, 01:42 PM
I've got to disagree on that point. The easiest way of making sneak attack stack would have been to add an erratum for the Rogue class ability. As it is we've got dozens of prestige classes that have been forced to add "stacks with" language because of this lack. It seems obvious to me that they went out of their way to avoid this easy correction, so they didn't intend sneak attack to stack except where explicitly stated.

So you believe that it was the intent of the designers, when they were writing the Vulvitors, that they would gain 5d6 sneak attack as effectively a 7th level character, then be unable to go up to 6d6 until they reach 18th character level if they went straight Rogue - which is their favored class?

Urpriest
2010-11-04, 02:17 PM
I've got to disagree on that point. The easiest way of making sneak attack stack would have been to add an erratum for the Rogue class ability. As it is we've got dozens of prestige classes that have been forced to add "stacks with" language because of this lack. It seems obvious to me that they went out of their way to avoid this easy correction, so they didn't intend sneak attack to stack except where explicitly stated.

This is typical of 4e, not of 3.5. While 3.5 occasionally provided errata of their original material for clarity or balance, they never did so for consistency with later sources. The absence of such errata does not establish anything in the realm of RAI.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-11-04, 02:31 PM
I've got to disagree on that point. The easiest way of making sneak attack stack would have been to add an erratum for the Rogue class ability. As it is we've got dozens of prestige classes that have been forced to add "stacks with" language because of this lack. It seems obvious to me that they went out of their way to avoid this easy correction, so they didn't intend sneak attack to stack except where explicitly stated.

Stacking rules only apply to bonus's not extra damage.
The same reason you can get Sneak attack, sudden strike, and swashbucklers +int to dmg(which is extra damage if i remember correctly as well).
Or any other combination of precision damage.
Though most people say it "stacks"
Technicaly the damage would be like
1d6(weapon) +2(str) +2d6(rogue)+1d6(SA fighter)+1d6 (Suddenstrike) + 1d6 for flaming.
Because there is no rule saying that you are limited to only 1 source of extra damage otherwise, the elemental weapon enchants wouldn't work with Sneak attack.

Curmudgeon
2010-11-04, 04:13 PM
Stacking rules only apply to bonus's not extra damage.
That can't be the case, because "extra" is a synonym for "bonus". From Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bonus):
bonus
–noun

3. something free, as an extra dividend, given by a corporation to a purchaser of its securities.

—Synonyms
1. reward, honorarium, gift. 2. Bonus, bounty, premium refer to something extra beyond a stipulated payment. The D&D definition (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_bonus&alpha=B) of bonus damage also applies to anything that deals extra damage:
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. Sneak attack is a positive modifier to your damage roll. So no matter what you call it, by the rules of the game any positive modifier to a die roll has got to conform to the stacking limits.

hamishspence
2010-11-04, 04:16 PM
Sneak attack is not a positive modifier to a damage roll. That would be things like Power Attack.

Sneak attack is bonus dice to a damage roll.

Greenish
2010-11-04, 04:25 PM
Sorry to butt in but what book is craven from?Champions of Ruin.

Unless only PHB races exist in your setting, I'd suggest making it a hobgoblin or a goblin. They need more love. :smallwink:

Douglas
2010-11-04, 04:34 PM
Curmudgeon may be correct by RAW, but only by a very strict reading that I am confident the vast majority of players and DMs in the world would think is silly and absurd and would not play with.

Of course, allowing Feat Rogue to count for Daring Outlaw is similarly silly, so the build probably wouldn't be allowed to work anyway unless the DM were intentionally trying to give the character a power boost.

jiriku
2010-11-04, 04:42 PM
Agreed, the intent of the feat could be read as "Combine Swashbuckler with class X that grants sneak attack, and Swashbuckler levels will stack with class X when figuring your sneak attack dice." I'd happily allow Daring Outlaw to let your levels in Sneak Attack Fighter and Swashbuckler combine to determine sneak attack, but gaining sneak attack progression from Feat Rogue and Swashbuckler when neither class grants sneak attack is nonsensical.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-11-04, 05:26 PM
That can't be the case, because "extra" is a synonym for "bonus". From Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bonus): The D&D definition (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_bonus&alpha=B) of bonus damage also applies to anything that deals extra damage: Sneak attack is a positive modifier to your damage roll. So no matter what you call it, by the rules of the game any positive modifier to a die roll has got to conform to the stacking limits.


Well sir, you have ousted me... aaa sarcasm...

The difference between a modifier/bonus and extra damage is differentiated in a few places.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#modifierTypes

Modifiers

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.

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). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified.
Modifier Types

Ability Modifier
The bonus or penalty associated with a particular ability score. Ability modifiers apply to die rolls for character actions involving the corresponding abilities.

Alchemical Bonus
An alchemical bonus is granted by the use of a nonmagical, alchemical substance such as antitoxin.

Armor Bonus
An armor bonus applies to Armor Class and is granted by armor or by a spell or magical effect that mimics armor. Armor bonuses stack with all other bonuses to Armor Class (even with natural armor bonuses) except other armor bonuses. An armor bonus doesn't apply against touch attacks, except for armor bonuses granted by force effects (such as the mage armor spell) which apply against incorporeal touch attacks, such as that of a shadow.

Circumstance Modifier
A circumstance bonus (or penalty) arises from specific conditional factors impacting the success of the task at hand. Circumstance bonuses stack with all other bonuses, including other circumstance bonuses, unless they arise from essentially the same source.

Competence Modifier
A competence bonus (or penalty) affects a character's performance of a particular task, as in the case of the bardic ability to inspire competence. Such a bonus may apply on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, caster level checks, or any other checks to which a bonus relating to level or skill ranks would normally apply. It does not apply on ability checks, damage rolls, initiative checks, or other rolls that aren't related to a character's level or skill ranks. Multiple competence bonuses don't stack; only the highest bonus applies.

Deflection Bonus
A deflection bonus affects Armor Class and is granted by a spell or magic effect that makes attacks veer off harmlessly. Deflection bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC except other deflection bonuses. A deflection bonus applies against touch attacks.

Dodge Bonus
A dodge bonus improves Armor Class (and sometimes Reflex saves) resulting from physical skill at avoiding blows and other ill effects. Dodge bonuses are never granted by spells or magic items. Any situation or effect (except wearing armor) that negates a character's Dexterity bonus also negates any dodge bonuses the character may have. Dodge bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC, even other dodge bonuses. Dodge bonuses apply against touch attacks.

Enhancement Bonus
An enhancement bonus represents an increase in the sturdiness and/or effectiveness of armor or natural armor, or the effectiveness of a weapon, or a general bonus to an ability score. Multiple enhancement bonuses on the same object (in the case of armor and weapons), creature (in the case of natural armor), or ability score do not stack. Only the highest enhancement bonus applies. Since enhancement bonuses to armor or natural armor effectively increase the armor or natural armor's bonus to AC, they don't apply against touch attacks.

Insight Bonus
An insight bonus improves performance of a given activity by granting the character an almost precognitive knowledge of what might occur. Multiple insight bonuses on the same character or object do not stack. Only the highest insight bonus applies.

Luck Modifier
A luck modifier represents good (or bad) fortune. Multiple luck bonuses on the same character or object do not stack. Only the highest luck bonus applies.

Morale Modifier
A morale bonus represents the effects of greater hope, courage, and determination (or hopelessness, cowardice, and despair in the case of a morale penalty). Multiple morale bonuses on the same character do not stack. Only the highest morale bonus applies. Nonintelligent creatures (creatures with an Intelligence of 0 or no Intelligence at all) cannot benefit from morale bonuses.

Natural Armor Bonus
A natural armor bonus improves Armor Class resulting from a creature's naturally tough hide. Natural armor bonuses stack with all other bonuses to Armor Class (even with armor bonuses) except other natural armor bonuses. Some magical effects (such as the barkskin spell) grant an enhancement bonus to the creature's existing natural armor bonus, which has the effect of increasing the natural armor's overall bonus to Armor Class. A natural armor bonus doesn't apply against touch attacks.

Profane Modifier
A profane bonus (or penalty) stems from the power of evil. Multiple profane bonuses on the same character or object do not stack. Only the highest profane bonus applies.

Racial bonus
A bonus granted because of the culture a particular creature was brought up in or because of innate characteristics of that type of creature. If a creature's race changes (for instance, if it dies and is reincarnated), it loses all racial bonuses it had in its previous form.

Resistance Bonus
A resistance bonus affects saving throws, providing extra protection against harm. Multiple resistance bonuses on the same character or object do not stack. Only the highest resistance bonus applies.

Sacred Modifier
A sacred bonus (or penalty) stems from the power of good. Multiple sacred bonuses on the same character or object do not stack. Only the highest sacred bonus applies.

Shield Bonus
A shield bonus improves Armor Class and is granted by a shield or by a spell or magic effect that mimics a shield. Shield bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC except other shield bonuses. A magic shield typically grants an enhancement bonus to the shield's shield bonus, which has the effect of increasing the shield's overall bonus to AC. A shield bonus granted by a spell or magic item typically takes the form of an invisible, tangible field of force that protects the recipient. A shield bonus doesn't apply against touch attacks.

Size Modifier
A size bonus or penalty is derived from a creature's size category. Size modifiers of different kinds apply to Armor Class, attack rolls, Hide checks, grapple checks, and various other checks.

As you can see there is no mention of Sneak attack nor mention of extra damage.

Also:

Multiplying Damage

Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results. Note: When you multiply damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage.

Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal damage are never multiplied.
As you can see here they use modifiers and extra separately.

and again:

Critical

The entry in this column notes how the weapon is used with the rules for critical hits. When your character scores a critical hit, roll the damage two, three, or four times, as indicated by its critical multiplier (using all applicable modifiers on each roll), and add all the results together.

Exception: Extra damage over and above a weapon’s normal damage is not multiplied when you score a critical hit.

So honestly i could care less if extra is a synonym of bonus. Because they in D&d terms are separate things. Some times things in English mean other things in games. Such as tapping in magic.



Edit: Further more , Feat rogue/Swashbuckler/SA fighter would stack. you would get the 1d6 SA from the fighter side then calculate the other side. Just like if you where to be 3 levels of swashbuckler and 3 levels of SA fighter you would have SA as a 6th level rogue.

Curmudgeon
2010-11-04, 06:09 PM
Sneak attack is not a positive modifier to a damage roll. That would be things like Power Attack.

Sneak attack is bonus dice to a damage roll.
I believe you may be thinking that a modifier must be a constant ─ but there's nothing in the D&D rules to require that, as you can see:
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. Whether it's constant or variable expressed in dice, it's subject to the stacking limitations.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-11-04, 06:38 PM
I believe you may be thinking that a modifier must be a constant ─ but there's nothing in the D&D rules to require that, as you can see: Whether it's constant or variable expressed in dice, it's subject to the stacking limitations.

Then please tell me what modifier it falls under?
Other wise it is an untyped and does stack.

Akal Saris
2010-11-04, 07:58 PM
Guys, just let Curmudgeon rule things his way. He's never going to agree with you on this one.

Getting back on topic, I've seen silly arguments for a Swashbuckler 20 build. You take a Shadow Hand strike through Martial Study, then Assassin's stance through Martial Stance at level 12, then at 15th the swashbuckler qualifies for the PrC and would combine his 0 levels of rogue with his 15 levels of swashbuckler for the SA of a 15th level rogue. Some food for the old RAI vs RAW debate :P

true_shinken
2010-11-04, 08:12 PM
Getting back on topic, I've seen silly arguments for a Swashbuckler 20 build. You take a Shadow Hand strike through Martial Study, then Assassin's stance through Martial Stance at level 12, then at 15th the swashbuckler qualifies for the PrCfeat and would combine his 0 levels of rogue with his 15 levels of swashbuckler for the SA of a 15th level rogue. Some food for the old RAI vs RAW debate :P

FTFY.
I've seen this build as well. Surprisingly, it seems RAW legal.
It also sucks completely up until level 15 - by then, anything melee is alreayd sucking anyway.
The lack of UMD and Penetrating Strike alo makes it inferior to Rogue 4/Swashbuckler 16.

Godskook
2010-11-04, 08:23 PM
If you're willing to accept the dispel/disjunction issues, you can combine that trick with a custom ring of the Shadow Hand(x2) to get daring outlaw at level 12 instead, as well as saving two feats upfront. Problem comes in that losing your ring temporarily negates the feat.

Quietus
2010-11-04, 08:36 PM
I believe you may be thinking that a modifier must be a constant ─ but there's nothing in the D&D rules to require that, as you can see: Whether it's constant or variable expressed in dice, it's subject to the stacking limitations.

So along these same lines of thinking, do HP from different classes not stack? They're a numerical alteration, from different classes, with the same name.

Curmudgeon
2010-11-04, 09:32 PM
Then please tell me what modifier it falls under?
Other wise it is an untyped and does stack.
Sneak attack is a modifier to your damage roll. While untyped, the source is the same (Sneak Attack) in each case, and therefore multiple instances do not stack (without a listed exception).

So along these same lines of thinking, do HP from different classes not stack? They're a numerical alteration, from different classes, with the same name.
Hit points do not modify any check or roll, so they're not subject to the stacking rule.
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).

Quietus
2010-11-04, 10:00 PM
Sneak attack is a modifier to your damage roll. While untyped, the source is the same (Sneak Attack) in each case, and therefore multiple instances do not stack (without a listed exception).

Hit points do not modify any check or roll, so they're not subject to the stacking rule.

Sneak Attack doesn't *modify* any check or roll either. It provides "extra" damage, not "bonus" damage. Therefore, it's not subject to the Stacking rules, because it's not a bonus nor a modifier.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-11-04, 10:03 PM
Sneak attack is a modifier to your damage roll. While untyped, the source is the same (Sneak Attack) in each case, and therefore multiple instances do not stack (without a listed exception).


Untyped bonus from the same source stack though. If you can get two +2 untyped bonus's to your attack roll you would have +4

If thats the case then one is Rogue sneak attack and the other is SA fighter or Ninja or what have you.
The sources are different SA from one class is different then SA from another.


but as i can see there is no convincing you so I will stop arguing. I believe you are wrong as well as a majority of the community. To each there own.

Mongoose87
2010-11-04, 10:16 PM
but as i can see there is no convincing you so I will stop arguing. I believe you are wrong as well as a majority of the community. To each there own.

While I don't really have an opinion one way or another, I think it's a bit presumptuous to speak for the majority of the community.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-11-04, 10:18 PM
While I don't really have an opinion one way or another, I think it's a bit presumptuous to speak for the majority of the community.

The onyl reason I say that is because of the numerous handbooks that have been community efforts that say other wise. I do not speak for the whole community obviously but i feel based on the fact that these builds have been excepted by multiple communities, both here the old gleemax/wizard boards, BG and im pritty sure enworld.

Curmudgeon
2010-11-04, 11:23 PM
Untyped bonus from the same source stack though.
Afraid you're mistaken. Again quoting the relevant rule:
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).

Akal Saris
2010-11-05, 12:11 AM
While I don't really have an opinion one way or another, I think it's a bit presumptuous to speak for the majority of the community.

Wait, I thought we elected Ragnaros as our community spokesperson back on Tuesday, didn't we?

RagnaroksChosen
2010-11-05, 05:34 AM
Afraid you're mistaken. Again quoting the relevant rule:

Correct, however There is no type and there from different sources, one is from rogue the other is from other class sneak attack.

Mongoose87
2010-11-05, 06:45 AM
Wait, I thought we elected Ragnaros as our community spokesperson back on Tuesday, didn't we?

Of course! Prop 8965Q! How could I forget?

Curmudgeon
2010-11-05, 02:07 PM
Correct, however There is no type and there from different sources, one is from rogue the other is from other class sneak attack.
That's not how WotC defines "source". It's the source name that matters.
Different named bonus types all stack, but usually a named bonus does not stack with another bonus of the same name, except for dodge bonuses and some circumstance bonuses.
Does the Armor Class bonus ability from the monk, swordsage, and ninja stack?
No, each of these abilities provides the same bonus. You are not able to benefit from multiple sources that have the same name more then once. The name of the source is Sneak Attack in each case.

Urpriest
2010-11-05, 02:35 PM
That's not how WotC defines "source". It's the source name that matters. The name of the source is Sneak Attack in each case.

Ooh, this is interesting. Normally the argument is that Ninja, Monk, and Swordsage all add your Wisdom bonus, and that's why they don't stack. You're basing it on the name of the ability, however, If you take this tack, then no class abilities called AC Bonus can stack, so for example the Fist of the Forest doesn't stack with the Monk's AC Bonus. I hope you've been treating it that way. Would it be too presumptuous to hope that I've added a new element to the Curmudgeon-RAW-verse?

Godskook
2010-11-05, 03:28 PM
Ooh, this is interesting. Normally the argument is that Ninja, Monk, and Swordsage all add your Wisdom bonus, and that's why they don't stack. You're basing it on the name of the ability, however, If you take this tack, then no class abilities called AC Bonus can stack, so for example the Fist of the Forest doesn't stack with the Monk's AC Bonus. I hope you've been treating it that way. Would it be too presumptuous to hope that I've added a new element to the Curmudgeon-RAW-verse?

Actually, that's the way Curmudgeon always argued the AC bonus issue, and is the only way I've ever heard it argued, since the way you mention would preclude the common concept of Paladin of Tyrrany 2/Blackguard 2/Hexblade 2 for +3*Cha to saves against spells.

Curmudgeon
2010-11-05, 04:04 PM
Actually, that's the way Curmudgeon always argued the AC bonus issue
I do try to stick to the actual text of the rules, which certainly helps with consistency. :smallwink:

the way you mention would preclude the common concept of Paladin of Tyrrany 2/Blackguard 2/Hexblade 2 for +3*Cha to saves against spells.
Yep; Divine Grace, Dark Blessing, and Arcane Resistance are all different sources. I call that one the Hammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_Can%27t_Touch_This) build. :smallbiggrin:

Douglas
2010-11-05, 04:08 PM
Yeah, it's quite clear and well established that which ability score a bonus is based on is utterly and completely irrelevant with regard to whether it stacks or not.

Fax Celestis
2010-11-05, 04:09 PM
Curmudgeon may be correct by RAW, but only by a very strict reading that I am confident the vast majority of players and DMs in the world would think is silly and absurd and would not play with.

Of course, allowing Feat Rogue to count for Daring Outlaw is similarly silly, so the build probably wouldn't be allowed to work anyway unless the DM were intentionally trying to give the character a power boost.


Agreed, the intent of the feat could be read as "Combine Swashbuckler with class X that grants sneak attack, and Swashbuckler levels will stack with class X when figuring your sneak attack dice." I'd happily allow Daring Outlaw to let your levels in Sneak Attack Fighter and Swashbuckler combine to determine sneak attack, but gaining sneak attack progression from Feat Rogue and Swashbuckler when neither class grants sneak attack is nonsensical.

Wouldn't you use Daring Warrior instead of Daring Outlaw for a feat rogue anyway? After all, the feat rogue has no Sneak Attack and as such can't qualify for Daring Outlaw, but has the fighter bonus feats and can qualify for such by taking Weapon Specialization.

0Megabyte
2010-11-05, 04:57 PM
Even normally, this Daring Outlaw feat seems very powerful.

If it wasn't clearly designed to salvage a terrible, terrible class I'd outlaw it myself. :smallwink:

The Shadowmind
2010-11-05, 04:59 PM
Wouldn't you use Daring Warrior instead of Daring Outlaw for a feat rogue anyway? After all, the feat rogue has no Sneak Attack and as such can't qualify for Daring Outlaw, but has the fighter bonus feats and can qualify for such by taking Weapon Specialization.

The problems with that Daring Warrior care for just Fighter/Swash levels, and while the Author's intent for Daring Warrior/Martial Stalker, was for you to get the bonus feats, it instead of allows you to qualify for feats as if a fighter of swash+fighter/ninja+fighter. I prefer the way that authored intended.

Though the whole SA fighter/Swash/martial rouge may even work under RAW (though definitely not RAI, especially since the author didn't know of UA when they wrote the book). If I was the DM I would allow it, since fighter is a bad class, swash is a bad class, and rogue is an almost decent class.

jiriku
2010-11-05, 05:03 PM
You could probably make one decent class by just gestalting rogue and swash, and another by gestalting fighter with....ummm...I'll think of something.

Douglas
2010-11-05, 05:32 PM
The problems with that Daring Warrior care for just Fighter/Swash levels, and while the Author's intent for Daring Warrior/Martial Stalker, was for you to get the bonus feats, it instead of allows you to qualify for feats as if a fighter of swash+fighter/ninja+fighter. I prefer the way that authored intended.
You seriously think that a single feat was intended to give you, essentially, level/2 bonus feats? So you get several feats for the price of one? I really really doubt that was the actual intent.

The Shadowmind
2010-11-05, 05:55 PM
You seriously think that a single feat was intended to give you, essentially, level/2 bonus feats? So you get several feats for the price of one? I really really doubt that was the actual intent.

It was what the author said the intent was: (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3264249&postcount=109).

Mongoose87
2010-11-05, 06:20 PM
It was what the author said the intent was: (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3264249&postcount=109).

That would've been absurdly good. People might actually use Ninjas.

true_shinken
2010-11-05, 08:04 PM
It was what the author said the intent was: (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3264249&postcount=109).

Holy crap, Ninja are actually good now!

The Shadowmind
2010-11-05, 08:38 PM
Holy crap, Ninja are actually good now!

While not great, if you used the designers intent instead of what got printed, then I think it would bring Ninja to maybe a mid or low Tier 4.

true_shinken
2010-11-05, 09:51 PM
While not great, if you used the designers intent instead of what got printed, then I think it would bring Ninja to maybe a mid or low Tier 4.

Actually, by mix-and-matching Fighter ACFs and taking this feat, we could get a low tier 3 Ninja/Fighter, I believe.

Dusk Eclipse
2010-11-05, 09:57 PM
Actually, by mix-and-matching Fighter ACFs and taking this feat, we could get a low tier 3 Ninja/Fighter, I believe.

Dungeon Crasher? Zentarim fighter?... that one that traded BAB for a bonus to will saves?

true_shinken
2010-11-05, 09:59 PM
Dungeon Crasher? Zentarim fighter?... that one that traded BAB for a bonus to will saves?
Hit-and-Run Fighter + Zhentarim should work.

Dusk Eclipse
2010-11-05, 10:02 PM
hmmm that would work I think.

I need to check Zentarim again.. where they in CoR or in CoV?

true_shinken
2010-11-05, 10:10 PM
hmmm that would work I think.

I need to check Zentarim again.. where they in CoR or in CoV?

CoR? Or was it CoV's web enhancement?

The Shadowmind
2010-11-05, 10:25 PM
Actually, by mix-and-matching Fighter ACFs and taking this feat, we could get a low tier 3 Ninja/Fighter, I believe.

Ninja 1,Fighter 6(Thug variant), Dungeon Crasher ACF, Zhentarim Soldier sub
Ninja 13
Get 4+int skill points at levels, 2,3,5,7. 2+int at 4,6, 6+int for the rest.
Marital Stalker feat taken at 9(Ninja 1/Fighter 6/Ninja 2 effective fighter 9 so feats at levels 10,12,14,16,18,20.
Ninja class levels 14
Ac bonus of 20th level Ninja
Ki of a 20th level ninja
Abilities of a 14th level ninja. Sudden Strike 7d6.
Counts as a 20th level fighter for fighter only feats.

Okay I still think we are at Tier 4 territory, but still a decent character build, if lacking in abilities early on.

Ninja'ed a bit: Where is hit&run from?

true_shinken
2010-11-05, 10:32 PM
Ninja'ed a bit: Where is hit&run from?
Drow of Underdark. Gives up heavy armor proficiency for +2 initiative and +Dex to damage when flanking.

GhostwheelZ
2010-11-06, 03:42 AM
Check this (http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Basic_Combat_Rogue_Guide_%283.5e_Optimized_Charact er_Build%29) out to see (some of?) the best feats and optional classes for the classic Daring Outlaw build--most have probably been mentioned, but there's a gem or two that I don't think anyone's touched on. Hope that helps!