[3.5] Bonus Types, Names, and Sources -- A Stacking Dilemma.

[dextercorvia]

The problem of stacking comes up fairly often. If two bonuses are of the same type or come from the same source, they don't (generally) stack. Problems arise, however, when we try to determine what, exactly, is the source of a given bonus.

The AC bonus ability, shared (more or less) by the Monk and Ninja is an oft cited example. Curmudgeon et.al. make the argument that the ability is the source, and if they have the same name, they are the same source. This is in agreement with the FAQ ruling.

DMG, p178. calls out the possibility that Rogue levels, might be the source of Sneak Attack bonus, which opens up the possibility that that the ability (despite what the FAQ claims) isn't solely the source of the bonus, but rather Rogue Sneak Attack is a separate source from Arcane Trickster Sneak Attack.

For the purposes of this discussion I'm going to assume that if two classes grant the same ability, which offer untyped bonuses to the same roll, those won't stack. My question is this -- If two class abilities share the same name except that one is denoted as Extraordinary and the other is not designated, therefore Natural, are they really the same ability?

[Curmudgeon]

DMG, p178. calls out the possibility that Rogue levels, might be the source of Sneak Attack bonus, which opens up the possibility that that the ability (despite what the FAQ claims) isn't solely the source of the bonus, but rather Rogue Sneak Attack is a separate source from Arcane Trickster Sneak Attack.
From the Arcane Trickster class description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/arcaneTrickster.htm#sneakAttack):
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 (such as rogue levels) the bonuses on damage stack. The parenthetical statement in bold isn't included in the SRD text, so apparently WotC figured that was an unimportant example.

If class levels (from classes with different names) constitute a source, there would be no reason for a stacking rule exception to be included here ─ as there is for dozens of other classes which include sneak attack. If "class levels" as a group constitute a source, there would be no reason for a stacking rule exception to be also included in Assassin's Stance (martial stance in Tome of Battle) or Hunter's Eye (spell in Player's Handbook II). Assassin's Stance's exception spells out that its sneak attack stacks with sneak attack from class features. The same type of exception is used in all of these cases, whether in base classes, prestige classes, martial stances, or spells.

The only part that's the same for all these stacking rule exceptions is the name: "sneak attack".

[dextercorvia]

Perhaps they aren't exceptions, but reminders. WotC left redundant reminders all over the place in rule books. Whether they thought it was important to include in the SRD or not, they list Rogue levels as a source of sneak attack bonus.

[Curmudgeon]

Perhaps they aren't exceptions, but reminders. WotC left redundant reminders all over the place in rule books. Whether they thought it was important to include in the SRD or not, they list Rogue levels as a source of sneak attack bonus.
I find it quite unlikely that in many dozens of instances of sneak attack outside the initial case (the Rogue class, where there's no mention of stacking) they would feel it necessary to include a "reminder" that sneak attack will stack. I don't know of any reminders about BAB or saving throw bonuses stacking.

[dextercorvia]

I find it quite unlikely that in many dozens of instances of sneak attack outside the initial case (the Rogue class, where there's no mention of stacking) they would feel it necessary to include a "reminder" that sneak attack will stack. I don't know of any reminders about BAB or saving throw bonuses stacking.

That doesn't change the fact that they are referring to another source. They are, in fact, reminding that untyped bonuses from different sources stack. They explicitly call out Rogue levels as the source of one of those bonuses.

[erikun]

My question is this -- If two class abilities share the same name except that one is denoted as Extraordinary and the other is not designated, therefore Natural, are they really the same ability?
I would say that they don't stack (they overlap), but the neutralization of one does not neutralize the other. A good example would be a Ranger 17 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/ranger.htm)/Shadowdancer 1 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/shadowdancer.htm). Both classes get Hide in Plain Sight. They overlap, producing identical results, rather than stacking. However, just because one is neutralized (no shadows for Shadowdancer) does not prevent the character from using the other Hide in Plain Sight ability (from Ranger).

Also, they are independant. Just because the Ranger's HiPS is (Ex) and the Shadowdancer's HiPS allows hiding within 10' of a shadow, it does not mean that the character could hide when within 10' of a shadow in an AMF outside natural terrain. The Ranger's HiPS (Ex) does not allow the Shadowdancer to use their HiPS as an (Ex) ability.

[Curmudgeon]

That doesn't change the fact that they are referring to another source. They are, in fact, reminding that untyped bonuses from different sources stack.
That's preposterous. Why would they need to include such a reminder (on virtually all prestige classes which list sneak attack) that it stacks with other sneak attack, but never a single reminder in any of the hundreds of prestige classes that their BAB and saving throw bonuses stack?

No, they are providing an explicit exception to the stacking rule, which normally would keep untyped bonuses from the same source (sneak attack in each case) from stacking.

[dextercorvia]

That's preposterous. Why would they need to include such a reminder (on virtually all prestige classes which list sneak attack) that it stacks with other sneak attack, but never a single reminder in any of the hundreds of prestige classes that their BAB and saving throw bonuses stack?

No, they are providing an explicit exception to the stacking rule, which normally would keep untyped bonuses from the same source (sneak attack in each case) from stacking.

How many times did they need to remind us that you can only spend power point up to your manifester level? The fact that they include it in each class description doesn't make it an exception. It is, in fact, the general rule.

[Z3ro]

That's preposterous. Why would they need to include such a reminder (on virtually all prestige classes which list sneak attack) that it stacks with other sneak attack, but never a single reminder in any of the hundreds of prestige classes that their BAB and saving throw bonuses stack?


Funny things can happen when you're putting a game together. Could just be that the writers got copy/paste happy and didn't notice the sneak attack language. Stranger things have happened.

Needless to say, trying to divine why people did what they did in this context would be almost impossible and certainly useless.

[hangedman1984]

How many times did they need to remind us that you can only spend power point up to your manifester level?

funny thing is, despite how often thats mentioned in the book, it being "forgotten" is the reason a lot of people have come to consider psionics broken

[ericgrau]

IMO use common sense when determining same source. Otherwise everything could be construed as different in some way. Though I'd suspect that official rulings would require it to be the exact same ability with the exact same name in which case such things are rare. I simply don't like other applications from my head-asplodey-if-I-think-too-much-about-it point of view, when suspension of disbelief is strained past snapping. Some things might become a bit hazy that way on whether or not it's really same/different, in which case you talk to the DM.