Factotum/Exemplar initiative question

[King Atticus]

With Factotum you get your int to init. thanks to Brains Over Brawn which is an extraordinary ability and Exemplar gives you int to init. thanks to Intellectual Agility which is a supernatural ability; so do these abilities stack so you can get int twice to init. or do they overlap?

Thanks in advance for the help, I await your verdict.

[Chess435]

I thought Brains over Brawn only boosted STR and DEX based skill checks.

In case it does actually boost initiative, yes they would stack.

[Urpriest]

The abilities have different names, and neither is a typed bonus, so they should stack.

[Fenryr]

I'm pretty sure they stack. Even when both of them are Int bonus, they come from different sources.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Initiative is a Dex check, therefore Brains over Brawn applies to it, and I think it depends, those any of those ability calls it as a certain type of bonus? If not yes they would stack as they are both unamed bonus from different source.

[King Atticus]

The text just says strength and dexterity checks (of which initiative is one), although it does give skills as examples. swordsaged

brains over brawn says it's a "modifier" no type mentioned, itellectual agility says "She adds her Intelligence bonus (if any) to her initiative checks and Reflex saves."

So I'm not seeing a type on either.

[Zagaroth]

thirded on they should stack, for the reasons stated above.

[Gotterdammerung]

Brains over brawn doesn't add your int to initiative. It gives a bonus to strength and dex checks and strength and dex based skill check = to your int bonus

And I know some people think initiative is a dex check, but it isn't. It doesn't say that anywhere in the PHB or the DMG. And you can even find other examples, like a martial's minor aura motivate dex gives a bonus to dex checks, dex based skill checks, AND initiative checks. Why would it list initiative and dex checks if they are the same thing, i know why, cuz they arent the same thing.
Look at the example factotum. You will notice his climb check is 4 because his +3 int and his +1 str. But his initiative is only 2 from his +2 dex. It is not initiative 5 from int +3 dex +2.

But, if it did work the way you thought it did, they would of stacked.

[King Atticus]

Brains over brawn doesn't add your int to initiative. It gives a bonus to strength and dex checks and strength and dex based skill check = to your int bonus

And I know some people think initiative is a dex check, but it isn't. It doesn't say that anywhere in the PHB or the DMG. And you can even find other examples, like a martial's minor aura motivate dex gives a bonus to dex checks, dex based skill checks, AND initiative checks. Why would it list initiative and dex checks if they are the same thing, i know why, cuz they arent the same thing.
Look at the example factotum. You will notice his climb check is 4 because his +3 int and his +1 str. But his initiative is only 2 from his +2 dex. It is not initiative 5 from int +3 dex +2.

But, if it did work the way you thought it did, they would of stacked.


Initiative Checks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/initiative.htm)

At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check.


So it should stack fine. Thanks everyone

[Zaq]

And I know some people think initiative is a dex check, but it isn't. It doesn't say that anywhere in the PHB or the DMG.

Yup, you're right. It's not anywhere in the PHB. Well, except for page 136, about 2/3 of the way down the page in the rightmost column. But really, what does a silly little rule like THAT matter? Definitely nowhere to be found, and it's best to keep making blanket statements.

[JaronK]

Heh, indeed, "An initiative check is a Dexterity check" is a pretty clear rule, and that's straight out of the PHB (quoted by the SRD as well).

So, to be clear, yes Brains over Brawn applies in the first place.

And untyped bonuses (of which both are) always stack if they're from differently named sources (which they are).

JaronK

[Gotterdammerung]

So a martial can add his charisma to dex checks and then add his charisma to initiative checks at first level, for chr x2+ dex = initiative. Yep i'm sure thats the RAI.

[NineThePuma]

Nope. That'd be two modifiers from the same source. Doesn't work.

[NNescio]

So a martial can add his charisma to dex checks and then add his charisma to initiative checks at first level, for chr x2+ dex = initiative. Yep i'm sure thats the RAI.

Same source, doesn't stack.

Edit: Swordsage'd Puma'ed.

[Curmudgeon]

Nope. That'd be two modifiers from the same source. Doesn't work.
You'll need to find a rules statement which uses "source" to mean "ability modifier". I haven't found one. I have found the term used in a few places in the Dungeon Master's Guide, though, such as this one from the Assassin class description (page 180):
Sneak Attack: This is exactly like the rogue ability of the same name. The extra damage dealt increases by +1d6 every other level (1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th). If an assassin gets a sneak attack bonus from another source (such as rogue levels), the bonuses on damage stack. Sneak Attack is untyped bonus damage, so "source" has nothing to do with modifier type. Sneak Attack isn't based on any ability modifier, so that's clearly got nothing to do with "source" here. The only possibilities left are classes and ability names. Classes (Assassin and Rogue) are obviously different, so there is no reason to bring up stacking if that's what "source" means. The Sneak Attack named ability is identical in both cases, though, so Sneak Attack as a named "source" does require specific mention for it to stack.

A named ability defines a source. Q.E.D.

There are similar uses of "source" in Arcane Trickster (page 178) and Blackguard (page 182) class descriptions.

[Urpriest]

You'll need to find a rules statement which uses "source" to mean "ability modifier". I haven't found one. I have found the term used in a few places in the Dungeon Master's Guide, though, such as this one from the Assassin class description (page 180): Sneak Attack is untyped bonus damage, so "source" has nothing to do with modifier type. Sneak Attack isn't based on any ability modifier, so that's clearly got nothing to do with "source" here. The only possibilities left are classes and ability names. Classes (Assassin and Rogue) are obviously different, so there is no reason to bring up stacking if that's what "source" means. The Sneak Attack named ability is identical in both cases, though, so Sneak Attack as a named "source" does require specific mention for it to stack.

A named ability defines a source. Q.E.D.

There are similar uses of "source" in Arcane Trickster (page 178) and Blackguard (page 182) class descriptions.

I have waited for this day.

You just disproved a significant chunk of your position on sneak attack in the bounds of a single post, and the rest of us didn't have to lift a finger!



The quote specifies that the sneak attack bonus is coming from another source (specifically, rogue levels). This means that Sneak Attack, the named ability, cannot be the source. Assassin's Sneak Attack and Rogue's Sneak Attack must, in order for that quote to make sense, come from different sources, since otherwise it would not be sneak attack bonus from another source, but rather from the same source.

[CyMage]

So a martial can add his charisma to dex checks and then add his charisma to initiative checks at first level, for chr x2+ dex = initiative. Yep i'm sure thats the RAI.


Bad editing on the part of the wizards people. First time it happened ever and it crushed all our hearts.

[Curmudgeon]

The quote specifies that the sneak attack bonus is coming from another source (specifically, rogue levels). This means that Sneak Attack, the named ability, cannot be the source.
I believe you're confusing two disparate definitions of another (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/another). The context makes it clear that the primary meaning is being used:
an·oth·er
-adjective

1. being one more or more of the same; further; additional: another piece of cake. You appear to be fixed on the secondary definition of "different; distinct".

The stacking source rules only come up when the source is (one more or more of) the same. A stacking note that specifies stacking is allowed when the sources are different would be nonsensical. This context set by the stacking rules makes the primary definition of "another" the sensible choice.

[Urpriest]

I believe you're confusing two disparate definitions of another (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/another). The context makes it clear that the primary meaning is being used: You appear to be fixed on the secondary definition of "different; distinct".

The stacking source rules only come up when the source is (one more or more of) the same. A stacking note that specifies stacking is allowed when the sources are different would be nonsensical. This context set by the stacking rules makes the primary definition of "another" the sensible choice.

The definition you propose to apply is nonsensical in this context because you cannot apply a type-token distinction to the phrase "Sneak Attack". If the source of one set of sneak attack bonus damage is "Sneak Attack" and the other is also "Sneak Attack", they cannot correspond to two different "Sneak Attack"s. "Sneak Attack" is a phrase, or a keyword, there certainly can't be more than one of it.

On the other hand, the rules frequently contain clarifications. If this rule were merely reminding the reader that two different sources stack then it would be consistent with other phraseology in the core books.

[Curmudgeon]

The definition you propose to apply is nonsensical in this context because you cannot apply a type-token distinction to the phrase "Sneak Attack". If the source of one set of sneak attack bonus damage is "Sneak Attack" and the other is also "Sneak Attack", they cannot correspond to two different "Sneak Attack"s. "Sneak Attack" is a phrase, or a keyword, there certainly can't be more than one of it.
I don't understand your "type-token distinction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type%E2%80%93token_distinction)" argument. There obviously can be different instances of Sneak Attack. A Rogue 5/Assassin 1 has +3d6 Sneak Attack from Rogue levels and another +1d6 Sneak Attack from from one Assassin level. The source (type) is the same, but the values (tokens) are different; multiple instances of the same source are exactly what the basic stacking rule addresses. Because the Assassin class description specifies that its Sneak Attack stacks with another source of Sneak Attack, the Rogue 5/Assassin 1 has a total of +4d6 bonus damage when Sneak Attack conditions are met.

[JaronK]

A source is determined by the name of the thing that gives it. Thus, an ability called "Sneak Attack" is a source.

JaronK

[NineThePuma]

Sneak attack is dumb with stacking. Can we not argue about this in a thread about Exemplar/Factotum initiative.