MARRULURK UP/OP/Balanced for a character race?

[RedDragons]

This race, seems to have loads of stuff,for the cost of just 3Hd and 1 LA. You can find them in sandstorm, and a fully fleshed out race with build already stashed.


Do you think they are OP/UP or just fine for a character?

[HunterOfJello]

Interesting question. Lets investigate.

For the purposes of this estimation, I think we should separate the features the Marrulurk gets that could be attributed to its RHD vs. the features it has that could be attributed to its race itself. In this way, we can compare the Marrulurk to a similar raced character with three levels in Rogue.

Marrulurk RHD-type features:
+3 BAB
d8 HD
Good Will & Reflex saves
(2 + Int modifier) skill points per level
Class Skills: Bluff, Hide, Listen, Move Silently, Spot
Simple Weapons, Scimitar, and Longbow proficiency
Light Armor & Shield proficiency
Death attack
Poison Use
Sneak Attack +2d6

Marrulurk Race-type features:
Small size
20 ft movement speed
Bonus Feat: Point Blank Shot
Bonus Feat: Rapid Shot
Resistance to Fire 5
Low-Light Vision
Darkvision 60ft
+4 racial bonus to Hide & Move Silently
Nauseating Breath
Discriminating Hearing (including +4 racial bonus to Listen)
Resistance to Dessication
Ability Modifiers (???????)


~~~~~~~~~

As far as the Marrulurk's RHD-type features go, they are fairly similar to what you would get from taking Sneak Attack Fighter 3. The change in saves, along with the addition of Death Attack and Poison Use are fairly good, but not super amazing. I don't think the net difference between the two would justify a full change in tier ranking, so it's not that big of a deal.

If we compared the Murrulurk's RHD to a Rogue 3, then it loses out on quite a few things. The Marrulurk doesn't get Trapfinding and doesn't gain access to the Rogue's huge number of both skill points and class skills. As a player, that would make me less likely to start as a Marrulurk compared to a different race that takes Rogue 3 instead.


Now, to look at the marrulurk's race abilities, a big question pops up right away. What ability modifiers do you give to a Marrulurk PC? Some people would say you take all of the current scores and subtract them by 10. If those are the ability modifiers the PC would get to start out with, then it's definitely an OP race for +1 LA. However, I would give the Marrulurk a more simplified version of +2 Dex, +2 Wis.

If we assume that the Marrulurk has only a +2 Dex and +2 Wis for its ability modifiers, then the race is on the stronger side of a +1 LA, but hasn't surpassed it completely. The race looks fairly similar to the Whisper Gnome, though Whisper Gnomes are a bit better if you aren't strictly interested in ranged combat. The Marrulurk gets 2 free feats, but one of the feats is quite lousy (other than the fact that its necessary for pre-reqs) and the other is just decent. Neither feat will make the character overwhelming compared to a different solid +1 LA race.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Overall, my answer is that the Marrulurk race as a starting race, is appropriately adjusted for LA and isn't truly OP, if we assume that the character does not start with massive ability modifiers from the race. If the Marrulurk gets (+2 Str, +6 Dex, +4 Con, +6 Wis, +4 cha), then it is definitely OP. Otherwise, when a more balanced set of racial ability modifiers is given to it, it is no more particularly OP than the typical Whisper Gnome Rogue 3. Marrulurk's are definitely a strong and interesting choice, but they don't have spellcasting and aren't going to break your game anytime soon.

[Urpriest]

Now, to look at the marrulurk's race abilities, a big question pops up right away. What ability modifiers do you give to a Marrulurk PC? Some people would say you take all of the current scores and subtract them by 10. If those are the ability modifiers the PC would get to start out with, then it's definitely an OP race for +1 LA. However, I would give the Marrulurk a more simplified version of +2 Dex, +2 Wis.


All people would say that, that's kind of how monsters work. If you give them +2 Dex +2 Wis, you need to change the original monster to compensate.

The one thing I'll add in is that under Curmudgeon's interpretation they're arguably not worth it, since he seems to be under the impression that Sneak Attack needs an explicit statement to allow it to stack, so Marrulurk sneak attack won't stack with any other sources.

[Snowbluff]

All people would say that, that's kind of how monsters work. If you give them +2 Dex +2 Wis, you need to change the original monster to compensate.Agreed.


The one thing I'll add in is that under Curmudgeon's interpretation they're arguably not worth it, since he seems to be under the impression that Sneak Attack needs an explicit statement to allow it to stack, so Marrulurk sneak attack won't stack with any other sources.
Every other source stacks, so that's not an issue. Furthermore, everything good you can get with SA (Staggering Strike, Craven, most PrC entry), can be done with 2d6.

I think a bigger issue is whether or not we follow your interpretation for the Death Attack DC (Does it scale with HD or RHD?). If not, Death Attack quickly becomes useless.

[RedDragons]

MARRUSPAWN CHARACTERS
Marruspawn generally choose the character class to
which they are already most suited: marrulurks prefer
the rogue class, marrusaults the fighter class, and
marru tacts the wizard class, but exceptions are possible.
These classes are also the favored classes of each kind of
marruspawn. Marrulurks that add levels of rogue add
sneak attack damage dice to their class sneak attack
ability. Marrutacts that add levels of wizard add their
natural spellcasting ability (5th level) to their class
levels in wizard and determine their spellcasting ability
accordingly. Only marruspawn that go rogue from their
cell and give up their loyalty to the vanished marru can
be characters.

[Arundel]

MARRUSPAWN CHARACTERS
Marruspawn generally choose the character class to
which they are already most suited: marrulurks prefer
the rogue class, marrusaults the fighter class, and
marru tacts the wizard class, but exceptions are possible.
These classes are also the favored classes of each kind of
marruspawn. Marrulurks that add levels of rogue add
sneak attack damage dice to their class sneak attack
ability. Marrutacts that add levels of wizard add their
natural spellcasting ability (5th level) to their class
levels in wizard and determine their spellcasting ability
accordingly. Only marruspawn that go rogue from their
cell and give up their loyalty to the vanished marru can
be characters.

So wait, does one of these guys who takes a level in wizard cast as a 6th level wizard at ECL 5? If my math isn't just totally off that seems a bit....powerful. So wizards should always take this race for ULTIMATE POWER?

3 RHD + LA 1 + Wiz 1 = ECL 5 right?

[Xervous]

marrutacts are 7 hd + 3 la

[Arundel]

marrutacts are 7 hd + 3 la

Well that seems better. I was going by the OP.


This race, seems to have loads of stuff,for the cost of just 3Hd and 1 LA.

[Karnith]

Well that seems better. I was going by the OP.
Marrulurks and marrutacts (and the heretofore unmentioned marrusaults) are different types of marruspawn, a type of creature described in Sandstorm. The marrulurk is a sneaky-type creature with 3 RHD and +1 LA, while the marrutact is a spellcasting leader of marruspawn with 7 RHD and +3 LA.

[Arundel]

Marrulurks and marrutacts (and the heretofore unmentioned marrusaults) are different types of marruspawn, a type of creature described in Sandstorm. The marrulurk is a sneaky-type creature with 3 RHD and +1 LA, while the marrutact is a spellcasting leader of marruspawn with 7 RHD and +3 LA.

Well that's what I get for drinking while posting. My apologies playground.

[RedDragons]

your forgiven

[Phelix-Mu]

Well that's what I get for drinking while posting. My apologies playground.

Truly, words of wisdom. I'll drink to that.

....

wait...

:smallredface:

[WhatBigTeeth]

Marrulurk's a powerful race, but I don't think it's overpowered:

It isn't a no-brainer: casters hate racial HD, melee doesn't do well with small size, skillmonkeys often want actual skill points and Monstrous Humanoid skills combined with LA make the race inconvenient for most PrC entrances. Swordsages and Incarnates might get along with it pretty well, but I think there's still a strong enough case to be made for higher-level maneuvers and chakra binds that Whisper Gnomes, Strongheart Halflings and Azurins stay in the running.

It doesn't step on toes: The race facilitates stealth and sneak attack damage. Classes that really capitalize on the Marrulurk's abilities - Rogues, Swordsages, Justices of Weald and Woe, Master Throwers - aren't the kind of class that runs into other classes' territory; they mostly just sneak and attack. And when you look at builds that use marrulurk that *would* potentially run into those problems - say Sacred Outlaws or Unseen Seers - the lost caster levels rein power differences in more than marrulurk exacerbates them.

It can be countered: Sneak attack and ranged attacks are notoriously easy to counter. Enough so that folks have to argue for their validity at all from time to time. Concealment, range, wind, fortification, various crit-immune races, uncanny dodge, appreciable DR and good tactics all undermine Marrulurk's combat advantages, and the usual suspects of scent/blindsight/blindsense/tremorsense/foresight/detect hostile intent counter most of its noncombat advantages.

So while I think Marrulurk's powerful and, in some builds, the top choice available, I don't think it's overpowered or broken in a sense that needs to be reined in.
Definitely wouldn't call it underpowered or buff it, though.

[Curmudgeon]

The one thing I'll add in is that under Curmudgeon's interpretation they're arguably not worth it, since he seems to be under the impression that Sneak Attack needs an explicit statement to allow it to stack, so Marrulurk sneak attack won't stack with any other sources.
Marrulurk sneak attack will stack with any source which includes stacking language, such as the Assassin class.

Every other source stacks, so that's not an issue. Not every other source stacks. The Rogue class doesn't have stacking language for its sneak attack, so that's an obvious problem area. A Marrulurk Rogue will have overlapping, not stacking, sneak attack until they add another class which includes stacking language, such as Assassin. That's why I wouldn't choose this race for a Rogue character unless it was being built at a higher level, where a PrC such as Assassin would solve the problem.

Furthermore, everything good you can get with SA (Staggering Strike, Craven, most PrC entry), can be done with 2d6.
Craven requires sneak attack as a class feature, so racial sneak attack won't allow you to qualify.

[Karnith]

A Marrulurk Rogue will have overlapping, not stacking, sneak attack until they add another class which includes stacking language, such as Assassin.
Sorry if I'm dense, by why is this the case? According to the Marruspawn characters section in Sandstorm (as quoted earlier in the thread), "Marrulurks that add levels of rogue add sneak attack damage dice to their class sneak attack ability." Shouldn't that trump sneak attacks generally not stacking?

[Urpriest]

A Marrulurk Rogue will have overlapping, not stacking, sneak attack until they add another class which includes stacking language, such as Assassin. That's why I wouldn't choose this race for a Rogue character unless it was being built at a higher level, where a PrC such as Assassin would solve the problem.


Just to be clear, are you saying here that because Assassin Sneak Attack stacks with Rogue and with Marrulurk, that despite the fact that Rogue and Marrulurk Sneak Attack don't stack, a Marrulurk Rogue/Assassin would have all three sources stack? Or am I misinterpreting you?

[Curmudgeon]

Sorry if I'm dense, by why is this the case? According to the Marruspawn characters section in Sandstorm (as quoted earlier in the thread), "Marrulurks that add levels of rogue add sneak attack damage dice to their class sneak attack ability." Shouldn't that trump sneak attacks generally not stacking?
Any character which adds levels of Rogue adds sneak attack damage dice to their class sneak attack ability; that's what the Rogue class does. Of course, what the Rogue class does with added sneak attack dice is to overlap them rather than stack them; that's the default. (You'll note in the class table Rogue 3 gets "Sneak attack +2d6" and this replaces rather than adds to Rogue 1 "Sneak attack +1d6".) If they instead said something like "a Marrulurk Rogue adds an additional +2d6 sneak attack damage dice, which stacks with their class sneak attack ability" then that would be entirely different. Anyway, that's just in the "Marruspawn Characters" section; the actual monster description says:
See the rogue class feature, page 50 of the Player’s Handbook. That cited reference lacks any stacking language, so the default for Marrulurk is also non-stacking sneak attack damage.

[RFLS]

Just to be clear, are you saying here that because Assassin Sneak Attack stacks with Rogue and with Marrulurk, that despite the fact that Rogue and Marrulurk Sneak Attack don't stack, a Marrulurk Rogue/Assassin would have all three sources stack? Or am I misinterpreting you?


Not every other source stacks. The Rogue class doesn't have stacking language for its sneak attack, so that's an obvious problem area. A Marrulurk Rogue will have overlapping, not stacking, sneak attack until they add another class which includes stacking language, such as Assassin.


Sorry if I'm dense, by why is this the case? According to the Marruspawn characters section in Sandstorm (as quoted earlier in the thread), "Marrulurks that add levels of rogue add sneak attack damage dice to their class sneak attack ability." Shouldn't that trump sneak attacks generally not stacking?

Why are RedDragons and Karnith being ignored...? Marrulurk SA explicitly stacks per Sandstorm, page 173, third sentence under "Marruspawn Characters."

EDIT: Ninja'ed. Reply below.

[RFLS]

Any character which adds levels of Rogue adds sneak attack damage dice to their class sneak attack ability; that's what the Rogue class does. Of course, what the Rogue class does with added sneak attack dice is to overlap them rather than stack them; that's the default. If they instead said something like "a Marrulurk Rogue adds an additional +2d6 sneak attack damage dice, which stacks with their class sneak attack ability" then that would be entirely different. Anyway, that's just in the "Marruspawn Characters" section; the actual monster description says: That cited reference lacks any stacking language, so the default for Marrulurk is also non-stacking sneak attack damage.

Working in no particular order:


What reason do you have to disregard the section Marruspawn Characters? Rules are rules.
The Marrulurk stat-block references the "Rogue class feature" for its Sneak Attack. The argument could be made that when the Marruspawn Characters section references "their class sneak attack ability," it's referring to the Sneak Attack-as-rogue-class-feature from the monster's stat-block.


Sidenote, @Curmudgeon:

Do you have some sort of auto-forum searcher? You reply fairly consistently when mentioned by name. I'm curious because I've been looking for a way to trawl for keywords in forums (other than searching "site:blahblahblah.com <search-term>).

EDIT: We're not arguing RAI or RACSD here, right? I feel like the intention behind the wording here is blatantly obvious.

[RedDragons]

so are we saying character section is not RAW??

[RFLS]

so are we saying character section is not RAW??

He's arguing that the character section references "class ability," and that the stat block is not a class ability. I think.

[Phelix-Mu]

Seems to me that the only thing that is really clear is that the characters section was not brilliantly edited. "Their class sneak attack ability" seems totally erroneous, so by RAW, that whole sentence seems like a non-statement.

In any case, the reason the race performs nicely is that, despite a skill points hit, it gets nice offensive abilities, a strong stat array, and a nice racial hit die and type-related stuff.

On a personal note, I feel that, whoever was behind any existing attempts at consistency in balance was pretty much entirely absent from many of the terrain-based sourcebooks. Horrific inconsistency abounds, and I think some of the worst writing that I've had the pleasure of seeing in hardbound texts purporting to be "rule books." Dungeonscape leaps to mind.

That said, these books also have some of the most win flavor and mechanics for environmental hazards, along with a series of feats, ACFs and other options that add lots of coolness to the game. Frostburn is literally my favorite splatbook, and it was practically written as a b-day gift for druids.

[RedDragons]

Frostburn is literally my favorite splatbook, and it was practically written as a b-day gift for druids.



So that is what you give the person who has everything?

[Gnaeus]

I would say that it is a strong option. Probably a little better than human rogue of the same ecl for most of the character range, especially if LA buyoff is allowed but...

Rogue is T4. A rogue with a slightly stronger race (and Marrulurks aren't really a good choice for anything but a rogue type concept) is not game breaking. Not even unbalanced against anything but other rogues.

Marrulurks are really pretty focused on ranged attack rogues. Any other type of skillmonkey has other options that are as good.

Marrulurk rogues lose one rogue talent (compared with a similar level rogue). The 4 ecl of non-rogue also mean that Improved Uncanny dodge is pretty gimped.

I would always play Marrulurk in a game where they were allowed and in which I had been tasked with playing the skillmonkey. I think they are strong and I like their appearance and fluff. I would call it a high op option for rogue. Whether it is overpowered depends on what you have in your party. If you think core casting classes should be allowed, or ToB, a Marrulurk Rogue is not going to steal anyone's thunder. I think WhatBigTeath got it right.

[Curmudgeon]

What reason do you have to disregard the section Marruspawn Characters? Rules are rules.
Marruspawn is a group of races. Notes about class abilities, in reference to creatures with racial abilities but no class abilities, aren't rules at all. They might be advice, or maybe just commentary. There's nothing in the Marrulurk monster description which can alter the way Rogue class abilities work.
Marrulurks that add levels of rogue add sneak attack damage dice to their class sneak attack ability. Rogues have a class sneak attack ability; Marrulurks do not.

Sidenote, @Curmudgeon:

Do you have some sort of auto-forum searcher? You reply fairly consistently when mentioned by name. I'm curious because I've been looking for a way to trawl for keywords in forums (other than searching "site:blahblahblah.com <search-term>).
No, I don't do that. I merely look for topics that are of interest to me, and those tend to be the topics where posters are likely to have noted a prior statement by me.

[Gnaeus]

Rogues have a class sneak attack ability; Marrulurks do not.


So, if you trust Curmudgeon's interpretation (which I do not) they clearly meant for it to stack, but by putting it in the wrong section, they made it not stack by RAW. There is pretty much no way to argue that RAI it was not meant to stack given that language in the character section.

So if your DM always goes by strict RAW, you have to refute his argument. RAW is arguable here in my opinon, and RAI is very clear.

[Mcdt2]

Rogues have a class sneak attack ability; Marrulurks do not.

See, the way I interpreted that line was that 'Lurks add their sneak attack damage dice (aqcuired from racial traits) to the class ability of sneak attack, which they get from rogue. It's worded awkwardly, but since lurk's SA is not a class ability, it must be referring to the class ability of its class, yes?

Furthermore, your suggstion that "adding" SA dice works by replacement by default is proposterous. You point to the rogue class feature, but it never uses the word "adding."


The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter.

As you can see, the exact langauge is that you increase the number of SA dice every 2 levels. Nowhere does it state that it sets the SA dice to a set value, which replaces the prevous value. The table shows something akin to this, but Text Trumps Table, after all. The text specifically says it increases the previous value. "Increase" and "add" are not specific game terms, and so we go by the english definitions, in which they are equivalent for this purpose. As such, the passage stating marrulurks add the 2d6 damage dice to the SA class ability. There is no way one can logically interpret the two abilities as not stacking based on your argument.

However, this is all a moot point if the passage is not RAW to begin with. This is in fact something worth pursuing, IMO. I've never seen anything to suggest these sidebars are not RAW, on the other hand nothing says they are either.

----------------------------------------------

Back on topic, @OP
I think it's perfectly fine, balance-wise. The very high ability scores are the only thing I would worry about, especially in a low op group. Most high-op groups, especially high level ones, won't even notice, most likely.

[Snowbluff]

Hm...

Complete Warrior...

If a dark hunter gets a sneak attack bonus from another source (such as rogue levels), the extra damage stacks.
Ronin...


For complete details on the sneak attack ability, see the description of the dark hunter earlier in this chapter.
Complete Scoundrel's Mountebank

If you get a sneak attack bonus from another source (such as rogue levels), the bonuses on damage stack
Psibond Agent

If you get a sneak attack bonus from another source (such as rogue levels), the bonuses on damage stack
Complete Mage's Unseen Seer

At 1st level, the extra damage you deal with your sneak attack, skirmish, or sudden strike ability increases by 1d6

The more and more I look into this, the more and more it seems like every source but Rogue will stack. Even if we agree with Curmudgeon, it won't matter.

[Greenish]

Complete Warrior...

Samurai...I think you mean Ronin. No version of Samurai that I'm familiar with gets SA.

[Snowbluff]

I think you mean Ronin. No version of Samurai that I'm familiar with gets SA.

Wow, sorry. People have been pestering me. Making it hard to do this research right. Thanks.

[Curmudgeon]

The more and more I look into this, the more and more it seems like every source but Rogue will stack.
Not quite. Most of them do have stacking language, but there are other exceptions. The sneak attack Fighter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#fighter) works just like the Rogue, so its sneak attack by default doesn't stack. The Dungeonscape Factotum's Cunning Strike temporary sneak attack doesn't stack. Fatemaker (Planar Handbook) has no sneak attack stacking language. Magic of Eberron's Vigilant Sentinal of Aerenal lacks stacking language for their sneak attack. The same goes for the Thief of Life (Faiths of Eberron).

Even if we agree with Curmudgeon, it won't matter. ... except in those cases where it does, indeed, matter. :smallbiggrin:

[Urpriest]

Just to be clear, are you saying here that because Assassin Sneak Attack stacks with Rogue and with Marrulurk, that despite the fact that Rogue and Marrulurk Sneak Attack don't stack, a Marrulurk Rogue/Assassin would have all three sources stack? Or am I misinterpreting you?

Curmudgeon, I think you missed this. Could you clarify what you meant?

[Snowbluff]

... except in those cases where it does, indeed, matter. :smallbiggrin::smallsmile:
Okay, I think having a list of what doesn't stack works better.

It seems a lot of the older and campaign-specific books seems to have this issue. It might just be me, but it seems like the PrCs I do not like (for various reasons) are the ones that don't work.

Under your interpretation, Daring Outlaw doesn't work, which makes me a little sad. :smallfrown:

[Curmudgeon]

Just to be clear, are you saying here that because Assassin Sneak Attack stacks with Rogue and with Marrulurk, that despite the fact that Rogue and Marrulurk Sneak Attack don't stack, a Marrulurk Rogue/Assassin would have all three sources stack? Or am I misinterpreting you? Assassin sneak attack stacks with other sources of sneak attack, so the end result is all three stacking. You're not misinterpreting anything. The downside is that, up until that Assassin level is added, the character build is weak due to overlapping sneak attack. That would be at about ECL 10 (3 RHD, 5 levels of Rogue, 1 level of Assassin, +1 LA); that's puny sneak attack before then:

{table="head"]ECL | sneak attack
1 | N/A
2 | N/A
3 | N/A
4 | N/A
5 | best of 2d6 (racial) and 1d6 (Rogue)
6 | best of 2d6 (racial) and 1d6 (Rogue)
7 | best of 2d6 (racial) and 2d6 (Rogue)
8 | best of 2d6 (racial) and 2d6 (Rogue)
9 | best of 2d6 (racial) and 3d6 (Rogue)
10 | 6d6 [/table]

[Urpriest]

Assassin sneak attack stacks with other sources of sneak attack, so the end result is all three stacking. You're not misinterpreting anything. The downside is that, up until that Assassin level is added, the character build is weak due to overlapping sneak attack. That would be at about ECL 10 (3 RHD, 5 levels of Rogue, 1 level of Assassin, +1 LA); that's puny sneak attack before then:

{table="head"]ECL | sneak attack
1 | N/A
2 | N/A
3 | N/A
4 | N/A
5 | best of 2d6 (racial) and 1d6 (Rogue)
6 | best of 2d6 (racial) and 1d6 (Rogue)
7 | best of 2d6 (racial) and 2d6 (Rogue)
8 | best of 2d6 (racial) and 2d6 (Rogue)
9 | best of 2d6 (racial) and 3d6 (Rogue)
10 | 6d6 [/table]

See, here's where I don't get your logic at all. If Assassin sneak attack stacks with all other sources of sneak attack but Rogue and Marrulurk don't stack with eachother, wouldn't that mean that after adding the Assassin level you have best of 3d6 (racial plus Assassin) and 4d6 (Rogue plus Assassin)?

Also, why five levels of Rogue? You can get into Assassin with only two on top of Marrulurk.

[Curmudgeon]

See, here's where I don't get your logic at all. If Assassin sneak attack stacks with all other sources of sneak attack but Rogue and Marrulurk don't stack with eachother, wouldn't that mean that after adding the Assassin level you have best of 3d6 (racial plus Assassin) and 4d6 (Rogue plus Assassin)?
No, it usually doesn't work that way; stacking is generally an either/or proposition. Either all sources stack or all sources overlap. Right up until you get into Assassin, all (both) sources overlap. But Assassin sneak attack stacks with both Marrulurk sneak attack and Rogue sneak attack, so they all add together. (There might theoretically be some PrC which only says its sneak attack stacks with Rogue sneak attack, but in practice I don't know of any such cases.)

Also, why five levels of Rogue? You can get into Assassin with only two on top of Marrulurk. Sorry; that was just an example to show the discontinuity, taken from a 10th level character. The campaign didn't afford any reasonable opportunity to enter Assassin (kill someone for no other reason) before then. If your DM just handwaves such Special PrC entry requirements then entry could be earlier; that's why I said "about" ECL 10.

[Urpriest]

No, it usually doesn't work that way; stacking is generally an either/or proposition. Either all sources stack or all sources overlap. Right up until you get into Assassin, all (both) sources overlap. But Assassin sneak attack stacks with both Marrulurk sneak attack and Rogue sneak attack, so they all add together. (There might theoretically be some PrC which only says its sneak attack stacks with Rogue sneak attack, but in practice I don't know of any such cases.)


Are you basing that on a dictionary definition, or a question of precedent, or...? I don't think it's inherently obvious that stacking ought to be transitive. If one thing stacks with two things, that just means that you need to pick a maximal set of stacking components, not that all components suddenly stack.

[Phelix-Mu]

Are you basing that on a dictionary definition, or a question of precedent, or...? I don't think it's inherently obvious that stacking ought to be transitive. If one thing stacks with two things, that just means that you need to pick a maximal set of stacking components, not that all components suddenly stack.

While my ranks in Knowledge(RAW) no longer qualify me to participate in this discussion, this last comment by Urpriest seems very cogent. The concept of "x+y=x", "z+y=z", but "x+y+z=x+y+z" (or whatever fairly minor alteration of this concept is actually at play) originally struck me as strange when Curmudgeon mentioned it.

I have nothing but the highest respect for y'all by the way. One of my favorite ways to learn is by listening to something I totally don't understand and trying to pick it apart or connect it to things I do understand. Yay! Logic!

[TuggyNE]

One of my favorite ways to learn is by listening to something I totally don't understand and trying to pick it apart or connect it to things I do understand. Yay! Logic!

Arguably, that's the basis for all hard science; researchers poke around in bits of the universe that they really don't get yet, until it makes more sense to them.

[Curmudgeon]

Are you basing that on a dictionary definition, or a question of precedent, or...?
D&D Glossary (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_stack&alpha=S):

stack

Combine for a cumulative effect.
Dictionary definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cumulative?s=t&path=/):


cumulative
-adjective

1. increasing or growing by accumulation or successive additions: the cumulative effect of one rejection after another.
Stacking in D&D is accomplished by successive additions (not just one addition) unless stated otherwise.

[TuggyNE]

Dictionary definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cumulative?s=t&path=/):

Stacking in D&D is accomplished by successive additions (not just one addition) unless stated otherwise.

That definition does not state or even really imply that only two instances cannot be considered "cumulative"; absent substantial language to the contrary, your point remains unsupported.

What's more, the usage of "stack" in numerous places contradicts this restriction rather unpleasantly. For example, the epic feats Damage Reduction, Energy Resistance, Fast Healing, Improved Metamagic, and Improved Metapsionics all have awkward implications: taking Fast Healing once gives you fast healing 3, and thrice gives you fast healing 9, but twice gives you fast healing 3 only? Similarly, enervation (two castings rolling 1d4 as 1 each deal only 1 negative level total?), associated class levels (a young adult black dragon who takes one level of sorcerer gains no additional spells known, spells per day, or caster level?), familiars (a sorcerer 1/wizard 1 has the familiar of a sorcerer 1, but a sorc 1/wiz 2 has a 3rd-level familiar?), and so on. In all of these cases, it is clearly quite possible for there to be only two things to stack.

You can, of course, dismiss all this as rules malfunction, WotC not knowing how their own rules work, and so on and so forth, but without some really very solid evidence that stacking cannot ever possibly refer to the two-instance case, it's logical to take the simplest explanation, and the one that does the least harm to the rules. (No harm at all, in fact, so far as I know.)

[Deaxsa]

The important question: is this really the breaking point for marralurks?

The less important question: what player would NOT feel cheated if they picked this race and then, upon entering a debate with their DM about whether it stacked or not, only to have the DM point to the book and say "the wording is poor and thus does not cover it, so no". (especially if he then goes to point out that if you take a DIFFERENT class, it all stacks!)(side note; what dm would be that draconian?)


IMHO to argue that RAW states it does not stack is to expect perfection from WotC... I'll leave you thinking of the unfortunate implications that idea has.

edit: I thought of another question! :smallbiggrin:
When would this be an issue? (not because i don't think it could never be an issue, but because i want to know where it would have to be addressed)
for instance, to take a prestige class (without getting a base class to have sneak attack as a class ability) or, as someone stated, the craven feat. what others are there? just anything that requires 1d6 or 2d6 sneak attack damage dice as a class ability?

incidentally, would it be an issue if we took a prestige class that gave SA without needing class SA, and then tried to take something that needed your RHD SA to count as class SA in order to take it? or does the RHD SA get converted into class SA when you get a SA ability from a class which stacks with the RHD SA?
example: let's say there's a prestige class which you can enter at ecl 5, even with non-class SA, which gives SA at level 1. now, i'm not sure, but i think that the Craven feat requires 3d6 SA damage as a class feature. can this feat be taken at any point after taking the first level in the prestige class, or does it not work because you technically only have 1d6 sneak attack as a class feature. (btw, it does not have to be a prestige class, but i'm just using that because we know most of them stack with marralurk RHD SA... for damage, at least.)

[Curmudgeon]

(There might theoretically be some PrC which only says its sneak attack stacks with Rogue sneak attack, but in practice I don't know of any such cases.)

...
You can, of course, dismiss all this as rules malfunction, WotC not knowing how their own rules work, and so on and so forth, but without some really very solid evidence that stacking cannot ever possibly refer to the two-instance case, it's logical to take the simplest explanation, and the one that does the least harm to the rules.
You'll note that I already covered this possibility previously. That's not the simplest case at all; it's merely the most restrictive case. I have no basis for judging "least harm" to the rules; that's not part of the D&D rules mechanics. Best match to the D&D Glossary and dictionary definitions of the terms used is the only criterion that seems relevant to me.

From page 178 of Dungeon Master's Guide:

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.
The use of "such as" to give an example means that this sneak attack stacking is not restricted to Assassin + Rogue levels.

As I stated, it's theoretically possible for there to be a special restriction of sneak attack stacking to make it non-cumulative; I've just never seen that anywhere in the D&D rules. The Glossary definition says "stack" is a cumulative combination.

[TuggyNE]

You'll note that I already covered this possibility previously. That's not the simplest case at all; it's merely the most restrictive case. I have no basis for judging "least harm" to the rules; that's not part of the D&D rules mechanics. Best match to the D&D Glossary and dictionary definitions of the terms used is the only criterion that seems relevant to me.

I'm sorry, but you appear to have completely misunderstood my point. I am saying that your interpretation of "stack" to exclude all cases where exactly two sources are being added together seems unworkable in the general D&D usage, and unsupported by the dictionary definition of "cumulative". If you can give some much stronger evidence that "cumulative" in the definition of stacking clearly means only 3, 4, or more cases, then you might have a reasonable argument. Otherwise, it's simply an unwarranted assumption that distorts the RAW.

[Curmudgeon]

I'm sorry, but you appear to have completely misunderstood my point. I am saying that your interpretation of "stack" to exclude all cases where exactly two sources are being added together seems unworkable in the general D&D usage ...
I didn't exclude that at all; I merely said I don't know of any cases where the rules restrict stacking to exactly two sources. I admitted it could be a possible case in the RAW, but absent any support for that restriction I don't see any reason to differ from the straightforward Glossary and dictionary definitions of the terms used by the game authors.

[hamishspence]

According to the Marruspawn characters section in Sandstorm (as quoted earlier in the thread), "Marrulurks that add levels of rogue add sneak attack damage dice to their class sneak attack ability." Shouldn't that trump sneak attacks generally not stacking?

The "RAI is that they stack" argument would be that the full sentence would have been:

"Marrulurks that add levels in rogue add their racial sneak attack damage dice to their class sneak attack ability."

[TuggyNE]

I didn't exclude that at all; I merely said I don't know of any cases where the rules restrict stacking to exactly two sources. I admitted it could be a possible case in the RAW, but absent any support for that restriction I don't see any reason to differ from the straightforward Glossary and dictionary definitions of the terms used by the game authors.

They don't need to restrict stacking to exactly two; rather, they need to include two in the possibility of stacking. The examples given all become nonsensical if your reading indicates that stacking only applies with three or more disparate sources. (And yes, that is what your argument hinges on; the exclusion of stacking only Rogue and Marrulurk sneak attack, but the inclusion of stacking Rogue, Assassin, and Marrulurk sneak attack together.)

And, unfortunately, it's not at all obvious that this odd reading is based on the "straightforward … dictionary definition" of the term "cumulative"; the definition you gave simply does not restrict usage that way.

Or here, have some more examples:
Reference.com (the source you cited): "2. formed by or resulting from accumulation or the addition of successive parts or elements."
The Free Dictionary: "1. Increasing or enlarging by successive addition.
2. Acquired by or resulting from accumulation."
Merriam-Webster: "4: formed by the addition of new material of the same kind <a cumulative book index>"

At what point do those definitely limit accumulation to specifically three or more things?