Double sneak attack on gestalt?

[Inevitability]

I have a question regarding a backup character I may make in case my current one dies.

The DM is allowing gestalt for classes below tier 2, so I decided on a fighter // rogue. Then I noticed the variant that lets fighters swap their bonus feats for sneak attack.

So could I stack those two sources of sneak attack, and end up with double sneak attack damage? I'd say yes, since they're both untyped damage bonuses. What do you say?

[docnessuno]

A gestalt character follows a similar procedure when he attains 2nd and subsequent levels. Each time he gains a new level, he chooses two classes, takes the best aspects of each, and applies them to his characteristics. A few caveats apply, however.

* Class features that two classes share (such as uncanny dodge) accrue at the rate of the faster class.

Both classes would share the Sneak attack feature.

[Doc_Maynot]

Your issue would be...

"A gestalt character follows a similar procedure when he attains 2nd and subsequent levels. Each time he gains a new level, he chooses two classes, takes the best aspects of each, and applies them to his characteristics. A few caveats apply, however.

Class features that two classes share (such as uncanny dodge) accrue at the rate of the faster class."

So I don't think you would.

[Ravens_cry]

I doubt it, since they overlap. If you gestalted two 2+Int skill point classes, you would not get 4+double Int skill points per level, for example.
Edit: Sneaky.

[Talothorn]

Skirmish damage, on the other hand...

[StreamOfTheSky]

Skirmish damage, on the other hand...

It's hard to generate sneak attack AND skirmish, especially at range until you have the ring of blinking and travel devotion + cleric dip. And besides, there's already a feat to combine the two anyway in non-gestalt, so it just doesn't feel as impressive....

Actually, given the nerf that you have to move 10 ft away from where you started to generate skirmish, getting melee flanking skirmish+SA might be even harder...

[Inevitability]

Okay, looks like I'm going back to the drawing bord...
Thanks for your fast and clear answers!

[docnessuno]

Sneak attak fighter // Swordsage would make for an interesting combination, allowing for a Dex-Sad dual-wielder, with full BAB, good skills/lvl d10 HPs, 3 good saves and swordsage manouvers.
Pop assassin level on the fighter side for access to wraithstrike and a small boost to SA dices, at the cost of 2-3 points of BAB.

[Nettlekid]

If you took Rogue 1//Something 1, and then kept going at a rate of Rogue N+1//Something 1/Sneak Attack Fighter N, then I'm pretty sure you would indeed get Sneak Attack at every level.

Actually, now that I think about it, Rogue X//Sneak Attack Fighter X probably DOES work, because something like Wizard//Sorcerer also works for spells, despite both classes having the cut-and-dry Spellcasting class feature.

[Chronos]

Sneak Attack and Skirmish is a tricky combination, but Sneak Attack and Sudden Strike is fairly straightforward: Anything that triggers Sudden Strike will trigger Sneak Attack, too.

[docnessuno]

If you took Rogue 1//Something 1, and then kept going at a rate of Rogue N+1//Something 1/Sneak Attack Fighter N, then I'm pretty sure you would indeed get Sneak Attack at every level.

Actually, now that I think about it, Rogue X//Sneak Attack Fighter X probably DOES work, because something like Wizard//Sorcerer also works for spells, despite both classes having the cut-and-dry Spellcasting class feature.

While that trick works for BAB (if your DM is silly enough to not use fractional BAB), it DOES NOT work for class features, as the SRD quote proved.


Sneak Attack and Skirmish is a tricky combination, but Sneak Attack and Sudden Strike is fairly straightforward: Anything that triggers Sudden Strike will trigger Sneak Attack, too.

True, although Sudden strike, being Sneak attack poor brother, cannot be triggered by flanking (winch is by far the easier way to trigger melee SA).

[Nettlekid]

While that trick works for BAB (if your DM is silly enough to not use fractional BAB), it DOES NOT work for class features, as the SRD quote proved.



True, although Sudden strike, being Sneak attack poor brother, cannot be triggered by flanking (winch is by far the easier way to trigger melee SA).

How does that SRD quote interact then with the Spellcasting class feature of a Cleric//Wizard?

[Karnith]

How does that SRD quote interact then with the Spellcasting class feature of a Cleric//Wizard?
Gestalt spellcasters get a specific exception that allows them to progress their spells per day for each class separately. Per the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm#buildingAGestaltCharacter):

A gestalt character gains the class features of both classes.
[...]
A gestalt character follows a similar procedure when he attains 2nd and subsequent levels. Each time he gains a new level, he chooses two classes, takes the best aspects of each, and applies them to his characteristics. A few caveats apply, however.

Class features that two classes share (such as uncanny dodge) accrue at the rate of the faster class.
Gestalt characters with more than one spellcasting class keep track of their spells per day separately.
A gestalt character can’t combine two prestige classes at any level, although it’s okay to combine a prestige class and a regular class. Prestige classes that are essentially class combinations-such as the arcane trickster, mystic theurge, and eldritch knight-should be prohibited if you’re using gestalt classes, because they unduly complicate the game balance of what’s already a high-powered variant. Because it’s possible for gestalt characters to qualify for prestige classes earlier than normal, the game master is entirely justified in toughening the prerequisites of a prestige class so it’s available only after 5th level, even for gestalt characters.(Emphasis mine)

[Curmudgeon]

Sneak attack bonus doesn't stack, by default. If you look at the Rogue class table you don't see "sneak attack +1d6" every other level, because these don't add together even inside the class. Instead the sneak attack die multiplier is incremented and that replaces the previous bonus.

If you're making a gestalt with sneak attack from Rogue and variant Fighter you get the same value on both sides: no addition. The Rogue has no sneak attack stacking language, and the sneak attack Fighter has exactly what the Rogue has: no override to allow stacking.

Even a normal (non-gestalt) Rogue/Assassin only stacks because the Assassin class has specific language overriding the default for sneak attack.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Sneak attack bonus doesn't stack, by default. If you look at the Rogue class table you don't see "sneak attack +1d6" every other level, because these don't add together even inside the class. Instead the sneak attack die multiplier is incremented and that replaces the previous bonus.

......................

Even a normal (non-gestalt) Rogue/Assassin only stacks because the Assassin class has specific language overriding the default for sneak attack.

Well, just about every other class and source of SA says that it stacks. I think it's one of those things where it's implied, or supposed to be. But they messed up the RAW in core, so rather than just errata rogue to say all sources of SA damage stack, they then had to write "this SA stacks with...." over and over again every time they had another source with it.

[Snowbluff]

Well, just about every other class and source of SA says that it stacks. I think it's one of those things where it's implied, or supposed to be. But they messed up the RAW in core, so rather than just errata rogue to say all sources of SA damage stack, they then had to write "this SA stacks with...." over and over again every time they had another source with it.

Yep. I've actually had this argument with Curmudgeon before. I couldn't find a PrC that didn't stack SA in 3.5. :smalltongue:

I would actually try skirmish or sudden strike instead. Skirmish with Greater Manyshot is pretty sweet in my book. I like to keep my Swift Actions open, you see. Even if you're not using both, you can pretty much be using one or the other.

Man, I remember my Greensnake Naga Swift Hunter. She was named after one of my other characters, Lamia Lamina. She had a lisp because her fangs, and she could swallow a whole human arm in one go... *dreamy look*

[Curmudgeon]

Yep. I've actually had this argument with Curmudgeon before. I couldn't find a PrC that didn't stack SA in 3.5. Well, you could look harder:
Fatemaker (Planar Handbook, page 50)
Thief of Life (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060911a&page=3) (Faiths of Eberron, page 84)

There are more base classes which lack sneak attack stacking language than PrCs, certainly.

[Snowbluff]

Well, you could look harder:
Fatemaker (Manual of the Planes, page 50) Didn't bother with that book. I never regret ignoring while building. :smalltongue:

Thief of Life (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060911a&page=3) (Faiths of Eberron, page 84)
[/LIST]
There are more base classes which lack sneak attack stacking language than PrCs, certainly.

Good point. Some people like that class, I think. It wasn't about how hard I had to look, but how useful knowing the rule was.

I could care less about the base classes. Spellthief isn't as functional with a rogue dip, for example.

EDIT: Ur Priest has a good point. I always confuse the two. I use neither. That is fatemaker and it is 3.5 and I would not play it.

[Urpriest]

Well, you could look harder:
Fatemaker (Manual of the Planes, page 50)
Thief of Life (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060911a&page=3) (Faiths of Eberron, page 84)

There are more base classes which lack sneak attack stacking language than PrCs, certainly.

Either you mean Planar Handbook or that's not 3.5.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'd argue that the massive, overwhelming abundance of entries that say they stack would indicate that if only a few places lack it, it was likely oversight on the part of the author, who probably just assumed it stacked.

Though I would like to know why "one sneak attack is not like the other!" if not.

[docnessuno]

I'd argue that the massive, overwhelming abundance of entries that say they stack would indicate that if only a few places lack it, it was likely oversight on the part of the author, who probably just assumed it stacked.

Though I would like to know why "one sneak attack is not like the other!" if not.

Because the game was NOt designed with gestalt in mind.

The clear RAI meaning of the non-staking gestalt rule is to prevent the two different "sides" of the character progressing the same feature at an accelerated rate.

Regardless, the gestalt rules prevent it even if the class feature is written as normally stacking (as in the case of Improved uncanny dodge).

[StreamOfTheSky]

I was never arguing that gestalt should let SA stack on both sides.

I was arguing against the ridiculous assertion that some forms of SA don't stack with anything, while 90% of the rest of the sources *do*.

[Shinken]

I'd argue that the massive, overwhelming abundance of entries that say they stack would indicate that if only a few places lack it, it was likely oversight on the part of the author, who probably just assumed it stacked.

Though I would like to know why "one sneak attack is not like the other!" if not.

You're right, of course.
Curmudgeon goes for the strictest RAW, though, even when it makes little sense. It's part of his charm. :smallwink:

[Curmudgeon]

Either you mean Planar Handbook or that's not 3.5.
Sorry, you're correct. I'll Edit that in my post.