PDA

View Full Version : Are there any otherwise incompatible ACFs that can be combined?



deuxhero
2014-08-27, 09:10 PM
Sneak Attack Fighter has text that explicitly says it can be combined with Thug even though both replace the first level bonus feat.

Are there any other ACFS (or archetypes in Pathfinder) that have explicit rules trumping the general inability to trade away a class feature twice?

atemu1234
2014-08-27, 11:23 PM
Not as far as I know, no.

OldTrees1
2014-08-27, 11:47 PM
Not quite the same but Martial Rogue(lose sneak attack) can be combined with Penetrating Strike(modify sneak attack). (Currently using this in a build)

MilesTiden
2014-08-28, 12:09 AM
Not quite the same but Martial Rogue(lose sneak attack) can be combined with Penetrating Strike(modify sneak attack). (Currently using this in a build)

Except... you would gain nothing from that. Sure you would qualify, but you have no sneak attack to benefit from it. You would in essence, be trading Trap Sense for nothing. So, a sidegrade basically. :smalltongue:


Benefit: Whenever you flank a creature that is immune to extra damage from sneak attacks, you still deal extra damage equal to half your normal sneak attack dice. This benefit does not apply against creatures that cannot be flanked, nor against foes that are otherwise denied their Dexterity bonus to AC or flat-footed but not flanked.

You don't have a 'normal' sneak attack dice. You don't have any, for that matter. 'Normal', in this circumstance refers to 'sneak attack dice you would get against things that aren't immune to it'. It would require some serious mental gymnastics to interpret that as ignoring something that explicitly removes sneak attack. :smalltongue:

I can't find the exact wording on the other version of the feat, but I don't think it'll work anyways. How are you interpreting the feat?

OldTrees1
2014-08-28, 12:16 AM
Except... you would gain nothing from that. Sure you would qualify, but you have no sneak attack to benefit from it. You would in essence, be trading Trap Sense for nothing. So, a sidegrade basically. :smalltongue:



You don't have a 'normal' sneak attack dice. You don't have any, for that matter. 'Normal', in this circumstance refers to 'sneak attack dice you would get against things that aren't immune to it'. It would require some serious mental gymnastics to interpret that as ignoring something that explicitly removes sneak attack. :smalltongue:

I can't find the exact wording on the other version of the feat, but I don't think it'll work anyways. How are you interpreting the feat?

I mentioned the combo because Penetrating Strike does nothing without Sneak Attack and yet it can be gained without Sneak Attack. (I am using it in a build that picks up Sneak Attack later)

torrasque666
2014-08-28, 12:21 AM
Except... you would gain nothing from that. Sure you would qualify, but you have no sneak attack to benefit from it. You would in essence, be trading Trap Sense for nothing. So, a sidegrade basically. :smalltongue:



You don't have a 'normal' sneak attack dice. You don't have any, for that matter. 'Normal', in this circumstance refers to 'sneak attack dice you would get against things that aren't immune to it'. It would require some serious mental gymnastics to interpret that as ignoring something that explicitly removes sneak attack. :smalltongue:

I can't find the exact wording on the other version of the feat, but I don't think it'll work anyways. How are you interpreting the feat?

Its still valid. Penetrating Strike replaces Trap Sense, and in no way specifically requires sneak attack to be taken. Martial Rogue replaces sneak attack and in no way specifically requires Trap Sense to be taken, so thus nothing is in conflict. Its worthless, but still a valid combination.

OldTrees1
2014-08-28, 12:33 AM
Its still valid. Penetrating Strike replaces Trap Sense, and in no way specifically requires sneak attack to be taken. Martial Rogue replaces sneak attack and in no way specifically requires Trap Sense to be taken, so thus nothing is in conflict. Its worthless, but still a valid combination.

Hence why I said "Not quite the same but ...".

Story
2014-08-28, 12:35 AM
There are some combos that probably weren't intended to be combined but can by RAW. Such as the popular Domain Wizard + Elven Wizard Substitution 1.