Monk/Swordsage/Kung fu genius

[Lloyd-Starbuck]

Hi i got a question. i know that monk and swordsage wisdom does not stack for AC, but what if you take kung fu genius which makes monks us intelligence for their AC instead of wisdom, does it stack then.

[INoKnowNames]

By RAW, the Swordsage's Wisdom to AC requires you to have Armor On, and technically the Unarmed Swordsage Variant removes your proficiency with Armor without changing this, so technically they still wouldn't stack, since one requires armor (just armor with no penalties for use or requiring you to gain proficiency back somehow), and the other does not.

However, I don't think it'd be unreasonable for an Unarmed Swordsage to get Wis to AC while unarmored, and for you to be able to use Kung Fu Genius to let you get Swordsage Wis and Monk Int to AC. Though, your mental stats would have to be pretty baller for it to be useful to upgrade both in that way. In any case, you'll probably need to talk to your Dm for clarification.

[animewatcha]

I do not know how the 'level-based ac' would play out other than that highest one counts ( like most type bonuses ). The other issue is source stat to ac with 'same name ability'. Whenever this is brought up ( ninja / FAQ ) wis has been cited. So Wis+Int should be stackable. Level-based ac on the other hand...

[INoKnowNames]

I do not know how the 'level-based ac' would play out other than that highest one counts ( like most type bonuses ). The other issue is source stat to ac with 'same name ability'. Whenever this is brought up ( ninja / FAQ ) wis has been cited. So Wis+Int should be stackable. Level-based ac on the other hand...

The FAQ can bite itself. Some of those rulings were written in direct contrast to even the intentional bits of RAW, such as ruling that Greater Manyshot doesn't proc crits when each shot indeed procs a crit.

The issue as I understand it is that the features are both the same, except that one demands armor and the other prohibits it. Even setting one to a different stat to the other would allow them both to stack in theory, except that they have different triggering statuses that are contrary to each other.

[Mato]

The FAQ can bite itself. Some of those rulings were written in direct contrast to even the intentional bits of RAW, such as ruling that Greater Manyshot doesn't proc crits when each shot indeed procs a crit.Fascinating enough, I've never heard of "greater manyshot" and I couldn't find any ruling that prohibits manyshot or improved manyshot from scoring critical hits.

Also yes it would stack. See the abilities are based on allowing you to add an ability modifier to your ac, not bestowing +X bonus. In this case you don't have two things telling you that you can use your wisdom, you have one that allows you to use one score and another that uses another one as well.

[INoKnowNames]

Fascinating enough, I've never heard of "greater manyshot" and I couldn't find any ruling that prohibits manyshot or improved manyshot from scoring critical hits.

SRD for Manyshot: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm) Regardless of the number of arrows you fire, you apply precision-based damage only once. If you score a critical hit, only the first arrow fired deals critical damage; all others deal regular damage.

Meanwhile, SRD for Greater Manyshot: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm) Your precision-based damage applies to each arrow fired, and, if you score a critical hit with more than one of the arrows, each critical hit deals critical damage.


Also yes it would stack. See the abilities are based on allowing you to add an ability modifier to your ac, not bestowing +X bonus. In this case you don't have two things telling you that you can use your wisdom, you have one that allows you to use one score and another that uses another one as well.

That's still assuming you can talk with the Dm about the armor issue, since one says use armor and once says you can't. As is, you can't get the Monk bonus to AC, even if you set it to Int, at the same time as the Swordsage, since if you wear Armor you lose the Monk bonus, and if you don't, you lose the Swordsage bonus.

[Mato]

And the first half, cool thanks for finding it. It looks just like the epic level improved manyshot feat too. There still isn't a FAQ entry through. There is one on normal manyshot and precision damage, and it's entry guided the precision damage entry that would later appear in the other rule books, such as the rules compendium.

As for the second half, how would you benefit from both at the same time was already brought up, which by the way agent fist from faiths of eberron does this without a DM, while I was answering the question of would it stack. Which is yes, and yes without DM intervention as well (it's a pain to enter the prc through). So yeses all around.

[Curmudgeon]

I do not know how the 'level-based ac' would play out other than that highest one counts ( like most type bonuses ). The other issue is source stat to ac with 'same name ability'.
Yes, that's how the game uses "source".
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.
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 a source (in this case, of bonus damage). It's a named ability, just like AC Bonus.

The FAQ can bite itself.
In general, I agree with you. In this particular case the FAQ answer is correct, even if (as usual) the author didn't cite any rules.

[Emperor Tippy]

Yes, that's how the game uses "source".
Sneak Attack is a source (in this case, of bonus damage). It's a named ability, just like AC Bonus.

In general, I agree with you. In this particular case the FAQ answer is correct, even if (as usual) the author didn't cite any rules.

Except Sneak Attack in that case has identical rules. It is a wholly identical ability.

The two AC bonus abilities aren't identical, even before a feat flips one of them to Int.

The reason that you can't stack both the Swordsage and Monk abilities is that one requires light armor while the other requires no armor, if that was not the case and the abilities were not wholly identical then they would stack as they are from different sources.

[Curmudgeon]

Except Sneak Attack in that case has identical rules. It is a wholly identical ability.
Being wholly identical isn't required, though; just having an identical name is enough. If you're trying to stack bonuses from two identically-named spells, the fact that one of them has lots of metamagic applied (and thus isn't a wholly identical ability) doesn't change that it's the same source.

[Emperor Tippy]

Being wholly identical isn't required, though; just having an identical name is enough. If you're trying to stack bonuses from two identically-named spells, the fact that one of them has lots of metamagic applied (and thus isn't a wholly identical ability) doesn't change that it's the same source.

Metamagic doesn't change what the spell is. It is technically a post spell modifer.

Much like Kung Fu Genius would not change a Monk's AC bonus into something else, it is the same ability that a feat then altered in a specific instance.

Just because two abilities share the same name does not make them the same ability/source. To be from the same source the base ability needs to be identical.

Unless you have a rules quote that it's only the abilities name that matters.

[Urpriest]

Yes, that's how the game uses "source".
Sneak Attack is a source (in this case, of bonus damage). It's a named ability, just like AC Bonus.

In general, I agree with you. In this particular case the FAQ answer is correct, even if (as usual) the author didn't cite any rules.

Curmudgeon, I still completely fail to understand how you think those quotes support that argument. The two quotes flat-out call rogue levels a source of a sneak attack bonus, not the sneak attack class feature itself.

[INoKnowNames]

Jeeze, Curmudgeon, Emperor Tippy, and Urpriest in one thread all of a sudden. It's like having a conversation in New York, when suddenly Gigan, Space Godzilla, and Anguirus appear to have input about it.

Best part: Space Godzilla agreed with me. Or at least part of what I said and that I was clear about.


And the first half, cool thanks for finding it. It looks just like the epic level improved manyshot feat too.

Actually, while it may look the same, they are different in the notable way that Precision Damage still applies per hit to Greater Manyshot, a bonus that Improved Manyshot does not get. Scouts, Rogues, Ninjas, and other users of Precision Damage much prefer Greater over Improved for that reason.


There still isn't a FAQ entry through.

Because, as I mentioned before, I for some reason have this massive stigma against the FAQ. Regardless of it being right or wrong, I prefer the Dm to make the choice himself, and would do the same myself. Even when I take other items from Dragon Magazines, I'm still of the opinion that the FAQ can bite itself, even when right.

Stupid, I know, but at least I'm both honest and consistent about it. Even when the decision made is the same conclusion reached that the FAQ does, I still see fit to make those decisions myself or accept the Dm's ruling him/herself.

There is one on normal manyshot and precision damage, and it's entry guided the precision damage entry that would later appear in the other rule books, such as the rules compendium.


As for the second half, how would you benefit from both at the same time was already brought up

I was noting that the how still caused a problem as it stands.


which by the way agent fist from faiths of eberron does this without a DM

Assuming Eberron is allowed or that the build in question has room for Paladin Levels and Prestige Class Levels ontop of Monk and Swordsage, and that favored class penalties are somehow mitigated or multiclassing is otherwise made easier.


while I was answering the question of would it stack.

Let me make sure I clarified exactly what I said earlier: Making them stack in this way is the easy part. It's qualifying for them both at the same time, thus making the struggle worth it in the first place, that's hard. It's why I personally rule the Unarmed Swordsage variant gets Wis when out of Armor and thus can't wear it, while the default still gets the benefit of armor.


So yeses all around.

Not quite that simple, but hopefully the Op found something usable out of it.

[Urpriest]

Jeeze, Curmudgeon, Emperor Tippy, and Urpriest in one thread all of a sudden. It's like having a conversation in New York, when suddenly Gigan, Space Godzilla, and Anguirus appear to have input about it.

Best part: Space Godzilla agreed with me. Or at least part of what I said and that I was clear about.

Which one of us is Anguirus?

[Douglas]

Regardless of any arguments for whether Monk and Swordsage AC bonus stack normally, Kung Fu Genius does not change it. Which ability score determines the magnitude of the bonus is completely irrelevant to stacking rules.

[INoKnowNames]

Which one of us is Anguirus?

Speak of the Devil, actually. :smallsmile:

Edit: Then another Kaiju appeared! (Mods are automatically Kaiju).

I don't remember seeing you, though, so you get to be a newer Kaiju. You can be the Male Muto!

[Emperor Tippy]

Regardless of any arguments for whether Monk and Swordsage AC bonus stack normally, Kung Fu Genius does not change it. Which ability score determines the magnitude of the bonus is completely irrelevant to stacking rules.

That isn't entirely accurate. If, for example, the monk class ability indicated that it was Int to AC then it would stack as they would be different abilities (assuming the armor issue was waived).

A feat, item, or spell does not directly change an ability; it modifies an ability in a specific case.

[Urpriest]

Speak of the Devil, actually. :smallsmile:

Rad. Anguirus was a pretty cool guy.

[Curmudgeon]

Curmudgeon, I still completely fail to understand how you think those quotes support that argument. The two quotes flat-out call rogue levels a source of a sneak attack bonus, not the sneak attack class feature itself.
If that's the case, then there's no need for any of the stacking rules, because everything is a different source. Two different castings of the same named spell would be different sources, right?

It's just lazy writing. The source in each case is an instance of Sneak Attack. Referring to "another source" instead of "another instance of the source" is sloppy language. It ought to get the point across, though, because there's no need to create an exception to the stacking rules unless the source (Sneak Attack) is the same each time.

I hope this addresses your complete failure to understand the peccadillos of the D&D authors.

[animewatcha]

Regardless of any arguments for whether Monk and Swordsage AC bonus stack normally, Kung Fu Genius does not change it. Which ability score determines the magnitude of the bonus is completely irrelevant to stacking rules.

If I remember correctly, a similar issue came up with Fist of the Forest right down to whether the stat block was correct.

[Urpriest]

If that's the case, then there's no need for any of the stacking rules, because everything is a different source. Two different castings of the same named spell would be different sources, right?

Not necessarily, if it's still the same spell. Those quotes tell us that the "source" of bonuses from class features is the class, the "source" of bonuses from a spell could still be the spell itself.



It's just lazy writing.

The whole point of RAW is ignoring the conditions behind the writing, lazy or otherwise.


The source in each case is an instance of Sneak Attack. Referring to "another source" instead of "another instance of the source" is sloppy language. It ought to get the point across, though, because there's no need to create an exception to the stacking rules unless the source (Sneak Attack) is the same each time.

Unless they're simply clarifying that they are in fact distinct sources, and thus stack.



I hope this addresses your complete failure to understand the peccadillos of the D&D authors.

The peccadillos of the D&D authors remain utterly inexplicable.