+2d6 Sneak Attack Req for Arcane Trickster

[Zathraas]

The Halfing rogue racial substitution from Races of the Wild gives the Halfling rogue +2d6 sneak attack on thrown weapon attacks. Assuming he is meeting the other reqs, would this situational +2d6 sneak attack meet that requirement for Arcane Trickster?

Would the combo of having +1d6 sneak attack and +1d6 sudden strike (rogue 1/ninja 1/wizard 5th) meet the requirement?

 

[RigaMortus2]

Yes.

As would the generic classes in UA. Take the Spellcaster generic class, use his 1st level "feat" to get the +2d6 sneak attack, and then level up getting spells... I think you would qualify at level 4 or 5 (been awhile since I last checked at the Spellcaster spell progression).

 

[James McMurray]

It would, but since you lose most of a PrC's benefits when you don't meet the prereqs you won't be a very good arcane trickster.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It would, but since you lose most of a PrC's benefits when you don't meet the prereqs you won't be a very good arcane trickster.

Wait, are you suggesting that any time an Arcane Trickster is not flanking or facing a denied-Dex opponent, he doesn't qualify for his Sneak Attack and thus loses his PrC benefits?

If the rogue can meet the requirements even when he is not currently able to make a sneak attack, then why wouldn't the Halfling rogue meet the requirements even when he is not currently able to make a sneak attack with a thrown weapon?

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

Because it's cheesy, grants too-swift an access to the PrC, and I rule it to be so. If you disagree, that's fine.

 

[UltimaGabe]

Yes.

As would the generic classes in UA. Take the Spellcaster generic class, use his 1st level "feat" to get the +2d6 sneak attack, and then level up getting spells... I think you would qualify at level 4 or 5 (been awhile since I last checked at the Spellcaster spell progression).

...except the generic classes from UA aren't meant to be used in conjunction with actual classes. That's why they're generic.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I would be careful about fulfilling PrC prereqs with any material not in either Core or the supplement containing that PrC.

Very careful.

The prereqs are written so as to not name specific classes in order to give flexibility. Flexibility is an advantage and sometimes a disadvantage.

 

[James McMurray]

...except the generic classes from UA aren't meant to be used in conjunction with actual classes. That's why they're generic.

They even go so far as to say that if you take a generic class you can't take any nongeneric classes. We had a generic warrior in the party for a while. His fighter BAB + Sneak attack was nasty, but he missed out on a lot of PrCs that he could have taken as a rogue or fighter.

 

[Thanee]

The Halfing rogue racial substitution from Races of the Wild gives the Halfling rogue +2d6 sneak attack on thrown weapon attacks. Assuming he is meeting the other reqs, would this situational +2d6 sneak attack meet that requirement for Arcane Trickster?

I would say no to that one, it's not full Sneak Attack. Same argument why Perocious (or whatever it is called) Apprentice doesn't help fulfill spell level prerequisites.

Would the combo of having +1d6 sneak attack and +1d6 sudden strike (rogue 1/ninja 1/wizard 5th) meet the requirement?

Dunno, does Sudden Strike count towards Sneak Attack requirements? If so, then sure.

Rogue / Spellthief easily grants +2d6 (real) Sneak Attack.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Deset Gled]

It would, but since you lose most of a PrC's benefits when you don't meet the prereqs you won't be a very good arcane trickster.

Because it's cheesy, grants too-swift an access to the PrC, and I rule it to be so. If you disagree, that's fine.

I don't want to be too confrontational here, James, but these two answers are completely different. In one, you are claiming there is a rules based reason it would not work. In the second, you are saying that it is purely a matter of oppinion. I think it might be to your benefit to differentiate between the two a bit more in your posting. One is going to be generally well accepted and discussed. The other is going to get the rules forum riled up on a regular basis.