Expert Tactician and Sneak Attack

[Caliban]

I found this clarification in the Living City Campaign Song and Silence Document: This text, although not official, makes it sound like QttE and ET cannot be used together.

/ds

Wow, that's even more strict than my interpretation.

I agree that it won't trigger untill your target actually loses their Dex bonus (so a successful feint doesn't immediately trigger it), but I disagree that they must still be denied their Dex bonus at the time you take the attack.

Once it's triggered, it's triggered and you get the attack before your after your regular action. If they are no longer denied their Dex bonus at that time, it simply means that you can't sneak attack them.

 

[Mulkhoran]

Until it comes to rolling a d20

SHOOSH!!!!!

 

[doktorstick]

Once it's triggered, it's triggered and you get the attack before your after your regular action. If they are no longer denied their Dex bonus at that time, it simply means that you can't sneak attack them.

Which, in fact, does seem to be the case. According to "feinting" in the Bluff skill description, the opponent is denied his Dexterity bonus on your next attack. While I think you will get the other attack from ET, it won't be during the feint and hence no loss of Dexterity.

/ds

 

[drowdude]

You don't need to take my word for it:

From www.dictionary.com :

*sigh* Yes, thats the way, reference a dictionary when asked for a core rules definition.


There is no real need to continue debating this anyways. It's all been covered before, and everyone has their own opinon on these 2 feats.

I happen to agree with the Sage's interpretation, but I can see where you are coming from. Whether or not we agree is more or less irrelevent since neither of us can really be convinced the other is correct.

 

[drowdude]

SHOOSH!!!!!

I think *WOOOSH!!!* would be more appropriate, as in "Another One Bites The Dust".

 

[Caliban]

*sigh* Yes, thats the way, reference a dictionary when asked for a core rules definition.

Ok, why don't you show me a core rules definition of "regular action" that supports your view. Lacking one, we only have the dictionary definition to go on.

Like I said, I don't think the Sage didn't really read the feat before responding. I even e-mailed him about it, and he said that Expert Tactician hadn't been triggered twice in the answer he gave.

I gave up at that point, as I got the impression he wasn't really interested in examing it with his full attention.

 

[LokiDR]

I have disagreed with the sage in the past, but I don't think he is far off here. An action can trigger a change in the middle of your action, such as attacking while under an invisiblity spell. It may well be that the Sage wasn't complete in his explanation, but I don't see too much of a problem with the ruling. Since it is the closest to "official" on the subject, it is the ruling I will point others to.

 

[Caliban]

I have disagreed with the sage in the past, but I don't think he is far off here. An action can trigger a change in the middle of your action, such as attacking while under an invisiblity spell. It may well be that the Sage wasn't complete in his explanation, but I don't see too much of a problem with the ruling. Since it is the closest to "official" on the subject, it is the ruling I will point others to.

Except that a standard action is one action, and the Expert Tactician feat specifies that it's extra attack comes before or after your regular action. I simply don't see where the feat allows for it to come in the middle of your action this way.

 

[drowdude]

Ok, why don't you show me a core rules definition of "regular action" that supports your view. Lacking one, we only have the dictionary definition to go on.

That is essentially my point, there is no rules definition of a "regular" action. Thus it is open to interpretation.

Like I said, I don't think the Sage didn't really read the feat before responding. I even e-mailed him about it, and he said that Expert Tactician hadn't been triggered twice in the answer he gave.

I gave up at that point, as I got the impression he wasn't really interested in examing it with his full attention.

Heh, well whatever the case is, I still have his in-print response in Dragon to refer to

 

[drowdude]

Except that a standard action is one action, and the Expert Tactician feat specifies that it's extra attack comes before or after your regular action. I simply don't see where the feat allows for it to come in the middle of your action this way.

It allows it if you view "regular action" as meaning an action you can normally take in a round, such as a move-equivalent or attack action.

That would allow the combo he suggets in his response.