Does the Snap Kick feat apply to Attacks of Opportunity?
Does the Snap Kick feat work on Attacks of Opportunity (letting you make another attack)?
If yes, is the -2 to attack rolls cumulative?
dnd-3.5e feats opportunity-attack attack
edited Dec 26 at 21:45
V2Blast
19.7k356121
asked Dec 26 at 20:58
András
26.3k1093185
add a comment |
Does the Snap Kick feat work on Attacks of Opportunity (letting you make another attack)?
If yes, is the -2 to attack rolls cumulative?
dnd-3.5e feats opportunity-attack attack
edited Dec 26 at 21:45
V2Blast
19.7k356121
asked Dec 26 at 20:58
András
26.3k1093185
add a comment |
Does the Snap Kick feat work on Attacks of Opportunity (letting you make another attack)?
If yes, is the -2 to attack rolls cumulative?
dnd-3.5e feats opportunity-attack attack
edited Dec 26 at 21:45
V2Blast
19.7k356121
asked Dec 26 at 20:58
András
26.3k1093185
Does the Snap Kick feat work on Attacks of Opportunity (letting you make another attack)?
If yes, is the -2 to attack rolls cumulative?
dnd-3.5e feats opportunity-attack attack
dnd-3.5e feats opportunity-attack attack
edited Dec 26 at 21:45
V2Blast
19.7k356121
asked Dec 26 at 20:58
András
26.3k1093185
edited Dec 26 at 21:45
V2Blast
19.7k356121
asked Dec 26 at 20:58
András
26.3k1093185
edited Dec 26 at 21:45
V2Blast
19.7k356121
edited Dec 26 at 21:45
V2Blast
19.7k356121
edited Dec 26 at 21:45
V2Blast
19.7k356121
19.7k356121
asked Dec 26 at 20:58
András
26.3k1093185
asked Dec 26 at 20:58
András
26.3k1093185
asked Dec 26 at 20:58
András
26.3k1093185
26.3k1093185
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Yes, it does, and yes, it is. Actually, I am not sure it’s cumulative. In a comment, annoying imp points out the most fundamental stacking rule, which says that
In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession).
Since the source in both cases is the Snap Kick feat, it would appear that the penalties overlap, not stack. That said, I could swear that somewhere there is a rule saying that penalties often stack.
Anyway, as for applying to attacks of opportunity, that much is a definite yes. Snap Kick lets you put one more attack into any attack sequence, which is what makes it so good.
answered Dec 26 at 21:31
KRyan
218k28543934
It may be worth adding why penalties from the same source would stack in this case. Not if I played much with ToB content, but with a glance I can't see why the above rule won't aply here.
– annoying imp
2 days ago
@annoyingimp Which rule above? Penalties are usually cumulative, it’s kind of the default. When a magic spell applies a penalty, you can’t just keep casting that spell to accumulate the penalties, but when the penalty is some non-spell thing you did, it definitely stacks.
– KRyan
2 days ago
This rule (above = I mentioned in a previous sentence). When you make two AoOs isn't your second roll suffers two untyped penalties from the same source (the feat)? Why spell vs non-spell would be a concern here?
– annoying imp
21 hours ago
Huh. I've always read that penalty as noncumulative. Because it's in a separate sentence that says, "You take a −2 penalty on all attack rolls you make this round," I'd assumed that suffering the penalty but once allowed any number of snap kicks during the round without further penalty. Is that a possible reading or too generous?
– Hey I Can Chan
1 hour ago
@HeyICanChan I could have sworn that there was a statement somewhere that said penalties are usually cumulative, but annoying imp’s link contradicts that. I haven’t had the opportunity to dig and see if I could find the statement I thought I remembered. Considering that, your reading not only seems plausible, but quite possibly more correct than mine, in the absence of my hypothetical statement to the contrary. It’s kind of a niche edge case either way, really, though I suppose a decisive strike attack of opportunity build would really care about the answer.
– KRyan
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f137993%2fdoes-the-snap-kick-feat-apply-to-attacks-of-opportunity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Yes, it does, and yes, it is. Actually, I am not sure it’s cumulative. In a comment, annoying imp points out the most fundamental stacking rule, which says that
In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession).
Since the source in both cases is the Snap Kick feat, it would appear that the penalties overlap, not stack. That said, I could swear that somewhere there is a rule saying that penalties often stack.
Anyway, as for applying to attacks of opportunity, that much is a definite yes. Snap Kick lets you put one more attack into any attack sequence, which is what makes it so good.
answered Dec 26 at 21:31
KRyan
218k28543934
It may be worth adding why penalties from the same source would stack in this case. Not if I played much with ToB content, but with a glance I can't see why the above rule won't aply here.
– annoying imp
2 days ago
@annoyingimp Which rule above? Penalties are usually cumulative, it’s kind of the default. When a magic spell applies a penalty, you can’t just keep casting that spell to accumulate the penalties, but when the penalty is some non-spell thing you did, it definitely stacks.
– KRyan
2 days ago
This rule (above = I mentioned in a previous sentence). When you make two AoOs isn't your second roll suffers two untyped penalties from the same source (the feat)? Why spell vs non-spell would be a concern here?
– annoying imp
21 hours ago
Huh. I've always read that penalty as noncumulative. Because it's in a separate sentence that says, "You take a −2 penalty on all attack rolls you make this round," I'd assumed that suffering the penalty but once allowed any number of snap kicks during the round without further penalty. Is that a possible reading or too generous?
– Hey I Can Chan
1 hour ago
@HeyICanChan I could have sworn that there was a statement somewhere that said penalties are usually cumulative, but annoying imp’s link contradicts that. I haven’t had the opportunity to dig and see if I could find the statement I thought I remembered. Considering that, your reading not only seems plausible, but quite possibly more correct than mine, in the absence of my hypothetical statement to the contrary. It’s kind of a niche edge case either way, really, though I suppose a decisive strike attack of opportunity build would really care about the answer.
– KRyan
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
Yes, it does, and yes, it is. Actually, I am not sure it’s cumulative. In a comment, annoying imp points out the most fundamental stacking rule, which says that
In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession).
Since the source in both cases is the Snap Kick feat, it would appear that the penalties overlap, not stack. That said, I could swear that somewhere there is a rule saying that penalties often stack.
Anyway, as for applying to attacks of opportunity, that much is a definite yes. Snap Kick lets you put one more attack into any attack sequence, which is what makes it so good.
answered Dec 26 at 21:31
KRyan
218k28543934
It may be worth adding why penalties from the same source would stack in this case. Not if I played much with ToB content, but with a glance I can't see why the above rule won't aply here.
– annoying imp
2 days ago
@annoyingimp Which rule above? Penalties are usually cumulative, it’s kind of the default. When a magic spell applies a penalty, you can’t just keep casting that spell to accumulate the penalties, but when the penalty is some non-spell thing you did, it definitely stacks.
– KRyan
2 days ago
This rule (above = I mentioned in a previous sentence). When you make two AoOs isn't your second roll suffers two untyped penalties from the same source (the feat)? Why spell vs non-spell would be a concern here?
– annoying imp
21 hours ago
Huh. I've always read that penalty as noncumulative. Because it's in a separate sentence that says, "You take a −2 penalty on all attack rolls you make this round," I'd assumed that suffering the penalty but once allowed any number of snap kicks during the round without further penalty. Is that a possible reading or too generous?
– Hey I Can Chan
1 hour ago
@HeyICanChan I could have sworn that there was a statement somewhere that said penalties are usually cumulative, but annoying imp’s link contradicts that. I haven’t had the opportunity to dig and see if I could find the statement I thought I remembered. Considering that, your reading not only seems plausible, but quite possibly more correct than mine, in the absence of my hypothetical statement to the contrary. It’s kind of a niche edge case either way, really, though I suppose a decisive strike attack of opportunity build would really care about the answer.
– KRyan
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
Yes, it does, and yes, it is. Actually, I am not sure it’s cumulative. In a comment, annoying imp points out the most fundamental stacking rule, which says that
In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession).
Since the source in both cases is the Snap Kick feat, it would appear that the penalties overlap, not stack. That said, I could swear that somewhere there is a rule saying that penalties often stack.
Anyway, as for applying to attacks of opportunity, that much is a definite yes. Snap Kick lets you put one more attack into any attack sequence, which is what makes it so good.
answered Dec 26 at 21:31
KRyan
218k28543934
Yes, it does, and yes, it is. Actually, I am not sure it’s cumulative. In a comment, annoying imp points out the most fundamental stacking rule, which says that
In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession).
Since the source in both cases is the Snap Kick feat, it would appear that the penalties overlap, not stack. That said, I could swear that somewhere there is a rule saying that penalties often stack.
Anyway, as for applying to attacks of opportunity, that much is a definite yes. Snap Kick lets you put one more attack into any attack sequence, which is what makes it so good.
answered Dec 26 at 21:31
KRyan
218k28543934
edited 1 hour ago
answered Dec 26 at 21:31
KRyan
218k28543934
answered Dec 26 at 21:31
KRyan
218k28543934
answered Dec 26 at 21:31
KRyan
218k28543934
218k28543934
It may be worth adding why penalties from the same source would stack in this case. Not if I played much with ToB content, but with a glance I can't see why the above rule won't aply here.
– annoying imp
2 days ago
@annoyingimp Which rule above? Penalties are usually cumulative, it’s kind of the default. When a magic spell applies a penalty, you can’t just keep casting that spell to accumulate the penalties, but when the penalty is some non-spell thing you did, it definitely stacks.
– KRyan
2 days ago
This rule (above = I mentioned in a previous sentence). When you make two AoOs isn't your second roll suffers two untyped penalties from the same source (the feat)? Why spell vs non-spell would be a concern here?
– annoying imp
21 hours ago
Huh. I've always read that penalty as noncumulative. Because it's in a separate sentence that says, "You take a −2 penalty on all attack rolls you make this round," I'd assumed that suffering the penalty but once allowed any number of snap kicks during the round without further penalty. Is that a possible reading or too generous?
– Hey I Can Chan
1 hour ago
@HeyICanChan I could have sworn that there was a statement somewhere that said penalties are usually cumulative, but annoying imp’s link contradicts that. I haven’t had the opportunity to dig and see if I could find the statement I thought I remembered. Considering that, your reading not only seems plausible, but quite possibly more correct than mine, in the absence of my hypothetical statement to the contrary. It’s kind of a niche edge case either way, really, though I suppose a decisive strike attack of opportunity build would really care about the answer.
– KRyan
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
It may be worth adding why penalties from the same source would stack in this case. Not if I played much with ToB content, but with a glance I can't see why the above rule won't aply here.
– annoying imp
2 days ago
@annoyingimp Which rule above? Penalties are usually cumulative, it’s kind of the default. When a magic spell applies a penalty, you can’t just keep casting that spell to accumulate the penalties, but when the penalty is some non-spell thing you did, it definitely stacks.
– KRyan
2 days ago
This rule (above = I mentioned in a previous sentence). When you make two AoOs isn't your second roll suffers two untyped penalties from the same source (the feat)? Why spell vs non-spell would be a concern here?
– annoying imp
21 hours ago
Huh. I've always read that penalty as noncumulative. Because it's in a separate sentence that says, "You take a −2 penalty on all attack rolls you make this round," I'd assumed that suffering the penalty but once allowed any number of snap kicks during the round without further penalty. Is that a possible reading or too generous?
– Hey I Can Chan
1 hour ago
@HeyICanChan I could have sworn that there was a statement somewhere that said penalties are usually cumulative, but annoying imp’s link contradicts that. I haven’t had the opportunity to dig and see if I could find the statement I thought I remembered. Considering that, your reading not only seems plausible, but quite possibly more correct than mine, in the absence of my hypothetical statement to the contrary. It’s kind of a niche edge case either way, really, though I suppose a decisive strike attack of opportunity build would really care about the answer.
– KRyan
1 hour ago
It may be worth adding why penalties from the same source would stack in this case. Not if I played much with ToB content, but with a glance I can't see why the above rule won't aply here.
– annoying imp
2 days ago
It may be worth adding why penalties from the same source would stack in this case. Not if I played much with ToB content, but with a glance I can't see why the above rule won't aply here.
– annoying imp
2 days ago
@annoyingimp Which rule above? Penalties are usually cumulative, it’s kind of the default. When a magic spell applies a penalty, you can’t just keep casting that spell to accumulate the penalties, but when the penalty is some non-spell thing you did, it definitely stacks.
– KRyan
2 days ago
@annoyingimp Which rule above? Penalties are usually cumulative, it’s kind of the default. When a magic spell applies a penalty, you can’t just keep casting that spell to accumulate the penalties, but when the penalty is some non-spell thing you did, it definitely stacks.
– KRyan
2 days ago
This rule (above = I mentioned in a previous sentence). When you make two AoOs isn't your second roll suffers two untyped penalties from the same source (the feat)? Why spell vs non-spell would be a concern here?
– annoying imp
21 hours ago
This rule (above = I mentioned in a previous sentence). When you make two AoOs isn't your second roll suffers two untyped penalties from the same source (the feat)? Why spell vs non-spell would be a concern here?
– annoying imp
21 hours ago
Huh. I've always read that penalty as noncumulative. Because it's in a separate sentence that says, "You take a −2 penalty on all attack rolls you make this round," I'd assumed that suffering the penalty but once allowed any number of snap kicks during the round without further penalty. Is that a possible reading or too generous?
– Hey I Can Chan
1 hour ago
Huh. I've always read that penalty as noncumulative. Because it's in a separate sentence that says, "You take a −2 penalty on all attack rolls you make this round," I'd assumed that suffering the penalty but once allowed any number of snap kicks during the round without further penalty. Is that a possible reading or too generous?
– Hey I Can Chan
1 hour ago
@HeyICanChan I could have sworn that there was a statement somewhere that said penalties are usually cumulative, but annoying imp’s link contradicts that. I haven’t had the opportunity to dig and see if I could find the statement I thought I remembered. Considering that, your reading not only seems plausible, but quite possibly more correct than mine, in the absence of my hypothetical statement to the contrary. It’s kind of a niche edge case either way, really, though I suppose a decisive strike attack of opportunity build would really care about the answer.
– KRyan
1 hour ago
@HeyICanChan I could have sworn that there was a statement somewhere that said penalties are usually cumulative, but annoying imp’s link contradicts that. I haven’t had the opportunity to dig and see if I could find the statement I thought I remembered. Considering that, your reading not only seems plausible, but quite possibly more correct than mine, in the absence of my hypothetical statement to the contrary. It’s kind of a niche edge case either way, really, though I suppose a decisive strike attack of opportunity build would really care about the answer.
– KRyan
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f137993%2fdoes-the-snap-kick-feat-apply-to-attacks-of-opportunity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
