Does the Snap Kick feat work on Attacks of Opportunity (letting you make another attack)?

If yes, is the -2 to attack rolls cumulative?


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.

  • \$\begingroup\$ 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. \$\endgroup\$ – annoying imp Dec 28 '18 at 22:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ @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. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Dec 28 '18 at 22:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ 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? \$\endgroup\$ – annoying imp Dec 30 '18 at 20:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ 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? \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Dec 31 '18 at 16:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ @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. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Dec 31 '18 at 16:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.