waiving Archetype requirements if they are already met ?

[nighttree]

The Cannibal Barbarian Archetype requires that the first rage power you take be Animal Fury (to gain a bite attack)....

If the character race being played already has a bite attack...is there any harm in ignoring the requirement ?

[Rynjin]

No harm. Not RAW, but definitely no harm.

Though there are a few Rage Powers that key off of Animal Fury, so they may be worthwhile for someone with a Bite anyway. Increased damage (several that increase effective size, for instance), added poison, instant Grapple.

[fretgod99]

You could always give an added bonus for someone already with a bite. For instance, increased damage die or an extra +1 to attack when raging or something. That way it doesn't feel like a completely wasted slot to them.

As Rynjin said, RAW you have to take it and there might be reasons to anyway down the line. But if it's a home game, do what you want.

[nighttree]

I was looking at that as well...almost all of the new Rage powers specify "you must have/while using" animal fury.....

The race I was looking at is Kuru...and they start with a 1D6 bite...I suppose I could just allow the racial bite to supersede in regards to damage....

[FrozenLaughs]

By ignoring the requirement, it could potentially put the archetype 1 rage power "ahead" of it's intended balance... Not sure if that's a real issue or not...?

[ShoulderPatch]

nighttree wrote:

The Cannibal Barbarian Archetype requires that the first rage power you take be Animal Fury (to gain a bite attack)....

If the character race being played already has a bite attack...is there any harm in ignoring the requirement ?

More a house rule question than a rules question, as the Raging Cannibal rules state unambiguously you must take the rage power, not just you must have a bite attack, it's fairly clear by RAW the answer is no you can't exchange it.

Approaching it from a house rule stand point on any harm... it depends. As FrozenLaughs pointed out, it could put the character ahead on other powers or power chains and that could lead to an advantage. If the rest of the group is an unoptimized Rogue, Monk, and Fighter that could be noticeable eventually. If the rest of the group is a Druid, a Wizard, and a Summoner that could be less than a drop in a very large bucket so help the poor Barbarian out. If the group has a lot of synergy everyone benefits so no harm no foul. If the group has a lot of internal conflict or competition within roles that could be an unfair, if slight, edge. YMMV. If the rest of the group doesn't care though it's probably not something that's going to break the game.

[Lifat]

As ShoulderPatch said, the RAW is crystal clear in this case and he absolutely must take the rage power to qualify.

From a houserule perspective, it really does depend as shoulderpatch said on the type of group and player you are dealing with. For any of my homegames, I would allow it without a moments pause. But my group only has friendly competition at worst and at best they are very synergetic in which case no one would care.

[Finn Kveldulfr]

For a House Rule game, I might allow it, but I think the other house-ruling option someone mentioned is better: If the character already has a natural weapon/bite attack, he/she still needs to take the Animal Fury rage power as part of the archetype requirements, but have the effect be that the character's existing bite attack die-type increases by 1 step while raging (for instance, 1d6 becomes 1d8), so that it's still beneficial instead of useless other than as a pre-req (rather than giving the character a weaker bite attack than he/she already has).