| 19 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
My nature fang druid just hit level 6 and my DM and I got into an argument about whether its sneak attack gains a new damage dice.
He says it doesn't because the archetype doesn't specifically call out a level advancement in the ability. I argue that the statement "This functions as the rogue sneak attack ability" includes the "increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter" from the description of the rogue's sneak attack. Who's right here?
That's a good question.
I'm inclined to say No. It replaces a really lame druid ability. I don't think the intention was to give it as much power as the one main ability of a different core class - trading a stupid ability for a class main ability is not how these archetypes usually work.
Also, there is ample evidence on many other archetypes which actually do get a scaling ability that the authors explicitly say the ability scales. They did not do so here, so I think it does not.
Finally, there are other archetypes and even other classes that get limited and/or slower progressions for sneak attack, so the precedent exists for that.
I think this is a one-time 1d6 bonus that works like other Sneak Attack bonuses but doesn't scale.
I side with your GM, but there are ways to work around that;
- The Crocodile Domain gives three levels of Sneak Attack advancement
- The Accomplished Sneak Attacker feat from Dirty Tactics gives an additional die
You could also take the Grey Warden Prestiege class
With how much of the druid kit they trade out for the nature's fang archetype, it certainly wouldn't be unreasonable for sneak attack progression to have been intended and missed. The ability does only say it functions as sneak attack, not that it progresses as it.
If it turned out that the archetype was supposed to have slayer sneak attack progression, I wouldn't be surprised.
as written it never gets better. I think they are scared of druids turning into creatures with multiple attacks (octopus) and getting off 8 or 9 attacks worth of sneak attacks.
as written it never gets better. I think they are scared of druids turning into creatures with multiple attacks (octopus) and getting off 8 or 9 attacks worth of sneak attacks.
A Nature Fang Druid doesn't get Wild Shape so that isn't likely to be the reason.
Just because they lose out on wildshape doesn't mean they don't gain the shaping spells. The only other way I know of to do that is with arcane trickster.
The only reason it gains sneak attack is to use Studied Target as a free action occasionally.
Just because they lose out on wildshape doesn't mean they don't gain the shaping spells. The only other way I know of to do that is with arcane trickster.What personal polymorph spells are on the druid list? All of the [x] shape spells are not on the druid list.
Only vermin shape, IIRC.
As for OP's question: I've always treated it as if it didn't increase, but now that you mention it it would be nice to get an official ruling.
As others have said you could take crocodile domain, but then you'd be granting the other big piece of the druid kit (the animal companion). Doing so, you'd end up with what is basically a slayer that gets druid spellcasting at the cost of worse BAB, worse skills, worse weapon proficiencies, limited alignment and severe equipment requirements.
It doesn't increase, Penumbral.
Find any other archetype with the same wording. Snakebite Striker, Sandman, even the mess that is the Vivisectionist, they each are express in what happens to your sneak attack dice.
The Nature Fang clearly doesn't need any other bonuses either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't increase, Penumbral.
As I said, I agree. But I don't particularly see the harm in seeking an official clarification, nor do I understand why you're taking so much offense to a simple question being asked.
Find any other archetype with the same wording. Snakebite Striker, Sandman, even the mess that is the Vivisectionist, they each are express in what happens to your sneak attack dice.
That's not much evidence in the light of how much of a mess the ACG has been in terms of editing quality, even after the errata. Read the slayer's sneak attack entry and you'll notice it's missing the sentence that states that its damage stacks with other sources of sneak attack. It's there for every other archetype (even the nature fang), yet I don't think anybody would suggest that was anything more than an accidental omission.
Put me down on the side of the sneak attack dice does not increase. In every other case of sneak attack any progression is mentioned clearly. Even if I'm wrong this:
... I argue that the statement "This functions as the rogue sneak attack ability" includes the "increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter" from the description of the rogue's sneak attack. Who's right here?
is probably not the strongest argument. How many rogue levels have you gained precisely?
Even if I'm wrong this:
... I argue that the statement "This functions as the rogue sneak attack ability" includes the "increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter" from the description of the rogue's sneak attack. Who's right here?
is probably not the strongest argument. How many rogue levels have you gained precisely?
That same rogue sneak attack entry also reads "The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target." so I guess a nature fang (who isn't a rogue) also doesn't have any conditions under which he can actually apply his sneak attack damage.
Nature Fang's Sneak Attack replaces Resist Nature's Lure, a mediocre one-time boost. Why should someone get up to 9d6 sneak attack in return? It would be totally unbalanced, with the usual drawbacks: Making GM's life more difficult, making fellow players' life more boring, forcing optimizing people to take it.
No optimizer worth their salt makes a Nature's Fang, even if they got full sneak attack progression. Nothing is worth giving up Wildshape.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nature Fang's Sneak Attack replaces Resist Nature's Lure, a mediocre one-time boost. Why should someone get up to 9d6 sneak attack in return? It would be totally unbalanced, with the usual drawbacks: Making GM's life more difficult, making fellow players' life more boring, forcing optimizing people to take it.
And the Sacred Huntsmaster Inquisitor gets an animal companion as a druid for the cost of a 1/day use of judgement and gains hunter tactics in exchange for absolutely nothing. Archetypes come as a package, you have to look up all they give up and all they gain to determine balance. This is why you can't just grab archetype abilities a la carte. The nature fang gives up wild shape, unarguably the best class feature for a melee druid, I feel that more than entitles him to at least some sneak attack progression.
didn't like the concensus OnceBittenTwiceShy?
Paizo's position is the following, according to the ACG:
Designing a new class feature for an archetype to replace an existing one follows many of the same rules as designing a class feature for an entirely new class. However, you must consider the power and versatility of the feature you are replacing. Swapping out the bravery fighter class feature for a new feature that grants a bonus to AC is not a fair trade, resulting in an archetype that is more powerful than the base class. While you might endeavor to balance out this exchange by replacing another class feature with a weaker option, such replacements should be avoided if possible. If you must, try to ensure that the weaker option appears at an earlier level than the more powerful option to ensure that the "cost" for the new, powerful feature is paid before the benefit is gained. Doing so prevents characters from taking just a few levels in an archetype to get the powerful class feature, before swapping over to another class to avoid paying the price for that feature. As a guideline, replacement features should serve a similar role and have roughly the same power as the feature they replace. This isn't always the case, but even when deviating from the role, you should be sure that the replacement feature you are creating is not demonstrably more or less powerful than the original.
