a one level from Vivisectionist to solve the low sneak attack of nature fang druid

[PlayerPTF14]

talking about sneak attack rules I've heard this hypothesis.
the Vivisectionist says At 1st level, "a vivisectionist gains the sneak attack ability as a rogue of the same level. If a character already has sneak attack from another class, the levels from the classes that grant sneak attack stack to determine the effective rogue level for the sneak attack’s extra damage dice (so an alchemist 1/rogue 1 has a +1d6 sneak attack like a 2nd-level rogue, an alchemist 2/rogue 1 has a +2d6 sneak attack like a 3rd-level rogue, and so on)"
according to several players one level is enough one level from Vivisectionist is enough to make nature fang druid have a complete sneak attack (example 6d6 at level 11, one level vivisectinist and ten level nature fang druid).
or how do I think it works, based on what is written does it add only the single vivizesionist level, having only 2d6 sneak attacks at level 11?

[PlayerPTF14]

same thing using the slayer as an example ??

[happykj]

The wording of Vivisectionist looks kinda weird. Based on the wording, it seems like any classes that grant sneak attack counted as effective rogue level (even if it only grant 1d6 for whole progression), but I dont think it should be intepreted in this way.

My opinion is that a Vivisectionist 1/Nature Fang 19 still get only 2d6.

[Lelomenia]

To be honest, this issue has usually been handled by banning the Vivisectionist archetype (e.g., PFS). As worded by Rules as Written, the way Vivisectionist is worded would work the way the player suggests in a hypothetical case of a bunch of levels in a generic class with 1d6 Sneak Attack damage and 1 level Viv. Nature’s Fang isn’t a generic class of that sort, however; it has specific language for how its Sneak Attack stacks with a second class that contributes Sneak Attack dice, and that language specifically contradicts the Vivisectionist language. I don’t believe there is an official ruling in how to handle this particular contradiction, so I believe it would fall to the GM to decide which language applies.

For Viv/Slayer, Slayer has no Sneak Attack stacking language so the Vivisectionist language would apply.

[Mysterious Stranger]

From Nature fang

Sneak Attack (Ex): At 4th level, a nature fang gains sneak attack +1d6. This functions as the rogue sneak attack ability. If the nature fang gets a sneak attack bonus from another source, the bonuses on damage stack. This ability replaces resist nature’s lure.

Nature Fang is very specific in that the damage from its sneak attack stacks with other sneak attack. In Pathfinder the specific overrides the general. The Vivisectionist sneak attack rule is a general rule. It applies in more cases than the Nature Fang sneak attack rule. That means that it overrides the Vivisectionist rule.

[PlayerPTF14]

Are you sure it's not a misinterpretation, and that his levels simply add to thief sneaking?
that is, a 1 Vivisectionist level and 10 slayer level will give 6d6?

[Derklord]

By very strict RAW what you say is correct. And since we had this topic last year, I'll just copy-paste the rest:

Vivisectionist's SA was written with only full progression SA in mind. What's supposed to be a limitation (that e.g. Rogue 1/Vivisectionist 1 doesn't have more SA dice than a Rogue 2) turns into a benefit when combined with a class with slower SA progression.

The literal interpretation utterly voilates the intend, and you're unlikely to find a GM letting you get away with such an obvious attempt at gaming the system and blatantly abusing an ill-adviced wording. It's like claiming that your Oracle doesn't have to spend a full-round action to cast a metamagic'd spell because the rules say "Sorcerers and bards must take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by a metamagic feat) than a regular spell.", not that all spontaneous casters do so. Or claimign that Simple Weapon Proficiency lets you ignore the penalty from e.g. Power Attack because it says "You make attack rolls with simple weapons without penalty."

In the first printing of the book the Vivisectionist is from, the list of recommended discoveries for the archetype contained plague bomb, poison bomb, and sticky bomb. This is evidence that either the author wasn't really mentally coherent when writing the archetype, or more likely that the archetype underwent some revision. It is entirely possible that the Sneak Attack ability wasn't even done (in its current form) by the author, but rather by the editor. It's also possible that the author had actually put text in there detailing the interaction with slow progression classes, and the editor cut it for page count.

[PlayerPTF14]

thx for all

[Dragonchess Player]

If you want to improve the Sneak Attack of a nature fang druid, here are a few ways:
1) Take the Crocodile domain with Nature Bond. The Ambush domain power grants +1d6 to Sneak Attack at 6th, 11th, and 16th.
2) Dip one level in snakebite striker brawler instead of vivisectionist alchemist. The snakebite striker grants another +1d6 to Sneak Attack, proficiency in additional weapons, Unarmed Strike, and doesn't penalize BAB.
3) The Accomplished Sneak Attacker feat.

[Name Violation]

Dragonchess Player wrote:

If you want to improve the Sneak Attack of a nature fang druid, here are a few ways:

1) Take the Crocodile domain with Nature Bond. The Ambush domain power grants +1d6 to Sneak Attack at 6th, 11th, and 16th.
2) Dip one level in snakebite striker brawler instead of vivisectionist alchemist. The snakebite striker grants another +1d6 to Sneak Attack, proficiency in additional weapons, Unarmed Strike, and doesn't penalize BAB.
3) The Accomplished Sneak Attacker feat.

Also VMC cavalier (order of the blossom) will get you sneak attack