Does Claws of the Beast apply to Sneak Attack?

[RichardAK]

In Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss, there is an Abyssal heritor feat called Claws of the Beast. Its description reads:

Your hands are twisted like claws. This deformity allows you to deal more damage than usual with your unarmed strikes and sneak attacks.
Benefit: Your natural weapons or unarmed strikes gain a +1 profane bonus on damage rolls. This bonus increases by 1 for every two Abyssal heritor feats you possess.
Special: Your talons make subtle manipulation of objects more difficult, imposing a -2 penalty on Sleight of Hand checks.
So here's my question: does this damage bonus apply only to the base damage roll, or to your sneak attack dice as well? Normally, this would not even occur to me, since, for example, a +2 enhancement bonus from a magical weapon would give +2 to the base damage, but not +2 per die of sneak attack (I am right about that, right? I can't find the rule that says that, but I've always just assumed that that's true). In this case, however, the feat's description specifically mentions that it improves the damage from sneak attacks, albeit only in the general description, not in the actual description of the benefit. So let's suppose that a ninth-level medium-sized rogue with the normal five sneak attack dice makes an unarmed sneak attack. Normally, that would do 1d3 points of base damage plus 5d6 points of sneak attack damage. Suppose, however, that this rogue has Claws of the Beast (but no other Abyssal heritor feats). Does that mean he does 1d3+1 + 5d6+5 points of damage, or just 1d3+1 + 5d6 points?

If only the latter, why does the feat description mention sneak attacks at all? Moreover, if the latter only, this feat seems much, much weaker than feats like Craven, Indigo Strike, Sacred Strike, or even Deadly Precision. On the other hand, if the former, wouldn't that imply that any bonus to damage rolls, such as from a magical weapon, would also apply to sneak attack damage, unless it is explicitly specified that it does not? Also, if the former, why is there no mention of sneak attacks in the benefit description?

[Ashtagon]

The opening sentence of the description is fluff, not crunch, and should be ignored for rules purposes.

Also, note that it is a flat bonus, not a "per die" bonus.

The damage for your example rogue will be 1d3 + 1 + 5d6.

Overall, it's rather lame for a feat, even by inheritor feat standards.

The inheritor feat groups are designed so that they are only useful if you intend getting lots of such inheritor feats. Otherwise, they are a waste of a feat.

[RichardAK]

Also, note that it is a flat bonus, not a "per die" bonus.
But there is a problem with this: the description specifically says that it provides a bonus to damage rolls, not simply to damage.


The opening sentence of the description is fluff, not crunch, and should be ignored for rules purposes.
I know that this is the general assumption of many people, but where is this written? The PHB, in laying out the format for feat descriptions, says that the first part is a "Description of what the feat does or represents in plain language." It does not say that the first part is "fluff, not crunch," as you put it, or, if it does, I haven't found it.

The description of the feat in plain language says the bonus applies to sneak attacks. Isn't it logical to conclude that the listed bonus to damage dice applies to sneak attack dice?

[TuggyNE]

But there is a problem with this: the description specifically says that it provides a bonus to damage rolls, not simply to damage.

As far as I know, no distinction exists between "bonus to damage" and "bonus to damage rolls". What you're looking for, I believe, is language more like this: "+1 point of damage per die". (IIRC, Craven uses something similar to be more clear.)

I could, however, see an interpretation that adds a point of damage to both sneak attacks and unarmed strikes, which would result in 1d3 + 5d6 + 2.

[Medic!]

A sneak attack at +5d6 is still one damage roll, at the most beneficial, I'd say that any time you make an unarmed strike, each strike deals +1 profane damage, and if that unarmed strike is also a sneak attack, you still only get a net +1 damage (since the profane bonus wouldn't stack).

Being a generous/player-sided DM (for better or worse) I'd probably go ahead and give it to you on a sneak attack with a non-reach melee weapon as well, but not on ranged or reach sneak attacks since the part of the feat qualifying sneak attacks also says the extra damage is due to a deformity of the hands.

All that being said, I would side with everyone saying no to the extra damage on sneak attacks because the benefit section doesn't list bonus to sneak attack damage as a benefit of the feat.

And on a side note, if you stacked a few of those feats, depending on your table's level of play, it wouldn't actually be all that bad...it's like a stacking enhancement bonus basically. +10 fists, anyone?

[RichardAK]

As far as I know, no distinction exists between "bonus to damage" and "bonus to damage rolls". What you're looking for, I believe, is language more like this: "+1 point of damage per die". (IIRC, Craven uses something similar to be more clear.)
That's just it. Craven specifically reads "when making a sneak attack, you deal an extra 1 point of damage per character level." It specifies that the bonus is to damage, not to damage rolls. Which returns me to an earlier point: Craven, when its bonus is distributed, is worth approximately two points of damage per die (exactly that much at even levels). Claws, interpreted your way, would be worth 1 point of damage in total, or perhaps two given your more charitable interpretation of the feat. Interpreted my way, it is worth 1 point per die, which is still not as powerful as Craven (both because the damage bonus is not as high and because it requires you to use an unarmed attack), but is at least in the same ballpark. I know that not all feats are equally powerful, and some are just lame, but your interpretation of this feat makes it really beyond lame.

[eggs]

I know that not all feats are equally powerful, and some are just lame, but your interpretation of this feat makes it really beyond lame.

That's about the gist of it.

[RichardAK]

That's about the gist of it.
I guess so, but I sort of think that if there is any ambiguity with respect to an interpretation, it's better to come down on the side of the interpretation such that someone might, under some circumstances, want to take the feat in question.

[TuggyNE]

That's just it. Craven specifically reads "when making a sneak attack, you deal an extra 1 point of damage per character level." It specifies that the bonus is to damage, not to damage rolls.

In this case, I was referring to the "per character level" part, which makes it entirely unambiguous that it scales; it's true that you could hypothesize a difference between damage and damage rolls, but Craven does not support this hypothesis; it merely fails to disprove it.

Unfortunately, there are lots of other places to disprove the hypothesis. Compare the wording of, for example, (greater) magic weapon, magic stone, prayer, divine favor, Horizon Walker's Terrain Mastery class feature, Ranger's Favored Enemy class feature, +X weapon enhancements, and finally the very wording of Strength bonuses to weapon damage. That's just a partial listing.

I'm sorry, but it's just a bad feat. It can go stand in the corner with Psionic Dodge and Weapon Specialization: Whip.

[Ashtagon]

That's about the gist of it.

Yep.

Pretty much all the inheritor feats suck unless you have like 4+ of them, since they synergise with each other.

You just happened to pick up on one of the crappier ones.