Craven Swordsage question

[quiet1mi]

Can a swordsage using assassin strike qualify for Craven?

[Flickerdart]

Can a swordsage using assassin strike qualify for Craven?

Requirement: Sneak Attack class feature. Swordsages do not gain Sneak Attack as a class feature.

[Draz74]

I recently had a big debate with JaronK about this ... the real answer is, it's certainly iffy enough that you should just ask your DM for a ruling.

As far as strict Rules As Written goes, though, I agree with Flickerdart.

[Tytalus]

I recently had a big debate with JaronK about this ... the real answer is, it's certainly iffy enough that you should just ask your DM for a ruling.

As far as strict Rules As Written goes, though, I agree with Flickerdart.

Yes, he tends to argue that issue quite passionately.

The RAW is clear, though: the swordsage's class features are exactly those things that are listed under "Class Featues" in ToB, pages 15-17. None of those is "sneak attack".

[Pechvarry]

Just because there are 3 responses in a row saying "nay", I feel the need to point this out:

a) Couldn't Sneak Attack be classified as a Class Feature? It's the type of D&D object that explains what sneak attack is. It's not a feat, it's not a skill. Even if you were to gain it via feat, it would be a feat to gain the class feature known as sneak attack.

b) Maneuvers are class features. If one of those maneuvers explicitly grants you sneak attack (a class feature. see A), then why wouldn't you be considered to have sneak attack?

Talk to your DM.

[Flickerdart]

Just because there are 3 responses in a row saying "nay", I feel the need to point this out:

a) Couldn't Sneak Attack be classified as a Class Feature? It's the type of D&D object that explains what sneak attack is. It's not a feat, it's not a skill. Even if you were to gain it via feat, it would be a feat to gain the class feature known as sneak attack.

b) Maneuvers are class features. If one of those maneuvers explicitly grants you sneak attack (a class feature. see A), then why wouldn't you be considered to have sneak attack?

Talk to your DM.

Sneak Attack is an Extraordinary ability that some classes happen to gain for class features. Many monsters without class levels also have Sneak Attack.

[Pechvarry]

Vampires automatically get Lightning Reflexes (among other feats) granted in addition to feats gained by levels. This doesn't make it a racial ability -- it's still classified as a feat. So I don't see why a race granted sneak attack would automatically have it stop being classified as a class feature.

Feats are extraordinary abilities too; the su/sp/ex classification really doesn't play into this.

[Cog]

Vampires automatically get Lightning Reflexes (among other feats) granted in addition to feats gained by levels. This doesn't make it a racial ability -- it's still classified as a feat.

It's a feat because it's listed under the Vampire's Feats subheader. As pointed out, Sneak Attack isn't under the Swordsage's Class Features header. Also:

While you are in this stance, you gain the sneak attack ability, if you do not already have it, which deals an extra 2d6 points of damage. If you already have the sneak attack class feature...

The stance itself makes a distinction between it being merely an ability and a class feature.

[mootoall]

But then it shows up again as already having the sneak attack class feature. I'd let them take it for the same reason I'd let factota take craven, i.e. they can sneak attack.

[The Glyphstone]

Why not just take 1 level of Rogue? Then you expressly have Sneak Attack as a class feature, and stack it with Assassin's Stance while still qualifying for Craven completely RAW. And it's barely a blip in your maneuver progression anyways.

[quiet1mi]

2 levels or rogue grabs sneak attack and evasion, in addition it does not cause you to lose IL...

[Claudius Maximus]

2 levels or rogue grabs sneak attack and evasion, in addition it does not cause you to lose IL...

You will lose 1 IL, since rogue counts as half.

[The Rabbler]

or you could grab the level 2 rogue ACF from dungeonscape, allowing you to sneak attack anything and not put the two levels of rogue to waste if you come up against something immune.

[Cog]

or you could grab the level 2 rogue ACF from dungeonscape, allowing you to sneak attack anything and not put the two levels of rogue to waste if you come up against something immune.

That comes at level 3. And by then you've got the 2d6 sneak attack anyway. (Which is not bad - it lets you use higher level stances as well, instead of just being tied to the one.)

[Draz74]

I'd let them take it for the same reason I'd let factota take craven, i.e. they can sneak attack.

I probably would allow that too, but I'd consider it a minor houserule, due to the "as a class feature" wording of Craven's prerequisite. (Same with the Factotum; I agree that the two situations are equivalent, and I'd consider Craven-Factotum a houserule as well.)

[Boci]

Sneak Attack is an Extraordinary ability that some classes happen to gain for class features. Many monsters without class levels also have Sneak Attack.

I thought sneak attack was unnamed, not Ex.

[Flickerdart]

I thought sneak attack was unnamed, not Ex.

It's listed as an Ex ability for monsters such as the baatezu.

[Stegyre]

I thought sneak attack was unnamed, not Ex.

It's listed as an Ex ability for monsters such as the baatezu.

It's whatever its designated as being in the context in which it's being used.

Where it's not explicitly identified as something else, it's technically a "natural" ability (RC at 188), but WotC explicitly prides itself on not being consistent (see the sidebar on that same page of RC).

Spoiler

Show

I'll be one of the first to agree that calling any class feature a "natural" ability is self-contradictory: it's an ability that comes from the class, not from the race.

When it's granted by Assassin's Stance, sneak attack is also ex (ToB at 40), but everyone probably already knew that.

[JaronK]

Vampires automatically get Lightning Reflexes (among other feats) granted in addition to feats gained by levels. This doesn't make it a racial ability -- it's still classified as a feat. So I don't see why a race granted sneak attack would automatically have it stop being classified as a class feature.

Bad example: They get Lightning Reflexes as a Racial Bonus Feat. This is the term Alter Self uses for it, for example. On a vampire, Lightning Reflexes is a Racial ability, an Ex ability (because feats default to this), and a feat.

Sneak Attack is always an Ex ability unless otherwise noted. Note that Sp and Su abilities are ALWAYS noted as such (check all entries ever), and Natural abilities are never special abilities (see MM1 for that last bit, also note that Natural Abilities must be inherent to the physical form and thus are never granted by classes). Since Sneak Attack is always a special ability, it would have to be specifically defined as Sp or Su to be anything other than Ex. And all abilities must have one of the four types (PHB 180) so Ex is the only option.

And yes, I feel that if you have a class ability that grants sneak attack (such as Cunning Strike or Assassin's Stance via Swordsage levels) then you have sneak attack as a class ability. Craven does not say "class feature named sneak attack" is says "sneak attack as a class ability" and these are two distinct things. This is as opposed to sneak attack gained by using an item (a weapon of Assassination, for example) or a racial ability.

With that said, I think Craven is a horribly overrated feat. Immunity to fear is critical at higher levels, since fear effects often end up with VERY high DCs (for example, Intimidate is based on a skill check) and end up being a glaring weakness. The simple Hero's Feast spell makes you immune... but then you lose Craven. Immunity to Mind Effecting is a very good idea too, and you can't have that either with Craven. Why bother giving yourself such a big Achilles heel in the name of a bit of damage?

JaronK

[Curmudgeon]

It's listed as an Ex ability for monsters such as the baatezu.

It's unnamed (which defaults to natural, for class abilities) for Rogues and most others; it's Extraordinary for most monsters, or really whatever is specified as Stegyre pointed out. The rule (relevant to base classes) is in the Player's Handbook on page 180:

Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

[JaronK]

It's unnamed (which defaults to natural, for class abilities) for Rogues and most others;

This is based on a misreading of page 180. It's not that unnamed stuff defaults to natural, it's that anything which is not one of the other three types must be natural. But nothing states that abilities which are unnamed aren't one of the other three types, and in fact NO class abilities can ever be natural unless they change the physical form of the creature (for example, a class that causes you to shapeshift claws might give natural claw attacks). Furthermore, note that most of the time unnamed abilities are in fact Ex (remember that no special ability in the Monster Manual can be natural as that book states as much, and since most of the special abilities are definitely non magical this leaves only Ex as an option). An ability can be designated as one of the other three types by virtue of matching the page 180 descriptions or the Monster Manual descriptions.

From page 6 of the Monster Manual:

A special ability is either Extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su).

The rules of the game article on polymorph goes into this in more depth.

JaronK

[Tytalus]

And yes, I feel that if you have a class ability that grants sneak attack (such as Cunning Strike or Assassin's Stance via Swordsage levels) then you have sneak attack as a class ability.

That would imply that spellcasters with access to spells granting sneak attack also qualify for craven. That seems ... wrong, IMHO.

It's pretty clear to me that a class feature that (a) is not "sneak attack" and (b) is not the equivalent of sneak attack (all those being discussed have limitations and/or specific conditions that must be met), can not be considered a "sneak attack class feature".

Craven does not say "class feature named sneak attack" is says "sneak attack as a class ability"

No. It actually says "Sneak Attack class feature". There's not much of a difference to "class feature named sneak attack".

[Curmudgeon]

This is based on a misreading of page 180. It's not that unnamed stuff defaults to natural, it's that anything which is not one of the other three types must be natural. But nothing states that abilities which are unnamed aren't one of the other three types

That page you think I'm "misreading" says exactly that:

Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

[JaronK]

That would imply that spellcasters with access to spells granting sneak attack also qualify for craven. That seems ... wrong, IMHO.

Maybe, but it would work. It would indeed be weird, but that's still what's said right?

No. It actually says "Sneak Attack class feature". There's not much of a difference to "class feature named sneak attack".

Not much, but the difference is there: one requires it to be sneak attack, the other requires it to be called sneak attack. It's like me saying "I'd like a jacket," and having someone else say "here, I brought you a coat." That's fine, they did what I asked, and I'm not going to get upset because they didn't call it a jacket.

The simple fact is, some classes have class features that give you something called "sneak attack." This includes Swordsages with Assassin's Stance, Factotums with Cunning Strike, and even bizarre stuff like Rangers with that spell that gives sneak attack. All of these could be referred to as sneak attack class features... after all, if I said "that sneak attack stance" you'd know I meant Assassin's Stance, right? As such, Assassin's Stance is indeed a sneak attack class feature.

Thus, the only sneak attack abilities that won't qualify you for Craven are racial ones and item based ones (well, and if there's any non personal range spell that gives it, I guess that too, if cast on someone who doesn't have it as a class feature).

Though I have to say, I still think the easiest end to this is simply not to take Craven... it's a serious problem later on in the game.

That page you think I'm "misreading" says exactly that: "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."

You're discounting other methods of designation besides putting two little letters in parenthesis. The Monster Manual quote makes it VERY clear that all special abilities MUST be Sp, Su, or Ex. Since the Monster Manual is the primary source on that, clearly your claim is incorrect. Other methods of designation could include, for example, using the page 180 PHB or MM Glossary definitions of Sp, Su, and Ex to determine what each ability is. And again, the rules of the game article on Polymorphing (All About Polymorph parts 1-4) go into great detail on what Natural Abilities are. They make it clear that Natural Abilities are only those abilities which are inherent to the physical form... class abilities, therefor, cannot be natural unless the class changes your physical form (such as giving you wings or claws or something).

Note that one of the implications of trying to claim EVERYTHING which doesn't have an (Ex), (Sp), or (Su) after it is Natural is that the entire polymorph line, all of which grant all natural abilities (even Alter Self does, as per the same Rules of the Game), gives ridiculous stuff. Even Alter Self grants spellcasting by that ruling. Yowch.

JaronK

[term1nally s1ck]

MMV, the FAQs, and one of the other MMs...possibly MM itself, all state that any abilities not named are Ex. MMV even makes it explicit, naming spellcasting as an Ex ability.

[Curmudgeon]

You're discounting other methods of designation besides putting two little letters in parenthesis. The Monster Manual quote makes it VERY clear that all special abilities MUST be Sp, Su, or Ex.

Of course I'm disregarding (not just discounting) this reference, because the official rules require me (and you) to do so.

Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

In matters relating to base class abilities, what the Player's Handbook says is correct:

Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

The primary source trumps any statements in the Monster Manual about the types of base class abilities, and says that those abilities that are undesignated are always natural, overriding this disagreement with the Monster Manual. (So sayeth the Wizards of the Coast.) The Monster Manual can tell you how abilities that are designated as supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like work; it does nothing to override natural base class abilities, because it's not the primary source for those.

[Tytalus]

Maybe, but it would work. It would indeed be weird, but that's still what's said right?

No, that's merely a non-intuitive consequence of your peculiar interpretation.

Not much, but the difference is there: one requires it to be sneak attack, the other requires it to be called sneak attack. It's like me saying "I'd like a jacket," and having someone else say "here, I brought you a coat." That's fine, they did what I asked, and I'm not going to get upset because they didn't call it a jacket.

That's a terrible analogy, as I have pointed out before: it assumes the very thing it's trying to show, namely that these class features we are discussing are specific forms of sneak attack. I.e., that "Stances" is a specific form of sneak attack. That you bring it up again seems somewhat disingenuous. To properly use the jacket analogy, something like Cunning Strike would be someone telling you "every time you spend $10, you get to use a jacket for 6 seconds." - that's not the same as having a jacket.

The simple fact is, some classes have class features that give you something called "sneak attack." This includes Swordsages with Assassin's Stance, Factotums with Cunning Strike, and even bizarre stuff like Rangers with that spell that gives sneak attack. All of these could be referred to as sneak attack class features... after all, if I said "that sneak attack stance" you'd know I meant Assassin's Stance, right? As such, Assassin's Stance is indeed a sneak attack class feature.

No; the prerequisite for craven is not "any class feature that offers, even if only under certain circumstances, sneak attack". And Assassin's Stance is not a class feature at all.

Though I have to say, I still think the easiest end to this is simply not to take Craven... it's a serious problem later on in the game.

I think you are overestimating the associated penalty, but YMMV.

[JaronK]

That's a terrible analogy, as I have pointed out before: it assumes the very thing it's trying to show, namely that these class features we are discussing are specific forms of sneak attack. I.e., that "Stances" is a specific form of sneak attack. That you bring it up again seems somewhat disingenuous. To properly use the jacket analogy, something like Cunning Strike would be someone telling you "every time you spend $10, you get to use a jacket for 6 seconds." - that's not the same as having a jacket.

It is the same... for 6 seconds at a time. As such, since you only get to use the feat when you qualify for it, you'd only get your Craven damage when you're actually giving yourself Sneak Attack. At all other times, the feat would have no effect (So a Factotum can't use the Craven bonus damage unless he's using Cunning Strike with that attack).

No; the prerequisite for craven is not "any class feature that offers, even if only under certain circumstances, sneak attack". And Assassin's Stance is not a class feature at all.

Right, it's any sneak attack class feature. That would include ones that give it only under certain circumstances, ones that give it weird names (but eventually do call it "sneak attack") and so on.

I think you are overestimating the associated penalty, but YMMV.

In some games perhaps, but there's a lot of REALLY nasty fear causers. Compare it to Shock Trooper, which penalizes AC (which doesn't really matter anyway at high levels) to give much higher bonuses (twice as big at most levels, even more so if you have Leap Attack) and works on all creatures (Craven is still trumped by anything you can't sneak attack, which becomes a bigger and bigger problem as you level up).

It might be worth taking and retraining, but especially for feat starved Rogues there's just so much else I'd rather have. For example, if I want to be good at stealth (standard for Rogues, Factotums, and pretty much anyone else who would even consider Craven) I'd want to be a Necropolitan and take the Lifesight feat to more easily detect enemies, and also to be immune to that same feat's effects on stealth. But that would make me immune to Mind Effecting, so I can't have it with Craven.

Still, the monster manual itself does not categorize all abilities accordingly (e.g., spellcasting). This is consistently done throughout the Monster Manuals. It stands to reason that this section you keep referring to is not entirely correct.

"Incorrect" isn't really an option. It's what the rule says, and it's the primary source. It may not be clear enough about some abilities (like spellcasting) and thus cause confusion, but the rule can't just be "incorrect." Note that I'm also referring to two agreeing sections, one on page 6 and one on page 315, and that these further then agree with the Rules of the Game article on Polymorphing.

No, spellcasting is not a special ability, as MM5 shows.

Erm, no. Go look at every Monster Manual (and every book that has entries for creatures) ever. "Spells" is always listed as a Special Attack. Special Attacks are a subset of Special Abilities. And MM5 even lists a specialized form of spellcasting (Arcane Talent) as an Ex Special Attack. Not sure what you're trying to claim here.

From what was just quoted:

The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

If the Monster Manual gives a rule on that topic, it trumps. That natural abilities rule is not a specific rule to base classes, it's a rule about abilities in general, so by your reading it's trumped and ignored. What does the Monster Manual say?

Special Abilities: A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (su).

This is a general rule, not one specific to reading creature entries (it's found in the general glossary).

But trumping's not necessary, because you're still not reading what the word "designated" means. Designated doesn't mean it has to be a specific label within the entry. I could say "I'm designating everything in that blue box to be widgets, while everything in the red box is thingamajigs, and everything in the white box is whatchamacallits." I don't have to actually put a label that says "widgets" on everything in the blue box... I've already designated them by another method. As long as you give some means of identifying which things are what, you've designated stuff.

You're claiming that stuff that doesn't have an (Ex) tag on the entry itself isn't "otherwise designated" but if it fits the definition of Ex, then it HAS been otherwise designated. Its official designation is found in the primary source book for Ex abilities, and it reads

Extraordinary: Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, don't become ineffective in an antimagic field, and are not subject to any effect that disrupts magic. Using an extraordinary ability is a free action unless otherwise noted.

See? Now they're all designated.

Note that there are MANY Ex abilities that are defined as Ex by a general definition, but not designated as such in their specific entries. All feats, for example, are defined as being Ex (unless the feat says otherwise). Yet no feat specifically says it's Ex. What does that also say about the Fighter Bonus Feats ability? It's Ex too. This is just stock standard here.

JaronK

[Curmudgeon]

If the Monster Manual gives a rule on that topic, it trumps.

Not by the rules. We've got two statements here:

Special Abilities: A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (su).

Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

1. Do these disagree? Yes, they do.
2. Is there a rule for deciding such disagreements? Yes, there is: the Primary Sources Errata rule.
3. Is the context base class descriptions? Yes, it is.
4. Then in that context, the Player's Handbook is correct, and takes precedence over the Monster Manual.

For the Monster Manual to "trump", you would have to create a house rule, for the RAW says otherwise.

[JaronK]

Error on line 3.

Neither of the two quotes you just gave were in a section about Base Class rules. They were in general sections about special abilities (The Monster Manual quote is from the Glossary, in the "Special Abilities" entry, while the PHB quote is in the "Special Abilities" section and specifically says it's talking about monsters at the beginning of that same section). Guess which one trumps on the topic of Ex, Su, and Sp abilities? That would be the Monster Manual.

JaronK