Rebuked undead: Can the rebuker attack with impunity?

[cthulhu_duck]

During our weekly game, a player whose character could channel negative energy attempted to rebuke some undead - there was then a discussion as to whether the character could attack the rebuked (and in awe) undead with impunity, or whether that character attacking would have the same result as a cleric who had turned undead attacking turned undead who could not flee.

SRD:
A rebuked undead combatant cowers as if in awe. (Attack rolls against the rebuked undead get a +2 bonus.) The effect lasts 10 rounds.

says very little about what the rebuker can and cannot do - where as

SRD:
Effect and Duration of Turning: Turned undead flee from you by the best and fastest means available to them. They flee for 10 rounds (1 minute). If they cannot flee, they cower (giving any attack rolls against them a +2 bonus). If you approach within 10 feet of them, however, they overcome being turned and act normally. (You can stand within 10 feet without breaking the turning effect—you just can’t approach them.) You can attack them with ranged attacks (from at least 10 feet away), and others can attack them in any fashion, without breaking the turning effect.

says quite a bit about what the turner can and cannot do.

I personally like the idea of a negative channeler rebuking undead and then being able to walk among the awed undead - but the rules don't seem clear.

Can anyone reference anything (SRD, sourcebook, FAQ) that discusses what a rebuker can do with rebuked (as opposed to controlled) undead?

 

[Rystil Arden]

Yes, the rebuker can smack them up and walk among them as she pleases. It is one of the minor perks the rebuker gains in exchange for losing out on spontaneous healing (because spontaneous cause wounds spells are terrible)

 

[frankthedm]

Yes, the rebuker can smack them up and walk among them as she pleases. It is one of the minor perks the rebuker gains in exchange for losing out on spontaneous healing (because spontaneous cause wounds spells are terrible)

If you and your "Party" is alive. Otherwise they are passable, since you can cast one, hold the charge, and attack next round doing slam or claw damage, your energy drain and the spell. Undead clerics, OUCH!

 

[KiwiGlen]

Rebuking

Someone beat me to the boards.

My take on the situation (I'm the DM in the situation above) is that a rebuke has the undead cowering in awe for 10 rounds.

As per the good effect, the rebuker can attack them with ranged attacks (from at least 10 feet away), and others can attack them in any fashion, without breaking the awe effect.

If the rebuker attacks one of the undead closer than 10', that undead overcomes the awe and fights/defends normally. The other undead are still in awe of the rebuker.

 

[Rystil Arden]

The rebuking effect is not broken by approaching the undead. Only the turning is, and mostly to prevent turning from becoming effectively a rebuke based on cornering the undead.

 

[cthulhu_duck]

As per the good effect, the rebuker can attack them with ranged attacks (from at least 10 feet away), and others can attack them in any fashion, without breaking the awe effect. ...

Glen, can you explain how you reach that view of rebuking?

 

[KiwiGlen]

Balance. If you attack the undead you have rebuked, you'd better do it a distance or get someone else to do it.

Note that rebuker already have an advantage over turners - they can single out one undead for some close physical abuse, without breaking the awe of the others

 

[Rystil Arden]

Balance. If you attack the undead you have rebuked, you'd better do it a distance or get someone else to do it.

Note that rebuker already have an advantage over turners - they can single out one undead for some close physical abuse, without breaking the awe of the others

Ah, balance. I can agree with that--as long as you're admitting that you're deviating from the rules in the book to try to balance it out, and it seems like you are, I don't think that anyone will argue against your right to do so Sounds like you have your reasons and you've thought this out. Personally, I see no problem with letting the rebuker smack them down.

 

[KiwiGlen]

as long as you're admitting that you're deviating from the rules in the book to try to balance it out

The reason why we're having this discussion is because the rules aren't clear in this matter.

If rebukers are supposed to have the ability to attack rebuked undead with no threat of retaliation from the individual undead so assaulted, why is it not stated explicitly? I'm all for those who can rebuke undead to stride unharmed amongst those undead awed by their (un)holy power, but usually game powers of a similar effect are negated by a direct attack. Balance.

 

[Rystil Arden]

The reason why we're having this discussion is because the rules aren't clear in this matter.

If rebukers are supposed to have the ability to attack rebuked undead with no threat of retaliation from the individual undead so assaulted, why is it not stated explicitly? I'm all for those who can rebuke undead to stride unharmed amongst those undead awed by their (un)holy power, but usually game powers of a similar effect are negated by a direct attack. Balance.

The reason that they can attack the rebuked undead with no threat of retaliation is the same reason that a wizard doesn't turn into a mammoth covered in polka-dots whenever he casts Magic Missile: In D&D, things don't happen unless the rules say they do. The rules do not say that it happens, therefore, it does not.

Now, if you think this is too powerful, it is perfectly fair to add in the extra clause. However, since you can already pelt ranged attacks on the undead or have allies smack them up in melee, it doesn't really matter. It also wouldn't be unbalanced to allow Good clerics to melee the Turned undead either.