Rogue/Barbarian sneak attack while raging?

[MasterOfHeaven]

I have no problem imagining someone entering a blood frenzy and still knowing where to hit someone to cause maximum pain. You, apparently, do. The bottom line for me is it causes no game imbalance to allow this, so why restrict it? Applying real world logic to a fantasy game is rarely a good idea.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Corwin is still confused....

Still trying to rip off our favorite rogue/ranger/barbarian/bard/cleric I see?

The evidence suggests that their is no reason to believe that a sneak attack requires so much concentration as to be unusable while raging.

Thanks for finally getting a mostly well-thought-out discussion going on the topic. The last board I posted the question to came back with a bunch of "it's obvious that it is(n't)" with no discussion of reasons.

Your favorite DM

 

[IceBear]

As it has been pointed out - raging is not bezerking. I remember there was a beserker prestiege class somewhere (maybe in Dragon) that was more like the raging you want - Will check to attack anyone near you, etc - check that class as see if it allows sneak attacks. I'm sorry that I can't find it for you, but I do remember seeing it somewhere.

IceBear

 

[Xarlen]

As it has been pointed out - raging is not bezerking. I remember there was a beserker prestiege class somewhere (maybe in Dragon) that was more like the raging you want - Will check to attack anyone near you, etc - check that class as see if it allows sneak attacks. I'm sorry that I can't find it for you, but I do remember seeing it somewhere.

IceBear

Masters of the Wild.

 

[IceBear]

You sure? I just looked in the table of contents and didn't see a beserker (though I figured it would be in there or Sword and Fist).

*sigh* I'll have to read more carefully - Frenzied Beserker (I was only looking for beserker )

Hmmmm - well, that didn't help. It basically says the same thing a rage for what you can and cannot do.

IceBear

 

[WizarDru]

So...if nobody's opinion holds any weight until something is official...then...why are we here?

I don't recall saying no one's opinion held any weight, and neither did Master of Heaven. What I was trying to point out, and what MoH summarized above, is that the Sage can be self-contradictory, and sometimes just plain WRONG. He's only human, for pity's sake. His is a well-informed opinion, but an opinion nonetheless.

My main point was the Corwin the Confused basically was given repeated statemtents to the effect of 'this is the official rule, but there's no reason not to use a house-rule'. He doesn't believe that to be the case, and wishes the sage to give him a definitive answer. My point is (and the sage himself has stated) that unless it's in print, it's plausibly deniable. One merely has to look at the flip-flopping surrounding the Halfling Outrider BAB, mage armor with a shield or the properties of the Shield spell to see this to be the case.

If CtC thinks that a Sage reply will help him win an argument with his players (and that seems to be the root of this), so be it. But it sounds more like CtC wants the ruling to be made official, so he can enforce it in his game, because he's having problems getting his players to accept it as a house-rule. While I sympathize, that's not a valid reason to change the core rules, IMHO.

 

[Corwin the Confused]

I don't recall saying no one's opinion held any weight, and neither did Master of Heaven. What I was trying to point out, and what MoH summarized above, is that the Sage can be self-contradictory, and sometimes just plain WRONG. He's only human, for pity's sake. His is a well-informed opinion, but an opinion nonetheless.

My main point was the Corwin the Confused basically was given repeated statemtents to the effect of 'this is the official rule, but there's no reason not to use a house-rule'. He doesn't believe that to be the case, and wishes the sage to give him a definitive answer. My point is (and the sage himself has stated) that unless it's in print, it's plausibly deniable. One merely has to look at the flip-flopping surrounding the Halfling Outrider BAB, mage armor with a shield or the properties of the Shield spell to see this to be the case.

If CtC thinks that a Sage reply will help him win an argument with his players (and that seems to be the root of this), so be it. But it sounds more like CtC wants the ruling to be made official, so he can enforce it in his game, because he's having problems getting his players to accept it as a house-rule. While I sympathize, that's not a valid reason to change the core rules, IMHO.

I have repeatedly stated that I want to know the official rule or the intent of the offial rule. NOT THAT I KNOW WHAT THE RULE IS! I am intrigued by players and DM's that proceed by the assumption : "if it doesn't precicely say that it can't be done, then we can do it."

I know this is a fantasy RPG but I still like things to make sense.

For you in the "Can CAMP," would you allow a Rogue /Barbarian to rage and open locks? (The rules do not prohibit it.) So if you say no, how is this different. And if you say yes, why is there no concentration required?

 

[Magic Rub]

As it has been pointed out - raging is not bezerking. I remember there was a beserker prestiege class somewhere (maybe in Dragon) that was more like the raging you want - Will check to attack anyone near you, etc - check that class as see if it allows sneak attacks. I'm sorry that I can't find it for you, but I do remember seeing it somewhere.

IceBear

Masters of th wild, pages 59 & 60, but you already know that, oops!



To: Corwin-TC (get a shorter name please... ) & everyone

The masses have spoken, both can & can't, & I think you may have the opinion you want, or don't want. Until the clarification of this quandary comes out in an official FAQ update, there will be no "official" ruling. Only the opinions of others who you may or may not agree with. And even then, if it ever happens, you can still choose to ignore or except the FAQ. Make it a house rule and call it the end of this discussion. With all due respect to all involved, to argue a point to people who have their minds made up, stead fast & concrete, is futile. A thread this long means everyone's mind is made up. Neither "camp", the "can" or the "can't", has a written official verification one way or the other, no matter how much it would like to be believed as such, so it is a house rule on both sides. (by that I mean that the PHB does not say specifically "a Rogue can sneak attack, while in a Barbarian rage" or "a Rogue cannot sneak attack, while in a Barbarian rage".

I feel ridiculous after typing all that. But here's more!

EAT YOUR VEGETABLES!
BRUSH YOUR TEETH!
WASH YOUR HANDS!
CLEAN YOUR ROOM!
WALK THE DOG!
GET YOUR HAND OFF MY A$$!
oops... ah

...
..
.
Bye now

 

[kreynolds]

Here are your two options:

1) A raging barbarian/rogue can sneak attack.

2) A raging barbarian/rogue cannot sneak attack.

Now, for those of you that actually follow the rules, pick one of these. For those of you that know the rules but wanna use a house rule, pick one of these. For those of you that don't care about the rules in this particular case, pick on of these. For those of you that don't even know what a barbarian is , pick one of these.

For the record, 1) is correct by the rules. Just figured I'd successfully sneak that in there while raging.

 

[IceBear]

For the record, 1) is correct by the rules. Just figured I'd successfully sneak that in there while raging.

Hehehehe - I agree. The whole "he can shoot a bow while raging" did it for me.

IceBear