Rogue/Barbarian sneak attack while raging?

[JCLabelle]

Interestingly enough, you can use Improved Critical while raging. Looking at the Flavor Text for the feat ''Chose one type...You know how to hit where it hurts''. Now that's just flavor text, but so is the ''If the Rogue...She can strike a vital spot for extra damage''.

The way I read it, it's implied that a character with Improved Critical knows how to wield his weapon in such a manner as to maximize it's efficiency. It would seem to me that this is much the same with Sneak Attacks. A character with Sneak Attacks has trained himself to a point where it's a reflex to attack in such a way as to deal Sneak Attack damage. What I would actually not allow would be for a Raging character to forego his Sneak Attack damage, because he'd have to make a conscious effort in order to fight in a sub-optimal way.

Another interesting tidbit, looks like you can Track while raging

 

[Illuminae]

Points to consider

His mind is less clear,

Less clear? no, he gets a +2 to will saves.
Extremely focused on attacking? yes, so focused on this that he does what he does best even better.

he can't try to open his way through his enemies and still concentrate on other things.

and still concentrate on other things.

There are *no* other things, a sneak *attack* is an ...*attack*

And yet, if he was going to loose his skill in combat to favor only raw power, he wouldt have an AC penalty, he would have an *attack* penalty, just as in Power Attack.

He doesnt lose any of his accuracy when attacking, because it is what he s focusing at. And an sneak attack is an attack, and so is any feat he might have for attacking, which are *all* allowed also.

 

[jontherev]

The Sage

FWIW, the Sage told me in an email that you can't sneak attack while raging. I long ago deleted it, so I can't reprint it now.

 

[Iku Rex]

Re: The Sage

FWIW, the Sage told me in an email that you can't sneak attack while raging. I long ago deleted it, so I can't reprint it now.

IIRC the Sage's comment on raging and sneak attacking was something like "I probably wouldn't allow it".

Personally I think it should be allowed.

A Rogue can sneak attack in less than a second at the start of combat. Or sneak attack while flanking an enemy, getting hit and/or fending of attacks in the process. IMO there is no patience or concentration involved beyond that required for any attack.

 

[WizarDru]

Re: The Sage

FWIW, the Sage told me in an email that you can't sneak attack while raging. I long ago deleted it, so I can't reprint it now.

The sage has gone back and forth on this topic as well, IIRC. Unless you see officially printed erratta or an answer printed in the Sage column in Dragon, it's purely an off the cuff opinion from a very busy person. Check the archives on his answers about the Shield spell, for example.


I agree with Illuminae. What is the problem with being able to sneak attack while Raging, exactly? I have a feeling the first answer will be that Sneak Attack is too powerful, which will certainly color any use of it. The fact is that the rules don't specifically prohibit the combination, and it isn't that stunningly powerful (good, but not broken, by any means).


Generally, the problem seems to come from preconcieved notions of what raging and sneak attacking are, based on the names themselves. Sneak Attack is, unfortunately, a loaded term, which some people still interpert as a 'backstab' from the shadows. Raging is interpeted as a purely mindless Beserker's fury, and nothing more. I would suggest that neither are accurate, any more than all rectangles are all squares.

Sneak attack is the act of striking at a more vulnerable spot. In D&D's abstract combat system, this can be seen as more of a 'strike at vitals' or 'cheap shot' ability. The rogue has spent time learning how to deliver the occasional more devastating attack when his opponent is distracted, disoriented or helpless. This doesn't equate to an assasain's death attack, which takes 3 rounds to fire off, and offers a save. The exact nature of the shot is open to interpetation, just like the nature of magic, psionics, most feats and ranger enemies. The point is, the rogue has trained herself to always try for the sneak attack, but the target has to be vulnerable in some fashion for her to be able to succeed. Further, the target needs to be able to suffer criticals, generally limiting the target to a subset of creatures. As has been mentioned above, one doesn't 'declare' a sneak attack, as one does a stunning fist attack, for example. It's a condition that may or may be a part of an attack, but the attack is identical either way...only the end result changes. No additional concentration mechanic is involved.

The rage ability involves the barbarian drawing upon reserves of inner strength, and voluntarily unleashing his anger as a force against his enemies. His anger blinds him to a degree, but he doesn't become a gibbering idiot, merely so angered that he is supremely focused on a specific goal (which doesn't have to be combat, he may have raged, for example, to increase his saves). Combat, for example, is not a mindless activity. The barbarian can still use his broad range of feats, such as power-attack, cleave and improved critical. If you're going to deny sneak attack, you need to start going through a long list of other things that should be denied, as well. Where does the line get drawn? Opening a door requires intelligence, as well, but not a great deal of thinking. Hiding (or sneaking, if you prefer, which may be part of the problem) requires patience and concentration to ensure that you remain hidden, keep out of sight, and so forth. Casting a spell requires patience, concentration and following a ritual. Swinging an short-sword to catch an stunned opponent's jugular vein or stabbing a dirk into his stomach and twisting...that's part of a rogue/barbarian's skills. He's trained himself to do it by instinct.

Is this massively unbalancing in game? If you think sneak attack is too powerful, then you probably will find this combination problematic. However, on average, a barbian of equal levels to the barbarian/rogue will do more damage on average, owing a great deal to a better feat selection, improved hit points and better BAB. I have yet to see an ingame experience disprove this.

If you find this combianation fails your verisimilitude check, which is a valid choice, then by all means, deny it. However, there isn't much to recommend removing it by the rules as-written.

Although, I have to wonder, Corwin: if you had already decided on an answer, why ask the question in the first place?

 

[jontherev]

Re: Re: The Sage

The sage has gone back and forth on this topic as well, IIRC. Unless you see officially printed erratta or an answer printed in the Sage column in Dragon, it's purely an off the cuff opinion from a very busy person. Check the archives on his answers about the Shield spell, for example.


I agree with Illuminae. What is the problem with being able to sneak attack while Raging, exactly? I have a feeling the first answer will be that Sneak Attack is too powerful, which will certainly color any use of it. The fact is that the rules don't specifically prohibit the combination, and it isn't that stunningly powerful (good, but not broken, by any means).


Generally, the problem seems to come from preconcieved notions of what raging and sneak attacking are, based on the names themselves. Sneak Attack is, unfortunately, a loaded term, which some people still interpert as a 'backstab' from the shadows. Raging is interpeted as a purely mindless Beserker's fury, and nothing more. I would suggest that neither are accurate, any more than all rectangles are all squares.

Sneak attack is the act of striking at a more vulnerable spot. In D&D's abstract combat system, this can be seen as more of a 'strike at vitals' or 'cheap shot' ability. The rogue has spent time learning how to deliver the occasional more devastating attack when his opponent is distracted, disoriented or helpless. This doesn't equate to an assasain's death attack, which takes 3 rounds to fire off, and offers a save. The exact nature of the shot is open to interpetation, just like the nature of magic, psionics, most feats and ranger enemies. The point is, the rogue has trained herself to always try for the sneak attack, but the target has to be vulnerable in some fashion for her to be able to succeed. Further, the target needs to be able to suffer criticals, generally limiting the target to a subset of creatures. As has been mentioned above, one doesn't 'declare' a sneak attack, as one does a stunning fist attack, for example. It's a condition that may or may be a part of an attack, but the attack is identical either way...only the end result changes. No additional concentration mechanic is involved.

The rage ability involves the barbarian drawing upon reserves of inner strength, and voluntarily unleashing his anger as a force against his enemies. His anger blinds him to a degree, but he doesn't become a gibbering idiot, merely so angered that he is supremely focused on a specific goal (which doesn't have to be combat, he may have raged, for example, to increase his saves). Combat, for example, is not a mindless activity. The barbarian can still use his broad range of feats, such as power-attack, cleave and improved critical. If you're going to deny sneak attack, you need to start going through a long list of other things that should be denied, as well. Where does the line get drawn? Opening a door requires intelligence, as well, but not a great deal of thinking. Hiding (or sneaking, if you prefer, which may be part of the problem) requires patience and concentration to ensure that you remain hidden, keep out of sight, and so forth. Casting a spell requires patience, concentration and following a ritual. Swinging an short-sword to catch an stunned opponent's jugular vein or stabbing a dirk into his stomach and twisting...that's part of a rogue/barbarian's skills. He's trained himself to do it by instinct.

Is this massively unbalancing in game? If you think sneak attack is too powerful, then you probably will find this combination problematic. However, on average, a barbian of equal levels to the barbarian/rogue will do more damage on average, owing a great deal to a better feat selection, improved hit points and better BAB. I have yet to see an ingame experience disprove this.

If you find this combianation fails your verisimilitude check, which is a valid choice, then by all means, deny it. However, there isn't much to recommend removing it by the rules as-written.

Although, I have to wonder, Corwin: if you had already decided on an answer, why ask the question in the first place?

Well, I did say, FWIW.

I happen to agree with the Sage, and not because I have the preconceived notions you prescribe to those who disagree with your conceived notions. I also don't find sneak attack unbalancing.

I view SA as more than just knowledge of vital areas. Even raging barbarians know piercing someone's heart or eyeball is more effective than smacking them on the toe. I think rogues are more patient in combat and wait for an opening to strike at the right moment. In my mind, I don't see a raging barbarian capable of this finesse, because of the patience involved. Why do you think they can only sneak attack when their foe is at a disadvantage (flanked or w/o dex bonus)? Just because I have this opinion, doesn't mean I think raging barbarians are mindless, gibbering idiots or rogues must backstab ala 1E. Arguments can be made on both sides, imo, that make sense. Until something official comes out, just play the way that makes the most sense to your group.

 

[WizarDru]

Re: Re: Re: The Sage

I think rogues are more patient in combat and wait for an opening to strike at the right moment. In my mind, I don't see a raging barbarian capable of this finesse, because of the patience involved. Why do you think they can only sneak attack when their foe is at a disadvantage (flanked or w/o dex bonus)? Just because I have this opinion, doesn't mean I think raging barbarians are mindless, gibbering idiots or rogues must backstab ala 1E. Arguments can be made on both sides, imo, that make sense. Until something official comes out, just play the way that makes the most sense to your group.

Agreed. I don't think it's the wrong choice, merely a question of what you find makes more sense to you. I don't think it's an invalid choice to decide not to allow it, even though I don't agree. Many of the folks who've raised this issue before, however, have put forth with arguments that were tantamount to the assumptions about sneak attack and raging that I mentioned above.

If the sage were to make a ruling in print, I'd consider it, but I don't forsee that happening, honestly. I think this will be more of an issue of what works for each group, which is (hopefully) what generates the most fun.

 

[Henry]

In my opinion as Master DM and all-seeing god of my home-brew universe, I have no problem with letting a rogue/barbarian get sneak attack bonuses in certain circumstances. Flanking, specifically. For obvious reasons, I can't see him SNEAKING UP on someone, but as part of a flanking duo, I see no problem. (See the above explanation for "letting your guard down.")

 

[Corwin]

To: Corwin the Confused

Nothing of worth to add. I just wanted to say...

Ouch. Your monicker pains me.

 

[Magic Rub]

Barbarian Rage (as dissected by Magic Rub):

as found in your PHB
When he needs to, a barbarian can fly into a screaming blood frenzy.

Sounds like they don't have much control. I'm not much for planning exacting hits when in a blood frenzy, more smashing as hard & often as I can.

as found in your PHB
In a rage, a barbarian gains phenomenal strength and durability but becomes reckless and less able to defend himself.

Wow "reckless"! I think that might mean that he wouldn't base his attacks around exacting hits like a sneak attack.

as found in your PHB
He temporarily gains +4 to Strength, +4 to Constitution, and a +2 morale bonus on Will saves, but suffers a –2 penalty to AC.

The bonus to the will saves are because he/she is enraged, charged with adrenalin. This makes him/her less susceptible to falling unconscious due to a hit, or falling victim to a spell (probably because he isn't listening). This does not infer that a barbarian has a higher wisdom score, & there by becoming more tactical. It's a moral bonus, he/she becomes more fearless.

as found in your PHB
The increase in Constitution increases the barbarian’s hit points by 2 points per level, but these hit points go away at the end of the rage when the Constitution score drops back to normal. (These extra hit points are not lost first the way temporary hit points are; see Temporary Hit Points, page 129.).

Again this illustrates the "insane rage" aspect of the class. A Barbarian has a chance of dropping dead (-10 & beyond) when he/she comes out of the rage. Kinda' reminds me of the Hulk (the animalistic mentality Hulk), I don't think I've ever seen the Hulk place a tactical specific vital organ threatening hit.(the afore described Hulk) The general idea again is "HULK SMASH", not "Hulk smash better by walking behind bad guy, then poking bad guy in lung for more damage potential"

as found in your PHB
While raging, a barbarian cannot use skills or abilities that require patience and concentration, such as moving silently or casting spells. (The only class skills he can’t use while raging are Craft, Handle Animal, and Intuit Direction.) He can use any feat he might have except for Expertise, item creation feats, metamagic feats, and Skill Focus (if it’s tied to a skill that requires patience or concentration).

This would infer that he is a head to head fighter, not one for sneaking behind and executing a placed hit on a foe. The fact that he can't use Expertise should tell you something about his state of mind.

I am (obviously) of the opinion that the Rage of the barbarian class over rides the descriptor of the rouges sneak attack. If the Rage was so controlled & tactically capable then it would be a feat that any fighter could take, as opposed to the basis for an entire class as it is. As much as it would be cool to milk that extra damage out of the system by doing this, it is inconsistent & unpalatable from a character / gameplay prospective. I wouldn't do it as a player, nor would I allow it in my campaign.

But that's just me.