Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 208571" data-attributes="member: 151">Re: The SageThe 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?</blockquote>

Verification