| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In that case, your chapter GMs and VC are making things up. There is nothing anywhere in the rules to suggest that Rage disallows Sneak Attack.
If this comes up, ask them to site the rule. They won't be able to because it isn't there.
Link to currently active thread on same subject, so we don't get too much overlap.
I'm fully in agreement with Gunner and DoomedHero. (I am not paizo employee).
Sneak attack isnt a Cha, Int, or Dex based skill. It doesn't require patience, as a rogue can sneak attack multiple times in a round.
Sneak attack requiring concentration is the only thing your DM has to go on. I would say sneak attacking doesn't require any more concentration than power attacking, or taking total defense, both of which you are allowed to do.
First of all, my stance is that the burden of proof is on them to show that sneak attack is prohibited during a rage rather than the other way around.
You deal sneak attack damage anytime your opponent is denied their Dex bonus to AC (as long as they don't have concealment). Barbarians cannot use Int-, Wis-, or Dex-based skills while raging, nor can they use abilities that require patience; but sneak attack does not state, nor does it imply that it requires patience. There's the answer based on text alone.
This interpretation is trying to treat Sneak Attack like Death Attack, then forbid it. Death Attack requires patience and concentration to study the target for several rounds, and would indeed not be possible during a rage. However, sneak attack requires no warm-up time, no attack penalties, no forsaken attacks, no patience. Having sneak attack is a lot like bring trained to consistently deal critical hits.
I would suggest you take this to the PFS-specific forums. Rules questions posted there normally get moved here, but since your issue is not so much a rules issue as it is a PFS GM issue, it might be kept around there. At least you might get the attention of PFS higher-ups in that forum, as they rarely frequent this one :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.
Is sneak attack an skill... no.
Is sneak attack an ability... yes.Does sneak attack require patience... no.
Does sneak attack require concentration... no. And by concentration I mean concentration checks in certain circumstances (like casting spells).
So rage does not prohibit sneak attack. Why? Because it says so.
Setting that aside, a GM is completely within his right to rule otherwise. But in this case, I just see it as nerfing an already 'nerfed' PC (multiclassing is strictly worse, powerwise, than straight levels in a class).
Using the argument "but it doesn't say you can!" is just being argumentative. The rules don't specify many things. It doesn't say you can breathe while flying... but no one is ruling that all fliers have to hold their breath.
Using the argument "but it doesn't say you can!" is just being argumentative. The rules don't specify many things. It doesn't say you can breathe while flying... but no one is ruling that all fliers have to hold their breath.Don't be giving the GMs ideas, they might actually do something like that.
lol ...finding..it...difficult...to...breathe...
Just for fun: Morlocks are a creature with Intelligence 5, "barely thinking beasts of endless night." They can perform sneak attacks as a racial ability.
If I was looking into joining PFS and then learned that the local GMs were effectively house-ruling by speculatively banning stuff like this, I would seriously reconsider -- first sneak attack, then what? Smite, spellcasting? I understand that a lot of players move around a lot and enjoy PFS exactly because they can play their character in Detroit, and then play the same character in New York after they move. It'd be a real shame if they got ambushed by something like this.
Injecting realism in a game with a shifting playerbase should be done by reinterpreting what's happening to stay consistent with the rules, rather than reinterpreting the rules to suit their descriptions and breaking builds.
Came up in the other thread that you can power attack and sneak attack.
If you can give up accuracy for damage and still Sneak Attack, then you should be able to while raging as well.
|
While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.
Is sneak attack an skill... no.
Is sneak attack an ability... yes.
Does sneak attack require patience... no.
Does sneak attack require concentration... no. And by concentration I mean concentration checks in certain circumstances (like casting spells).So rage does not prohibit sneak attack. Why? Because it says so.
Setting that aside, a GM is completely within his right to rule otherwise. But in this case, I just see it as nerfing an already 'nerfed' PC (multiclassing is strictly worse, powerwise, than straight levels in a class).
Using the argument "but it doesn't say you can!" is just being argumentative. The rules don't specify many things. It doesn't say you can breathe while flying... but no one is ruling that all fliers have to hold their breath.
Just don't fly too high. :p
In that case, your chapter GMs and VC are making things up. There is nothing anywhere in the rules to suggest that Rage disallows Sneak Attack.
If this comes up, ask them to cite the rule. They won't be able to because it isn't there.
Link to currently active thread on same subject, so we don't get too much overlap.
Well, 3 out of 5 GMs said, "There is also nothing anywhere saying, you can do this EITHER." I tried to remind them of the stand that gaming companies generally had regarding ambiguity (The "can vs can't" rule) and that CAN generally supersedes CAN'T. That didn't go over too well unfortunately.
Their argument basically boils down to: "Its vague; therefore open to interpretation; therefore I'm the GM and my ruling stands, and I said No."
It seems that PFS GMs (in my region) seem to be rather conservative when it comes to things like this. "If a rule or ability doesn't specifically say "you CAN" do or have a specific thing- they deny it outright, even if the rules don't forbid whatever it was you wanted or tried to do.
That's a terrible GM providing a cop-out answer. He's saying "Because I said so". There's an unwritten, standing rule in every RPG on the planet:
Unless it says you can't, you can.
The opposite (Unless it says you can, you can't) CANNOT be accepted, even in the strict universe of PFS play. It's too limiting. Takes any shred of fun, free-thinking, and ingenuity out of this GAME.
As a GM with more than 25 years of experience in every facet of play except PFS (exactly for that "too strict" mentality), I would say that the rules don't specifically disallow it, so it's possible.
Sneak Attack, yes. Death Attack or Assassinate, no. Too many people confuse them and think the rules are the same. They aren't. A barbarian doesn't all of a sudden lose sense of where a person's liver is when he's enraged. He doesn't lose his ability to strike vital areas. He doesn't lose access to precision striking. Those same people that think the rules for sneak attack and death attack work the same also likely think that in a rage, a barbarian is a mindless hulk who will simply smash the same spot over and over and over again until the rage ends.
That would be fine as an OPINION, but the rules don't state it that way. And the GM is definitely bound by the rules. He can indeed interpret them, but based on experience, example, and precedent, NOT his own opinion of how it should work. Especially at PFS level.
The rules don't cover every single thing possible in the game. That would be like saying "The rules don't state you can have eye color, they don't have a chart for that, so your eyes are colorless (or everyone has brown eyes. Because I said so. And I'm the boss)."
Ridiculous.
|
I believe many of you are missing the point of the argument, which, as far as I can tell hinges around the concept of what constitutes concentration. The DMs ruling against Rage+Sneak attack feel that Sneak Attack requires concentration. Ergo this is not a case of the rules not saying you can't so you can, as by that interpretation of Sneak Attack the rules DO say you can't.
I do, however, strongly disagree with that interpretation as it has no hard support in the rules and only light support from fluff.
So they can interpret the rule this way but I doubt they SHOULD. This seems like a typical knee jerk DM reaction to a combo that "appears" too powerful even if it really isn't. I understand why DMs react this way, especially to players who are known to heavily optimize, but if they are making a ruling based on whether or not it nerfs a particular build (or worse, a particular character) rather than it making logical sense than they are making it for all the wrong reasons. Players who use questionable interpretations of the rules to build broken characters can be very annoying. DMs who attempt to combat this by making equally questionable interpretations are proving they are no better than the players who do this.
Dont see what scares these GMs. The character in question either has gimped BAB and rage powers or he has gimped sneak attack damage and rogue talents. Both the result of multiclassing. This character has a little of both and i doubt he is much more powerful than a pure barb or pure rogue.
You can sneak attack normally. The only thing you can not do is gain sneak attack from stealth while raging since stealth is a non-listed (in regards to rage) Dex based skill.
|
|
Dont see what scares these GMs. The character in question either has gimped BAB and rage powers or he has gimped sneak attack damage and rogue talents. Both the result of multiclassing. This character has a little of both and i doubt he is much more powerful than a pure barb or pure rogue.
If a player becomes known as someone who excessively optimizes their characters most GMs will assume this if that player is doing it, then it must be broken. I doubt they actually looked at it close enough to see whether or not it really was.
If the description for sneak attack indicated that it required concentration, they might have a point. But it does not. It does not even imply that sneak attack requires any heightened sense of mental capacity or manual dexterity. The DMs are claiming that it does, but nowhere in the text does it state such an idea. Technically, a Rogue with 5s in all stats could still sneak attack.
You can sneak attack normally. The only thing you can not do is gain sneak attack from stealth while raging since stealth is a non-listed (in regards to rage) Dex based skill.
Since you can't gain sneak attacks from stealth anyway (except maybe by sniping, not a generally Rage-worthy tactic in the first place), this is probably not much of an issue.
To the OP:
It's not 100% clear from your post, so I am curious if your PFS DMs said anything more than a generic "Because I say so" answer? Did they actually say that Sneak Attack requires concentration? Did they actually say that Sneak Attack is a DEX-based skill? Was there a specific contradiction in the Rage Rule and the Sneak Attack rule that they pointed at and said "This is why you can't do it?"
If so, maybe we should narrow this discussion down to the specific detail they believe is causing the conflict. If not, then maybe you should ask them for the detail - if they can't provide it, then it seems you have clear grounds to insist that the rulebooks do not prevent this ability so they are outside of their jurisdiction as PFS DMs to houserule a non-existent restriction into existence.
Yes, you can sneak attack while raging.
No dev answer is needed, there's nothing at all confusing, complex, or contentious.
And if you say otherwise I'm going to flip the **** out, grab this pen and ram it into your eye repeatedly until it comes out the BACK OF YOUR HEAD!!!!! RARRGH!
Skill checks are wholly irrelevant. Sneak attack does not mention skill checks at all; bringing them into the discussion just muddies the waters.
The fact is that sneak attack also doesn't mention anything regarding concentration or dexterousness either. Nor does it mention it under precision damage (which is the category of damage in which sneak attack damage falls).
Most importantly, it doesn't state (or even imply) it in the actual mechanics.
Let's hypothetically assume that sneak attack did say something about it. Rage doesn't state that the target is capable of focusing or concentrating. It lists out some skills you can't use while raging, but concentration isn't a skill (any more). If anything, the flavor of Rage implies that you definitely can focus and concentrate - but only on one thing: Hurting the thing in front of you. And since sneak attack damage falls squarely into that realm, even under the DM's hypothetical argument you could still rage and sneak attack; you just couldn't write a haiku about it until after the fact.
RAW, you can rage and sneak attack. Even a strict RAI implies that you can. It requires a pretty loose RAI to imply that you can't - reading in personal interpretations that "sneak attack" requires focus or concentration, and that rage denies it.
[edit]
Sword pierces his spleen.
That's plus four dee six extra.
Taste my rage, weakling.
Will he accept an answer from the official D&D 3.5 FAQ?
I have a multiclass barbarian/rogue. I was wondering if
he can sneak attack while raging?
Yes, provided the character’s attack meets the requirements
for a sneak attack—you must have the foe flanked or the foe
must somehow be denied its Dexterity bonus (if any) to Armor
Class against your attack. A sneak attack requires precision
(see the two previous questions),
but not much in the way of
patience or concentration.
The OP already mentioned that the GM knew they worked together in 3.5, but didn't like that they did, and thus took advantage of the fact that there was no similar clarification for Pathfinder. If that's the case, no 3.5 source would sway his position.
So, he's just being a twit. Got it.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He even said, "If Paizo comes out and says rogue/barbarians can sneak attack while raging, I will CONSIDER it."
Lest it be thought that I was joking earlier, this attitude (regardless of how the rules in question actually work) is completely inappropriate for organized play. At the point where a GM is talking about picking and choosing which rules he will follow (as opposed to simply making mistakes) he needs to either learn to GM under a different mindset when running PFS or simply stick with home games that he can tailor to his tastes.
Inform a Venture Officer of the attitude you're witnessing (in as impartial a manner as you can). If nothing improves, you can contact the campaign coordinator, Mike Brock.
|
|
If the story is as OP presents it and isn't the proverbial one side of the story, this situation saddens me.
The logic on this this situation is that the rogue's sneak ability says he can sneak attack any time he meets the requirements. That's the general rule re: sneak. The possible exception comes from the barbarian's rage ability that limits abilities that require patience or concentration. Unfortunately, if a GM sees sneak attack as requiring concentration or patience, there can be table variance. The GM is seeing the rage rule as an exception.
Concentration isn't a keyword in this situation. The language of rage comes from the 3.5 SRD, where Concentration is a skill, and which isn't limited only to spellcasting. It's a Con based skill, and is a class skill for monks, for example (but not rogues). Skills are capitalized, in the rage ability it isn't; so in 3.5, it's not talking about the skill, and in PF, concentration as a keyword only applies to spellcasting. So, concentration can't be a keyword in either case.
It's pretty straight forward to build a high level character with sneak attack who could get 9 or more attacks in a round, all of which could have sneak attack. This doesn't come off as involving either concentration nor patience.
The 3.5 ruling makes it clear what the originators of the 3.5 SRD thought with respect to rage and sneak attack, and PF didn't change it. It just comes off sounding like there is a GM with a drum to beat, and with enough respect that others are following his lead. If OP isn't slanting the presentation of what's going on, that's just sad.
Note to OP: No offense intended on the idea that we are only hearing one side of the argument.
The possible exception comes from the barbarian's rage ability that limits abilities that require patience or concentration.
Except that it doesn't even say that. The description of the rage ability doesn't make mention of limiting concentration, or even patience.
While in rage, a barbarian gains a +4 morale bonus to her Strength and Constitution, as well as a +2 morale bonus on Will saves. In addition, she takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class. The increase to Constitution grants the barbarian 2 hit points per Hit Dice, but these disappear when the rage ends and are not lost first like temporary hit points. While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.
A barbarian can end her rage as a free action and is fatigued after rage for a number of rounds equal to 2 times the number of rounds spent in the rage. A barbarian cannot enter a new rage while fatigued or exhausted but can otherwise enter rage multiple times during a single encounter or combat. If a barbarian falls unconscious, her rage immediately ends, placing her in peril of death.
The fact that a barbarian can still make Fly, Ride, and Acrobatics checks indicates (at least to me) that there is (or can be) a difference between rage and a mindless, frothing battle fugue. They won't be appraising jewelry or spouting out useful information about the religious symbol on a foe's tabard, but it doesn't really imply they lack focus; if anything, it the fact that they are more ferocious in combat seems to imply that they have a more keen concentration on anything combat-related.
I have to agree with Jiggy - I would bring this up with the appropriate 'moderators'.
Xaratherus: Your quote says "While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration."
So rage definitely does limit those types of activities.
I otherwise agree wholly with your post :)
While I also agree that the notion of blocking sneak attack due to rage is messed up, Xara, the text you quoted says:
While in rage, a barbarian gains a +4 morale bonus to her Strength and Constitution, as well as a +2 morale bonus on Will saves. In addition, she takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class. The increase to Constitution grants the barbarian 2 hit points per Hit Dice, but these disappear when the rage ends and are not lost first like temporary hit points. While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.
Emphasis mine, obviously.
Again, not that I support the interpretation, because nothing in sneak attack claims it requires concentration (or patience).
Edit: Ninja'd by Are by about 9 seconds.
Wow, I read that like three times, and every single time... I did not read that. How...
I need to go to bed. :P
As a GM with more than 25 years of experienceTen bucks says the GMs in question average about the same amount of experience.
They don't have more than I do, I'll bet.
Look, even if a dev come in here and answers this, he will say "well it's not a FAQ" or whatever. So, even Sean won;t help.
The rules are clear. Yes, you can.
OTOH, a rogue/bbn is a silly multiclass. I mean, I guess you must be mostly rogue, which is a very weak class anyway. Or if you're mostly BBN, your getting what 1d6 SA?
|
|
I'd agree that the special attack from Prestige class assassin would not work while raging :
If an assassin studies his victim for 3 rounds...
this requires patience.
* taking 20 also requires patience (20x more time than the normal action)
* maintaining a spell requires concentration.
but sneak attack... you can sneak under any circumstances, could even be on each of your 6 attack: so it does not requires patience nor concentration
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you sneak attack during Rage?
I can sneak attack, Sam-I-am.
I can sneak attack, yes I can.
Can you sneak attack here or there?
I can sneak attack here or there.
I can sneak attack anywhere.
I can sneak attack, yes I can.
I can sneak attack, Sam-I-am.
Can you sneak attack in a house?
Can you sneak attack with a mouse?
I can sneak attack in a house.
I can sneak attack with a mouse.
I can sneak attack them here or there.
I can sneak attack anywhere.
I can sneak attack, yes I can.
I can sneak attack, Sam-I-am.
Can you sneak attack them in a box?
Can you sneak attack them with a fox?
I can in a box. I can with a fox.
I can in a house. I can with a mouse.
I can sneak attack here or there.
I can sneak attack anywhere.
I can sneak attack, yes I can.
I can sneak attack, Sam-I-am.
Can you? Could you? In a cart?
Sneak attack them! Sneak attack them! From finish to start!
I can sneak attack, could sneak attack, in a cart.
You may sneak attack. You will see.
You may sneak attack in a tree.
I can sneak attack, could sneak attack, in a tree.
Sneak attack in a cart! You let me be!
I can sneak attack in a box.
I can sneak attack with a fox.
I can sneak attack in a house.
I can sneak attack with a mouse.
I can sneak attack them here or there.
I can sneak attack anywhere.
I can sneak attack, yes I can.
I can sneak attack, Sam-I-am.
The rain! The rain! The rain! The rain!
Could you, can you, in the rain?
Sneak attack in the rain! Sneak attack in a tree!
Sneak attack in cart, Sam! Let it be!
I can sneak attack, could sneak attack, in a box.
I can sneak attack, could sneak attack, with a fox.
I will sneak attack them with a mouse.
I will sneak attack them in a house.
I will sneak attack them here or there.
I will sneak attack them anywhere.
I can sneak attack, yes I can.
I can sneak attack, Rage be damned!
Do correct my if I'm wrong, but I see absolutely no reason why a Barbarian/Rogue couldn't sneak attack while raging. In a home game, I wouldn't have a problem, but in PFS, the GMs in question seem to be overstepping their bounds.
Considering this isn't the only critique I have seen concerning PFS, I'm kinda not surprised by this thread in general.
BBT, the men in white coats will be along for you shortly. Do try to stay calm until they arrive. :)
- Gauss