Barbarian / Rogue, Can they sneak attack while raging?

[Vixeryz]

Jiggy wrote:

Vixeryz wrote:

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.

I sent Mike an email. I would also like to point out that it is MORE THAN ONE GM making this call. (Although part of me thinks it may have started with one GM deciding this and the other 2 decided it was a good idea and decided to follow suit.)

[Vixeryz]

Howie23 wrote:

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.

None taken. In fact, I asked him to get on the message board and present his case in his own words so that he isnt being misquoted or misinterpreted. He refused in either case saying that the opinions of a bunch of nerds is irrelevant anyway since he wont accept anything less than the word of the Paizo team and he wont get involved in a pointless discussion.

[Erikkerik]

Vixeryz wrote:

Howie23 wrote:

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.

None taken. In fact, I asked him to get on the message board and present his case in his own words so that he isnt being misquoted or misinterpreted. He refused in either case saying that the opinions of a bunch of nerds is irrelevant anyway since he wont accept anything less than the word of the...

Sounds like a reasonable dude.

[Troubleshooter]

I see. So he's not even interested in hearing about additional evidence that could shed light on the case. He doesn't sound terribly interested in finding out the truth, since he has a ruling that satisfies his opinions.

[Vincent The Dark]

OK.
Can an Urban Barbarian rage and sneak attack at the same time? (Controlled Rage)

[yeti1069]

This guy sounds like a real winning personality.

There aren't any other PFS games in or around your area you can attend that aren't run by such obtuse DMs?

[Tinculin]

Guy sounds belligerent and ignorant & also is wrong in his ruling, sorry u are stuck with such a gm

[trollbill]

The problem is obviously not the rules. To solve the problem you need to determine exactly what it is, i.e. it is either a problem this guy has accepting this rule or it is a problem he has personally with you. If the problem is personal, then shoving rules I his face or going over his head to a VC or Mike Brock is only going to make matters worse. You need to decide if playing PFS under this guy is worth it. If it is, then you need to sit down and work it out with this guy or simply accept his ruling.

I am not saying this guy is right, but I am also only hearing one side of the story. And often the best solution to a problem has little to do with whose 'right.'

[Anburaid]

Agreed. It also sounds like the other DMs might be supporting the first DM because they want to preserve the right of a DM to rule their table. Switching DMs might be the only way this is gonna work.

Mind you, its not like having a barbarian with a crap-ton of attacks wasn't going to result in a meat-blender. In our last AP, the barabarian did THE MOST damage of the party on a regular basis. One that gets party buffs is bound to melt face, even if multiclassed. They may not be a tier 1 class but they can be damn good at what they do.

[Xaratherus]

Vixeryz wrote:

None taken. In fact, I asked him to get on the message board and present his case in his own words so that he isnt being misquoted or misinterpreted. He refused in either case saying that the opinions of a bunch of nerds is irrelevant...

Classy. Is that a direct quote? :P If so, and I were in a snarky mood, I would probably respond with, "Oh, then you recognize that your opinion is irrelevant?"

[anthonydido]

While switching GMs is the ideal solution, it is not that easy to do in PFS. It is the GMs duty in PFS to follow the rules as written and not "houserule" anything. It is also the VOs job to make sure that the GMs are doing this to the best of their ability. So, I'd bring it to the attention of the VL or VC for your area first. If that doesn't work, or if they are one of the parties involved, then email Mike Brock (which it seems you have already done).

[SCPRedMage]

trollbill wrote:

If the problem is personal, then shoving rules I his face or going over his head to a VC or Mike Brock is only going to make matters worse.

I disagree. Even if this is a "personal problem", it is still a PFS GM acting directly contrary to PFS guidelines, and campaign leadership still needs to be informed.

A GM acting like a dick to a player because he has some sort of personal problem with them is something that needs to be addressed, as that kind of thing can kill a local gaming scene in a hurry, if he starts acting like that towards more than one player.

[Anburaid]

I'd just like to point out the Shadow Lodge players are advocating keeping the GMs and VCs in line :D

[anthonydido]

Anburaid wrote:

I'd just like to point out the Shadow Lodge players are advocating keeping the GMs and VCs in line :D

LOL! Good catch!

[trollbill]

SCPRedMage wrote:

trollbill wrote:

If the problem is personal, then shoving rules I his face or going over his head to a VC or Mike Brock is only going to make matters worse.

I disagree. Even if this is a "personal problem", it is still a PFS GM acting directly contrary to PFS guidelines, and campaign leadership still needs to be informed.

A GM acting like a dick to a player because he has some sort of personal problem with them is something that needs to be addressed, as that kind of thing can kill a local gaming scene in a hurry, if he starts acting like that towards more than one player.

Again, we are only hearing one side of the story and have no idea how big of a jerk the OP is being or has been in the past to the GM. If it truly is a personal problem between the two of them then it is not a Society problem and asking higher ups to step in essentially asking them to be relationship councelors.

If he treats all the other players that way, then I agree it should be brought to a VC or Mike's attention. But if its just him then it is a personal problem.

[Xaratherus]

The relationship is really irrelevant, IMO. A PFS GM is supposed to (by my understanding) follow the rules regardless of the player; if he brings in personal relationships and allows it to color his rulings, then that in itself is a problem and should be reported.

Take a converse example: What if he was giving a player special treatment - say, extra gold or magical items, or leniency in using their abilities - that he wasn't giving other players? That would be an issue and should be reported, even though the two have a good personal relationship.

[Lab_Rat]

It's quite simple.

Set aside personal issues. These are better solved off the forums.

Is the GM breaking/not following the rules and refuses to see reason/change their ruling?
If the answer is yes then you talk to your VC/VL. That is there job, they mediate rules disputes and if necessary enforce their ruling. If need be your VC/VL will pass it up to Mike.

[trollbill]

Xaratherus wrote:

The relationship is really irrelevant, IMO. A PFS GM is supposed to (by my understanding) follow the rules regardless of the player; if he brings in personal relationships and allows it to color his rulings, then that in itself is a problem and should be reported.

If I reported every personal problem I ever had with an Organized Play DM then I doubt there would be any judges who would be willing to DM me. Complaining to someone else's superior is a lousy way to win friends and influence people. Personal problems are best dealt with at a personal level. Going to the boss should be a last resort. The OP needs to decide if this last resort is worth it.

[Xaratherus]

trollbill wrote:

Xaratherus wrote:

The relationship is really irrelevant, IMO. A PFS GM is supposed to (by my understanding) follow the rules regardless of the player; if he brings in personal relationships and allows it to color his rulings, then that in itself is a problem and should be reported.

If I reported every personal problem I ever had with an Organized Play DM then I doubt there would be any judges who would be willing to DM me. Complaining to someone else's superior is a lousy way to win friends and influence people. Personal problems are best dealt with at a personal level. Going to the boss should be a last resort. The OP needs to decide if this last resort is worth it.

I disagree. *shrug* You see this as a personal problem (or a potential personal problem). I don't. If, hypothetically, the DM is making this ruling based on a personal issue with the player, then I see two separate problems - one personal and one game-related.

From a similar hypothetical standpoint: Leaving the latter unreported leads to a situation where a DM who is consistently unable to separate his personal feelings from table rulings - and frankly therefore someone who should't be DMing in organized play - causes problems for multiple players.

[Jiggy]

trollbill wrote:

Personal problems are best dealt with at a personal level.

Absolutely.

And if the GM chooses instead to drag a personal problem into a public gaming table, that's an additional (and non-personal) problem that needs to be dealt with itself, independently of how (or even if) the original personal problem is dealt with.

[Vixeryz]

Anburaid wrote:

I'd just like to point out the Shadow Lodge players are advocating keeping the GMs and VCs in line :D

LOL Appropriately so, and ironic?

I would also like to mention that it wasnt me who is trying to do this combo, I just like to stand up for the players who are smart enough to come up with stuff like this. If you can break the game using ONLY the core rule book which is fairly well balanced... then I salute you and support your right to do so. Especially if its PFS legal.

[Vixeryz]

Jiggy wrote:

trollbill wrote:

Personal problems are best dealt with at a personal level.

Absolutely.

And if the GM chooses instead to drag a personal problem into a public gaming table, that's an additional (and non-personal) problem that needs to be dealt with itself, independently of how (or even if) the original personal problem is dealt with.

I dont know where all you guys came up with the idea that this might be personal problem, or even a relationship problem.

I'm not even the one who wanted a barbarian rogue, nor did I create one.
I wasn't even in the same game as the person who invented this concept.
I am merely a 3rd party observer. Defense Attorney for the powergamers if you will...

They mentioned their problem on our Facebook group and I simply looked into it. I discussed it with the GM in question and showed them that the rules disagreed with him and he is using both the "Table variance" rule in the PFS rulebook and the "vague wording" of the CRB to get away with it.
And unless the great "Paizo god" tells him otherwise- he wont change it.

Simple as that.

[Martiln]

Gauss wrote:

BBT, the men in white coats will be along for you shortly. Do try to stay calm until they arrive. :)

- Gauss

To the Funny Farm, where life is beautiful all the time...

[trollbill]

Vixeryz wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

trollbill wrote:

Personal problems are best dealt with at a personal level.

Absolutely.

And if the GM chooses instead to drag a personal problem into a public gaming table, that's an additional (and non-personal) problem that needs to be dealt with itself, independently of how (or even if) the original personal problem is dealt with.

I dont know where all you guys came up with the idea that this might be personal problem, or even a relationship problem.

I'm not even the one who wanted a barbarian rogue, nor did I create one.
I wasn't even in the same game as the person who invented this concept.
I am merely a 3rd party observer. Defense Attorney for the powergamers if you will...

They mentioned their problem on our Facebook group and I simply looked into it. I discussed it with the GM in question and showed them that the rules disagreed with him and he is using both the "Table variance" rule in the PFS rulebook and the "vague wording" of the CRB to get away with it.
And unless the great "Paizo god" tells him otherwise- he wont change it.

Simple as that.

Well then bringing the issue up with your VC is definitely the best choice. Just give him all the facts.

[blackbloodtroll]

Gauss wrote:

BBT, the men in white coats will be along for you shortly. Do try to stay calm until they arrive. :)

- Gauss

I love Cee Lo Green! I can't believe he is bringing his crew too!

[Vixeryz]

Chris Lambertz wrote:

Removed a post. Please revisit the messageboard rules.

Hey Chris, if you've read enough of this thread to "moderate" someone's post... maybe, Would you mind terribly if I could perhaps impose upon you to toss your 2 cents into this little discussion? Or maybe poke the right people? Pretty please?

[Robert Matthews 166]

I seem to remember that the original printing of the core rulebook didnt't have anything in it about how to use poisons, how long they lasted on athe weapon etc. yet there was a list of poisons with gold piece amounts. IIRC the FAQ said to take the rules from the 3.5 Player's Handbook until they corrected it. If it says you can in 3.5 and doesn't say you can't in Pathfinder, then I have a hard time understanding their reasoning for ruling the way they are.

[DrDeth]

Vixeryz wrote:

Chris Lambertz wrote:

Removed a post. Please revisit the messageboard rules.

Hey Chris, if you've read enough of this thread to "moderate" someone's post... maybe, Would you mind terribly if I could perhaps impose upon you to toss your 2 cents into this little discussion? Or maybe poke the right people? Pretty please?

What good would it do? Chris knows we have been giving the right answer, and “your” DM will simple blow Chris’s answer off too.

I had a similar debate. First I posted the question to the MB’s: “I don’t care what a bunch of posters say, they don’t know the rules any better than I do.” Then a Dev chimed in “That’s not official”. Then there was a FAQ= “A FAQ isn’t errata.”…

[SCPRedMage]

Vixeryz wrote:

Hey Chris, if you've read enough of this thread to "moderate" someone's post...

I initially read that as "molest"...

[bbangerter]

DrDeth wrote:

First I posted the question to the MB’s: “I don’t care what a bunch of posters say, they don’t know the rules any better than I do.”

Which is a fallacy. Collectively the posters on these boards know the rules far better than any single poster or any single DM. Which isn't to say the posters are infallible, but its rare for the collective majority to get it wrong.

[DrDeth]

bbangerter wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

First I posted the question to the MB’s: “I don’t care what a bunch of posters say, they don’t know the rules any better than I do.”

Which is a fallacy. Collectively the posters on these boards know the rules far better than any single poster or any single DM. Which isn't to say the posters are infallible, but its rare for the collective majority to get it wrong.

My post wasnt a fallacy, that is indeed what he said. True, his response was a fallacy.

[Vixeryz]

DrDeth wrote:

Vixeryz wrote:

Chris Lambertz wrote:

Removed a post. Please revisit the messageboard rules.

Hey Chris, if you've read enough of this thread to "moderate" someone's post... maybe, Would you mind terribly if I could perhaps impose upon you to toss your 2 cents into this little discussion? Or maybe poke the right people? Pretty please?

What good would it do? Chris knows we have been giving the right answer, and “your” DM will simple blow Chris’s answer off too.

I had a similar debate. First I posted the question to the MB’s: “I don’t care what a bunch of posters say, they don’t know the rules any better than I do.” Then a Dev chimed in “That’s not official”. Then there was a FAQ= “A FAQ isn’t errata.”…

What's not official? The fact that a bunch of posters dont know the rules better than you do? -Because that's how that reads.

But lemme get this straight... A dev posting on the MB, isnt official?
And a FAQ doesnt constitute Errata? Therefore...a FAQ isnt technically legal?

[Weirdo]

DrDeth was arguing with person X about some rule. DrDeth posts the issue to the messageboards and gets a lot of people agreeing with him. X says: “I don’t care what a bunch of posters say, they don’t know the rules any better than I do.”

A dev posts in support of DrDeth. X says: "That's not official."

An FAQ is posted. X says: "An FAQ isn't errata."

Every time a new level of evidence comes up saying that X is wrong, X says that he will only accept the next highest level of evidence. This is understandably very frustrating for DrDeth, and he thinks that your GM might have the same response to a Dev's word on this issue - demanding an official FAQ, then an errata.

[The Fox]

It's called "moving goalposts."

[Troubleshooter]

You know, that sounds like a great sport for orcs. It's a game a lot like football, but there are two additional members of each team that run around the field carrying the goal and trying to keep it away from the ball.

[Xaratherus]

Can the Orc barbarian\rogue sneak attack while raging against the ones that are carrying the goal posts? ;)

[Troubleshooter]

Yes. When you take the Run action, you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any).

[DrDeth]

Weirdo wrote:

DrDeth was arguing with person X about some rule. DrDeth posts the issue to the messageboards and gets a lot of people agreeing with him. X says: “I don’t care what a bunch of posters say, they don’t know the rules any better than I do.”

A dev posts in support of DrDeth. X says: "That's not official."

An FAQ is posted. X says: "An FAQ isn't errata."

Every time a new level of evidence comes up saying that X is wrong, X says that he will only accept the next highest level of evidence. This is understandably very frustrating for DrDeth, and he thinks that your GM might have the same response to a Dev's word on this issue - demanding an official FAQ, then an errata.

Exactly.

[trollbill]

DrDeth wrote:

Weirdo wrote:

DrDeth was arguing with person X about some rule. DrDeth posts the issue to the messageboards and gets a lot of people agreeing with him. X says: “I don’t care what a bunch of posters say, they don’t know the rules any better than I do.”

A dev posts in support of DrDeth. X says: "That's not official."

An FAQ is posted. X says: "An FAQ isn't errata."

Every time a new level of evidence comes up saying that X is wrong, X says that he will only accept the next highest level of evidence. This is understandably very frustrating for DrDeth, and he thinks that your GM might have the same response to a Dev's word on this issue - demanding an official FAQ, then an errata.

Exactly.

This type of thing always reminds me of an argument I had back in college. I was studying marine biology at the time and the guy I was talking to was studying engineering.

Engineer: "All whales have baleen."
Me: "No, some have teeth. Haven't you ever seen a picture of a sperm whale?"
Engineer: "That's just baleen that looks like teeth."
Me: "Here's an article from Collier's Encyclopedia. It says sperm whales have teeth."
Engineer: "Collier's has been known to be wrong."

[Xaratherus]

trollbill wrote:

This type of thing always reminds me of an argument I had back in college. I was studying marine biology...

You aren't secretly the World of Warcraft developer GhostCrawler, are you? Heheh...

[trollbill]

Xaratherus wrote:

trollbill wrote:

This type of thing always reminds me of an argument I had back in college. I was studying marine biology...

You aren't secretly the World of Warcraft developer GhostCrawler, are you? Heheh...

Nope. Sorry. I haven't done any work on computer games since Empire Deluxe.

[shallowsoul]

This should help.

Coherent Rage

Your determination allows you to hold onto a shred of your rational mind at all times.

Benefit: Select one of the following skills: Bluff, Escape Artist, Handle Animal, or Stealth.

You may use this skill normally while raging.