On the topic of sneak attacks and the notion of paladins multiclassing as rogues, the official books do comment on holy sneak attackers and such.
Quote:
THE EXALTED ROGUE Exalted rogues, while they share the same class skills and abil- ities as their nongood kin, are as a rule not roguish in the descriptive sense. A lawful good rogue is as dependable as a paladin, and a chaotic good rogue might sing with the eladrin Court of Stars. Even lawful good rogues are not bound to an abstract and impractical code of honor that would limit their use of sneak attacks beyond the general limitations on vio- lence discussed earlier in this chapter. The use of sneak attacks is no more evil than the use of a bull rush or trampling maneu- ver: when engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the forces of evil, use tactics that help ensure your victory. That said, a rogue’s ability to deal sneak attack damage with a sub- dual weapon (a sap, or a normal weapon if the rogue has the Subduing Strike feat) makes her very well suited to capturing foes alive, showing the mercy that good demands.
Wizards of the Coast, The Book of Exalted Deeds, pp. 19-20.
So sneak attack and tumble your hearts out little paladins. Although the 'general limitations of violence' has a few more caveats.
Quote:
VIOLENCE Violence is a part of the D&D world, and not inherently evil in the context of that world. The deities of good equip their heroes not just to be meek and humble servants, but to be their fists and swords, their champi- ons in a brutal war against the forces of evil. A paladin smiting a blackguard or a blue dragon is not committing an evil act: the cause of good expects and often demands that violence be brought to bear against its enemies. That said, there are certain limits upon the use of violence that good characters must observe. First, violence in the name of good must have just cause, which in the D&D world means primarily that it must be directed against evil. It is certainly pos- sible for a good nation to declare war upon another good nation, but fighting in such a conflict is not a good act. In fact, even launching a war upon a nearby tribe of evil orcs is not necessar- ily good if the attack comes without provocation—the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been causing no harm. A full-scale war would pro- voke the orcs to evil deeds and bring unnecessary suffering to both sides of the conflict. Similarly, revenge is not an acceptable cause for violence, although violence is an appropriate means of stopping further acts of evil (as opposed to paying back evil already committed). The second consideration is that violence should have good intentions. Launching an incursion into orc territory is not a good act if the primary motivation is profit, whether that means clearing the treasure out of the ruins the orcs inhabit or claim- ing their land for its natural resources. Violence against evil is acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts from being done. The third consideration is one of discrimination. Violence cannot be considered good when it is directed against noncom- batants (including children and the females of at least some races and cultures). Placing a fireball so that its area includes orc women and children as well as warriors and barbarians is evil, since the noncombatant orcs are not a threat and are compara- tively defenseless. Finally, the means of violence must be as good as the inten- tions behind it. The use of evil spells, obviously, is not good even when the target is evil. Likewise, the use of torture or other practices that inflict undue suffering upon the victims goes beyond the pale of what can be considered good. Within these limits, violence in the name of good is an acceptable practice in the D&D universe.
Wizards of the Coast, Book of Exalted Deeds, p. 9-10.
_________________ Player of: Asya Goodmonsdottir - Knight of Lesser Gods. -Winner of 2014's "Razored Tongue" Award, and Emcee's pick "Authoritarian of the year". Jannah Vindle - Mistress of Coin.
And umd is so useful that not taking it just because you don't want a floating word over your head whenever someone gives you their flank (a warrior should know how to do this anyway) is silly. Anyone who tells you otherwise is butthurt because (they feel that) Palladian is overpowered.
Don't ever tell anyone how they feel, you don't know that. Maybe YOU feel that way, and if so, then state it as an opinion, not fact.
Woah, just saw this response to my half assed post. I'll be sure to check my grammar from now on so your feelings don't get hurt. We all know forum talk is srs bsns
_________________ Gerald Edmund Discord: Metal Viking Guy #5433
A wail of the banshee separates the soul of the target quickly and painlessly from a body and nothing more, making it probably one of the most painless and humane methods of killing someone you could possibly use, ...
This is not the spell description, it's a scream that the caster emits, causing death to those who fail the save. I would assume that there is pain involved, in such a piercing noise.
Wail of the Banshee is not an evocation spell, so it doesn't work like a shatter spell. It's necromancy. It doesn't work via brute force and physical damage. It removes the soul from the body that can hear it in less than a blink of an eye. That is what all those fields mean spelled out in all the descriptions of schools. If it were evocation, that means the wail is a sound so powerfully destructive it destroys things (not just creatures who hear it, physical things) and kills creatures. Necromancy doesn't work that way, it removes souls from bodies instantly. That's what necromancy does and means.
This is not a matter of opinion or interpretation, it's the difference in necromancy and evocation. Pain is a sensation caused by -physical damage- caused by force.
_________________ Rashad the Azure, Zakharan Merchant-lord Most Fair and Master of the Desert Wind Loremaster Tukson Devers, Oghmanyte Wrestler of Knowledge and Child of the Passive Voice
(No tells for Rashad while I'm playing other characters please.)
This is not a matter of opinion or interpretation, it's the difference in necromancy and evocation. Pain is a sensation caused by -physical damage- caused by force.
Dunno, a necromantic force ripping my soul from me sounds sorta painful, at least on a metaphysical level. So I think there IS a certain level of interpretation there. Nowhere does it say necromancy is 'painless'.
Murkoph wrote:
On the topic of sneak attacks and the notion of paladins multiclassing as rogues, the official books do comment on holy sneak attackers and such.
Quote:
THE EXALTED ROGUE Exalted rogues, while they share the same class skills and abil- ities as their nongood kin, are as a rule not roguish in the descriptive sense. A lawful good rogue is as dependable as a paladin, and a chaotic good rogue might sing with the eladrin Court of Stars. Even lawful good rogues are not bound to an abstract and impractical code of honor that would limit their use of sneak attacks beyond the general limitations on vio- lence discussed earlier in this chapter. The use of sneak attacks is no more evil than the use of a bull rush or trampling maneu- ver: when engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the forces of evil, use tactics that help ensure your victory. That said, a rogue’s ability to deal sneak attack damage with a sub- dual weapon (a sap, or a normal weapon if the rogue has the Subduing Strike feat) makes her very well suited to capturing foes alive, showing the mercy that good demands.
Wizards of the Coast, The Book of Exalted Deeds, pp. 19-20.
So sneak attack and tumble your hearts out little paladins.
The difference between 'isn't evil' and 'is honorable' is still fairly large. There might be some correlation, but I fail to see how justification of rogues being any alignment and still using rogue tricks is justification for paladins using those same tricks. Rogues don't have a strict code by necessity (which the exalted rogue entry points out), and it's sort of the whole point of the class that it is eminently flexible. Paladins, not so much.
I'm trying to avoid the tumble thing. It makes no sense at all to me for anyone to be tumbling in heavy armor (I think the tumble AC bonus should be limited by the armor's max dex bonus, or the armor check penalty applied), but that's not an argument that is gonna go anywhere here. Tumble dump is here to stay, and because of that, sneak attacking paladins are here to stay too, since rogue is one of the only classes they have access to that has tumble.
MisterLich wrote:
I have an idea
Only allow fighter class. No magic gear. Someone will still complain it's unfair.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
FAQ
Search
Login
