|
PFRPG question: Can a Barbarian in a rage fight defensively? My first thought was no, of course not, but my player argues that:
a) Nothing in the RAW says he can't. In fact, they don't specify anything at all about combat options in a rage, and,
b) He's still killing people. Again, nothing says he has to fight stupid, just that he can't perform actions requiring "patience or concentration", which fighting defensively doesn't, really. Additionally, he argues that if the intent of the rules was to force a raging barbarian to fight as aggressively as possible, why does it allow them to use shields?
Additionally, he want's to use Combat Expertise in a rage as well.
Am I missing something in the rules preventing/permitting this, or what is the general opinion?
|
PFRPG question: Can a Barbarian in a rage fight defensively? My first thought was no, of course not, but my player argues that:
a) Nothing in the RAW says he can't. In fact, they don't specify anything at all about combat options in a rage, and,
b) He's still killing people. Again, nothing says he has to fight stupid, just that he can't perform actions requiring "patience or concentration", which fighting defensively doesn't, really. Additionally, he argues that if the intent of the rules was to force a raging barbarian to fight as aggressively as possible, why does it allow them to use shields?
Additionally, he want's to use Combat Expertise in a rage as well.
Am I missing something in the rules preventing/permitting this, or what is the general opinion?
i know 3.5 specifically said no Combat exp in a rage, but i see noting in pathfinder... is it a change or an oversight?
Forget RAW. If you're the GM and think that it doesn't fit the concept, you throw it out.
|
|
Forget RAW. If you're the GM and think that it doesn't fit the concept, you throw it out.
I would, but I'm torn. I can actually see a sort of cold, calculating rage, but I can't decide if it fits the "barbarian" concept. I wanted to get a feel for what other people think. Would it be legal in Society play, for instance?
Forget RAW. If you're the GM and think that it doesn't fit the concept, you throw it out.I would, but I'm torn. I can actually see a sort of cold, calculating rage, but I can't decide if it fits the "barbarian" concept. I wanted to get a feel for what other people think. Would it be legal in Society play, for instance?
Barbarians are already screwed considering their options, removing those options is a bad, bad choice.
I would say it is allowed, but I don't see much benefit, he will have a good inteligence to take the feat and diminish his feat repertoire, so, let him do it. It's not Frenzy, it's just Rage.
There's nothing in the RAW against it.
Barbarians have TWO powers dedicated to improving their AC (usage of which may be in place of offensive powers), so dedicating more of their 'focus' to defence/AC doesn't really clash with their focus at all, IMHO. They are still focusing 110% on COMBAT, which is what the Rage limitation is supposed to be about (no casting while en-Raged), and adding AC is no more out-of-character than Tumbling, which is a Class Skill for Barbarians.
Nothing in the rules prevent it.