|
At a low-level table today, I encountered a new 1st-level barbarian with a WIS score of 8. (Given the lack of a 7 in that stat, I suppose I should have congratulated the player for avoiding the temptation to ultra min/max.)And they will be more of a danger to their table than the wild rager barbarians that are built reasonably.
From the sound of it you would be far better served by helping others to build decent and good characters than to worry about how people will misplay this archetype.
-James
OMG, dude.
Have you ever tried to help out the min-maxer with their PC build?
Get real. They are no more going to listen to you than "waste" their 5' step before they start their attack sequence.
And, yet again, you seem to skimp on actually reading the responses, instead skimming and not catching the actual objections raised to your comments.
Okay, given that someone who is actually a team player can minimize the effect of this archetype. Then again, why is someone who would be defined as a team player be taking this archetype? There are so many better archetypes, or even basic barbarian, that is better in a team environment.
Why we want the PTB to look at this archetype, and possibly remove it from legal for OP, is because there are an enormous number of non-team players out there playing in OP.
And, with the basic given of OP that, in a non-home environment, you are going to be playing with a group of players that you may have never met before, and have no idea if that Wild Rager Barbarian is being played by a "responsible" player, and that you can either "suck it up" and stay at the table, or possibly lose out on the slot entirely, what would you do?
For me, for instance, it is going to be an hour + of bus riding to get to either the game store we run at on Friday nights, or to the site where the local gamers' club runs their monthly two-slot (but not for PFS) game days; do I play my character that I wanted to, or go over to a table where I have to break out another PC, if I even had the room/carrying capacity to bring one along?
And, again, as to helping someone build their PC, unless they are building a new PC for a low-tier adventure, it is way too late to have any say in how well or badly the PC is built. The best you can do, and it requires more tact & diplomacy than I can usually muster, is give them advice on how best to play the PC they are using.
|
Second, all of those don't give the barbarian successive chances at saving each and every round.
The save is optional. The first save is required and once the barbarian is confused, he does not have to make another saving throw. He just keeps attacking with free rounds of rage.
And the difference between a barbarian being dominated and a wild rager is that 1) a second level wild rager could easily TPK his 1st level party in the first combat. Vampires, succubi and Dominate Person are unlikely to be encountered before tier 6/7.
It's Pathfinder Society. The Venture Captains are not going to endorse anyone who is known for going berserk and attacking his companions. A build that can be worked around in a home group is a TPK waiting to happen when a random PFS table is assembled.
|
|
Salient point:
No Player-versus-Player Combat
The goal of Pathfinder Society Organized Play is to provide an enjoyable experience for as many players as possible. Player-versus-player conflict only sours a session. While killing another character might seem like fun to you, it certainly won’t be for that character’s player. Even if you feel killing another character is in character for your PC at this particular moment, just figure out some other way for your character to express herself. In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another character -- ever. Note that this does not apply to situations where your character is mind-controlled by an NPC and forced to attack a fellow Pathfinder.
Therefore, either....
1) ....the No Player-versus-Player Combat rules have to be amended to reference them, or...
2) ....the archetype should be modified or banned for/from PFS play.
|
|
...if the concept of taking a 5'step is too much of a hurdle for your fellow players, then the problem IS your fellow players....
James, most of the rest of us are already accepting that as a given in our argumentation.
The purpose of the thread is to remove the most DPR-maximized* melee archetype in the game, one explicitly designed to go berserk to balance acquisition of that power.
- - - - - -
* STR+18, DEX:12, CON:16, INT:10, WIS:12, CHA:07 human stat arrays; figh2 vs rang2[archery] vs barb2[wild rager]. Assume masterwork weapons.
1) figh2: (STR:18/DEX:12/CON:16) ...WF:Greatsword, Power Attack, Furious Focus, Cleave, Step Up
.... att: +8, dmg: 2d6+9 = ~15
2) rang2 (STR:16/DEX+18/CON:12): WF:longbow, Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot
.... att: +8/+8, dmg: (2x)1d8+5 = ~19 (Point Blank/Rapid Shot targets not in melee)
.... att: +6/+6, dmg: (2x)1d8+6 = ~21 (if Deadly Aim without Point Blank Shot)
3) wild2 (fighter array plus rage boost): WF:Greatsword, Power Attack
.... att: +7/+7, dmg: (2x)2d6+12 = ~38 (Wild Fighting + Reckless Abandon rage power)
Note that one hit (19pts) from the Wild Rager will drop the average 2nd-level PC from full-up (i.e., a 2nd-level d8 class with CON:14 will have 17hp).
In Living Greyhawk, you couldn't become a Frenzied Berserker until you hit 6th level; in Pathfinder, if you bring a Wild2 to a Tier 1-2 PFS table, it's 99% unlikely anyone present will have Calm Emotions on hand to deal with a blown save -- there might not be anyone present who can even cast the spell off a handed-out scroll without bumbling Use Magic Device.
|
|
...if the concept of taking a 5'step is too much of a hurdle for your fellow players, then the problem IS your fellow players....
James, most of the rest of us are already accepting that as a given in our argumentation.
The purpose of the thread is to remove the most DPR-maximized* melee archetype in the game, one explicitly designed to go berserk to balance acquisition of that power.
- - - - - -
* STR+18, DEX:12, CON:16, INT:10, WIS:12, CHA:07 human stat arrays; assume masterwork weapons....
1) figh2: (STR:18/DEX:12/CON:16) ...WF:Greatsword, Power Attack, Furious Focus, Cleave, Step Up
.... att: +8, dmg: 2d6+9 = ~15
2) barb2 (fighter array plus rage boost): WF:Greatsword, Power Attack
.... att: +9, dmg: 2d6+12 = ~19 (includes Reckless Abandon rage power)
3) rang2 (STR:16/DEX+18/CON:12): WF:longbow, Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot
.... att: +8/+8, dmg: (2x)1d8+5 = ~19 (Point Blank/Rapid Shot targets not in melee)
.... att: +6/+6, dmg: (2x)1d8+6 = ~21 (if Deadly Aim without Point Blank Shot)
4) wild2 (fighter array plus rage boost): WF:Greatsword, Power Attack
.... att: +7/+7, dmg: (2x)2d6+12 = ~38 (Wild Fighting + Reckless Abandon rage power)
Note that one hit (19pts) from the Wild Rager will drop the average 2nd-level PC from full-up (i.e., a 2nd-level d8 class with CON:14 will have 17hp).
In Living Greyhawk, you couldn't become a Frenzied Berserker until you hit 6th level; in Pathfinder, if you bring a Wild2 to a Tier 1-2 PFS table, it's 99% unlikely anyone present will have Calm Emotions on hand to deal with a blown save -- there might not be anyone present who can even cast the spell off a handed-out scroll without bumbling Use Magic Device.
With a Wild Rager capable of dishing near or more than 200% of the p0wnage available to other combat builds in the pre-BAB6 games, their appeal to the "problem players" stipulated to above is going to be immense.
|
|
If we follow you argument to its logical conclusion, nothing at all should be banned from PFS so long as one "responsible" player can be demonstrated to be capable of deploying whatever-it-is in a non-disruptive manner -- because it is then incumbent upon the rest of us, per your logic, to sweep the entirety of the player-base on an educational outreach mission.
- - - - -
Let's propose a wizard archetype which, if it does some extremely common thing X (with X being the primary appeal of the archetype) at level 2, and blows a fortitude save, a 15ft 5d6 slam effect could immediately emanate from his position to strike the random nearest creature, with a chance that it'll continue round after round after round thereafter with a reach of up to 90ft, or increase damage to 10d6 if range is limited to 15ft (and, once this ball starts rolling, the wizard loses his marbles and isn't required to turn it off until he runs out of spell uses per day, with him expending one per round until depleted).
...Would you allow 15ft 10d6 random-target slam attacks at Tier 1-2 tables? Why not? After all, you're arguing that it's possible to educate players to the dangers of this potential mayhem lurking in their midst; and, that being the case, there is no unseemly danger from such a build.
|
|
If we follow you argument to its logical conclusion,Then we wouldn't proceed with argument ad absurdum?
If you're not arguing that it's possible to educate all players, then you stipulate that Wild Ragers are going to be a problem -- since the basis of your defense of them so far is that, when in "responsible" hands, you have yet to see them become a problem.
-- Said stipulation arising from the fact that some players out there will remain irresponsible. After all, you can't possibly talk to every one of them before their monster is loose upon the table.
(For all I know, the new WIS8 1st-level barbarian I encountered last Sunday is a Wild Rager.)
I'm saying that the problem is with the premise that you are accepting as immutable fact.It is an immutable fact than any low-grade risk probability undertaken multiple dozens of times (see previous page) will eventually become a neigh inevitability (with that then being multiplied by all the Wild Ragers who'll pop up like mushrooms in the campaign now that Ultimate Combat is available).
Let's propose a wizard archetype which, if it does some extremely common thing X (with X being the primary appeal of the archetype) at level 2, and blows a fortitude save, a 15ft 5d6 slam effect could immediately emanate from his position to strike the random nearest creature, with a chance that it'll continue round after round after round thereafter with a reach of up to 90ft, or increase damage to 10d6 if range is limited to 15ft (and, once this ball starts rolling, the wizard loses his marbles and isn't required to turn it off until he runs out of spell uses per day, with him expending one per round until depleted).
...Would you allow 15ft 10d6 random-target slam attacks at Tier 1-2 tables? Why not? After all, you're arguing that it's possible to educate players to the dangers of this potential mayhem lurking in their midst; and, that being the case, there is no unseemly danger from such a build.
(BTW, the slam attacks described above are equivalent to what a Wild Rager with a d10 polearm is capable of at 2nd level. The 15ft 10d6 represents a Wild Fighting full attack against a target no more than a 5ft step away, while the 90ft 5d6 represents a charge.)
|
|
I'm saying that the problem is with the premise that you are accepting as immutable fact.
No, the problem is that your premise is indefensible, in my experience.
1) Given, I run low tier tables, almost always including nominally new players.
2) Given, Some of the local players are not the best PC builders.
3) Given, a lack of GM time available to do a full hands-on character building session with those "new" players.
4) Some portion of those "new" players are only new to PFS, or Pathfnder, or editions newer than AD&D/AD&D2.
5) Given, some players are regulars. Many of those regulars experiment with new PCs. And some of those regulars will not take advice, nor are very knowledgeable about the system. It is easy to miss things in a character build, even for an "expert".
6) I am, myself, a min-maxer, so do not assume that I am being negative when I say min-maxers don't always look at all the possible side-effects of a choice for maximizing damage.
7) I have to say that my experience at LG conventions, in my limited area of play (not rich, barely breaking even) is totally different than yours. And that that experience has continued into LFR & PFS. Yes, even in 4E/LFR, it was possible for some people to be able to build a non-team friendly PC.
8) As a GM, I don't want to make people gratuitously unhappy. This particular archetype is designed to make your unsuspecting teammates unhappy.
9) By the way, I was not saying the player doesn't know about 5' steps, I was saying that the non-team player of this archetype would also be opposed to wasting his 5' step before his attack, if he is already in what he considers an optimal position.
10) A constant stream if new or novice PF players is hard to teach "How to play X oddity responsibly." Removing some of the temptation to fixate on this or that game-breaking build is not a bad thing.
11) It is all-too-easy to wind up with a game-breaking build in PFS. Consider a perfectly legal, not terribly maximized build, the tripping build. Especially with disarming added. It makes many PFS encounters walk-throughs, instead of something approaching a challenge. Believe me, my Dex-based tripping/disarming fighter makes mincemeat out of non-animal encounters. And that is without any serious damage-dealing capacity of his own...
|
I think there are a variety of staw golems helping prevent this thread from being as useful as it could.
The biggest problem I see isn't some hypothetical TPK scenario but that fact that a perfectly innocent new player can have their character directly killed by another player. Contributing to this problem is the fact that the offending character doesn't suffer the consequences, somebody else does.
With optimal play and a focus on the will save a Wild Rager could never harm another party member.
Will everybody play optimally? No
Will every wild Rager have a high will save, a reroll and 3 calm emotion scrolls? No
Who dies when things go south? It's not the rager, it's the new player sitting next to him.
While I have a notable dislike for LG I think no PvP is important in Pathfinder Society and I think there's no good way to deal with an archetype who's downside is potential PvP in a PvP free system without just disallowing it.
|
|
James? Half of them are kids. Giving them a Wild Rager is like dropping a machinegun into a playpen.Wow, you really have a bad image of your fellow players.
WIS:8 barbarian, my most recent session -- I've mentioned it, and you've requoted the text in your own replies above on this page.
My imagination has nothing to do with it.
Wild Ragers are 200% more destructive than a typical min/max other build in the sub-BAB6 game, they can't control themselves on a blown save; and players who build 'em with WIS:8 are going to butcher tables if the judge pitilessly runs them by-the-book. (The judge won't, of course; which means there will either be a cheese monster eclipsing the rest of the table, or a pissed player being told his barbarian won't be permitted to rage or he violates no-PvP...and this event won't happen until well into the adventure when the player starts Wild Fighting for his two big swings a turn.)
|
|
The main reason for this thread looks like a rant because he got killed by a kid,which isn't a bad reason for this,but that means he will not concede.
Sphar....
1) My character was not killed or even attacked by this other player (who is not a kid) this last Sunday; and the thread was started a week before that (and it was literally the first thing I did after browsing the section in the newly-released Ultimate Combat, after ascertaining that it was actually worse than the similarly highly volatile Frenzied Berserker which had to be banned in Living Greyhawk.)
2) Your tone pretends that I am the only person in the thread who thinks Wild Ragers in PFS are a bad idea when there are three other posters on this page who are similarly inclined.
3) Please contribute something of substance to the discussion. For instance, you might comment upon the following:
Salient point:
Spoiler:Wild Ragers who blow their will saves after dropping opponents are not being mind-controlled by an NPC -- and are thus not "exempt" from the restriction.No Player-versus-Player CombatThe goal of Pathfinder Society Organized Play is to provide an enjoyable experience for as many players as possible. Player-versus-player conflict only sours a session. While killing another character might seem like fun to you, it certainly won’t be for that character’s player. Even if you feel killing another character is in character for your PC at this particular moment, just figure out some other way for your character to express herself. In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another character -- ever. Note that this does not apply to situations where your character is mind-controlled by an NPC and forced to attack a fellow Pathfinder.
Therefore, either....
1) ....the No Player-versus-Player Combat rules have to be amended to reference them, or...
2) ....the archetype should be modified or banned for/from PFS play.
-- Until there is a clarification, it would be perfectly reasonable for judges to conclude that the fact Wild Ragers are not presently banned is merely an oversight error which they surmise will soon be corrected; and, prior to such clarification, take it upon their own initiative to prohibit the seating of said characters by pointing directly at the relevant passages.
|
|
Okay, imagine the following scenario:
You have your new PFS PC, "I'm so happy."
You sit down at a table of three other random players (you came late):
Two of them are Clerics. "Cool. Share the wealth. And health."
or
2 Blasters. "Little vulnerable, but should be fine if not ambushed."
or
2 Rogues. "Awkward, but I guess they'll flank with each other. Oooh, and we should be able to scout for battle."
or
2 Wild Ragers... "Ah, crap..."
Now compare that feeling to having 2 Fighters or 2 regular Barbarians at the table.
Sure, the amount of offense is devastating, but I doubt that's what your first thought was. It was more likely "How do we manage this?" or "Don't put them next to each other." or "Why me?" (pull out new character sheet)
In PFS, how conducive is the class for enjoyment on the part of the OTHER players? It's one of very few attractive builds (silly builds aside) where you'd see a marked drop in morale at the table before play even began.
Not good.
It's like arcane casters facing armor failure chances. Sure, you can get the chances low for failure with feats and build, but is it desirable? Seldom. You don't like those slim odds arising when things are tough. For the Wild Rager, things are tough whenever he drops a person. And the BBEG battles where he has to rage and others have to engage to the very end? Gulp...
{Though, I admit, one of my top ideas I'm bouncing around now is an armored Dwarf Witch with spells secondary to her hexes. :)}
|
... a second level wild rager could easily TPK his 1st level party in the first combat.
I don't think that this is true. Several factors have to line of for a wild rager to cause one party death, but causing a TPK is far beyond what I would consider "easy."
-- Until there is a clarification, it would be perfectly reasonable for judges to conclude that the fact Wild Ragers are not presently banned is merely an oversight error which they surmise will soon be corrected; and, prior to such clarification, take it upon their own initiative to prohibit the seating of said characters by pointing directly at the relevant passages.
I think that is a tad ridiculous. If the wild rager's maddened state after knocking out a foe was removed, by the exact same interpretation of the rules you presented, the wild rager would still be banned from PFS play for their fifth level ability to throw off mind-affecting effects when it throws them into a confused state.
So a wild rager using her rage conversion to turn confusion spell into their own, easier to manage, confusion effect would be disallowed from PFS on the premise that the PC being confused by enemy magic is perfectly fine, but if she is confused by her own ability then it is prohibited even if it is used to stop a stronger confusion ability.
That feels like an overly strict reading of the rules that really seems to go against the rules as intended.
Again, throw out the example of a mage fireballing an ally in order to take out a larger number of enemies. This isn't anything new and I constantly see the fireballer and fireballe agreeing to this arrangement. But if that rogue fails that reflex save and that mage rolls maximum damage, enough to kill the rogue, by the strict reading, that can't happen.
So the options for this seem to be:
1) The spell damage, for no apparent reason, is reduced so that the rogue is 1 away from dying (so he will die by blood loss or enemy rather than your fireball)
2) The spell fails. It felt too strong and the rogue wasn't pulling out of the way fast enough, so your mage gained the ability for that one moment (and for no other time) to stop the spell after seeing how bad it was.
3) The mage is automatically banned from PFS for breaking the rules and voluntarily killing another character.
4) It never happened as you can't ever expose any member your party to any effect when it has any chance at all of killing them. It doesn't matter if the entire party thinks it is the only way to succeed or even if it will stop a TPK, you just can't do it.
5) Ignore the rules as written. The mage wasn't meaning to kill the rogue, but against the odds it happened. The spell goes through, play goes on.
I don't think the first four options are appropriate and I do think the fifth goes with what I perceive as the actual intent of the rule.
By the literal reading of the rule, it would even seem fine to make attacks that aren't directly lethal to allies. Dazing them, dealing non-lethal damage to them, hitting them with a weapon that can't kill them with that attack, confusing them, dominating their character, etc. I think that the intent of this rule is best represented by a literal reading.
-
I'm actually fine with the wild rager being banned, but not if the reason for it is, "some players might be jerks with it." Some posters have been supporting the "ban the wild rager" argument with insults, exaggerations, and incorrect statements throughout this thread.
The wild rager might deserve banning. The fact that it results in the barbarian being an direct ongoing threat to the party, even when the character is taking actions to minimize this threat, may good enough reason to exclude it within PFS.
|
|
I'm actually fine with the wild rager being banned, but not if the reason for it is, "some players might be jerks with it." Some posters have been supporting the "ban the wild rager" argument with insults, exaggerations, and incorrect statements throughout this thread.
The wild rager might deserve banning. The fact that it results in the barbarian being an direct ongoing threat to the party, even when the character is taking actions to minimize this threat, may good enough reason to exclude it within PFS.
This is really the crux of the matter, BlazeJ. Well said.
|
|
Some posters have been supporting the "ban the wild rager" argument with insults<glance toward sphar's post; note incongruity in insult-sensitivity>
Again, throw out the example of a mage fireballing an ally in order to take out a larger number of enemies.
This is a false-analogy. The targeted rogue player can call no-PvP and nix it if he feels threatened. (If he can be overruled on this and forcibly subjected to potentially lethal damage by an ally not under NPC control, then the entire rules passage proscribing no-PvP is being treated as ignore-at-whim by the forcing parties in question.) What usually happens is the rogue player gives his permission, then rolls a 1 on his Reflex save while the wizard rolls lots of 5s and 6s, and bad things happen. -- This is a calculated gamble, willingly entered, which is a completely different situation than being randomly nearest the Wild Rager when he snaps, and you didn't know you'd be playing with one when you sat down an hour and a half ago.
- - - - - -
I'm disappointed not to see a response to Castilliano's remarks.
|
|
James, you assume that all player can be educated. Improbable but possible, the problem is that most of them will not allow to be "educated" before the s$$+ hit the fan.
They like to explain at length how wonderful is their build and how it will allow them to deliver X thousand DPS when it all go well, they are much less willing to have it criticized and a good sized subgroup is even less willing to modify it because someone is saying "your character could cause problems to the other characters". Especially when modifying the build would mean delivering less damage.
The archetype appeal is its capacity to deal damage.
So the most probable scenario is:
- not so careful player create a DPS wild rager with little capacity to control his problems;
- the character lose control explosively during an adventure, potentially killing other players characters;
- then the player, if he is not a jerk, retire his character and make a new one, hopefully one capable to control himself if he is a wild rager;
- the other players will have to raise one or more characters.
The result is several unhappy players: the wild rager owner because he had to retire his DPS machine, the dead character owner because he has to pay to get him raised or lose it, the rest of the group because probably the mission was failed. it is even possible that the incident will leave some lingering issue between the players.
The wild rager player and those at the table when this happened will not repeat the error (hopefully), but it could still happen to the next table with the next new wild rager from another player.
You still feel that it isn't needed to remove the archetype from the allowed list? Fine, but then it must come with a big warning for the GMs saying: if you have this archetype at the table all the players should be informed and be willing to play side by side with this character as there is the risk of inter party fighting.
The information that they are at risk should be given out before starting and they should consent to it, like the rogue in the fireball area of effect should consent to it.
|
|
A Wild Rager is required to attack the nearest creature if he fails a will save[/i] -- and we should not have that in PFS.Hey I agree it's a walking time bomb, but then its the same as any other compulsion/charm etc... just with a fairly likely chance to go off.
I guess knowing what he is you could just make sure you aren't nearby when he cracks, but sadly the banhamer might be required because the class might attarct the wrong sort of person.
Classes don't kill people. Players kill people :)
|
|
Hoozah! We are now in agreement that bad players exist out there.
I was just believing you that your fellow players in your area are that bad. Is that really the case?
Can they not figure out that they should take a 5' step before attacking with their PC? That's hard to fathom.
But even if its so, can't you help them? Why wouldn't you?
Or are you just trying to make an argument here?
Honestly even when I take some of your suppositions all I'm left with is 'someone that bad is going to cause problems for their table' period. But now I'm thinking that you don't even have a real problem thus real solutions don't interest you.
-James
Actually James, the players in his area aren't bad at all.
|
|
Very well james, let's see if this is acceptable by you:
- every time the wild rager enter a rage he incur the risk of of attacking members of his playing group. The risk can be lowered but but not completely removed.
- As attacking the party member is PVP and him entering a rage can cause PVP every time he enter a rage he need permission from the whole table.
That shift the burden of being jerks on the other people at the table and will equally end in unhappy players, but if some character is killed at least he has given prior permission.
BTW: your cleric argument is a straw man. Not doing the job he is supposed to do is a thing, incurring the risk of attacking party members every time he kill something is another.
|
|
Very well james, let's see if this is acceptable by you:
- every time the wild rager enter a rage he incur the risk of of attacking members of his playing group. The risk can be lowered but but not completely removed.
- As attacking the party member is PVP and him entering a rage can cause PVP every time he enter a rage he need permission from the whole table.
That shift the burden of being jerks on the other people at the table and will equally end in unhappy players, but if some character is killed at least he has given prior permission.
BTW: your cleric argument is a straw man. Not doing the job he is supposed to do is a thing, incurring the risk of attacking party members every time he kill something is another.
Um, I for one will never run a table, and would really NOT enjoy sitting at a table where you have to get permission from others to not use your AOE or Rage, or whatever. Now a good player will do their best not to catch party members in an AOE anyways, and personally, I would probably ask the rogue or fighter, “hey, you guys ok being in this AOE…” just as a matter of courtesy, not because of the no-PvP rule, but because that’s common courtesy in any gaming group.
But for the GM to say, “sorry, you can’t cast your AOE because it might hurt another PC,” in my mind is WAY overstepping the bounds of the GM.
|
|
[
But if you feel better having people need to get permission from the table to play their characters, why stop at the wild rager? Certainly paladins come to mind here. If I'm running an undead focused caster the paladin is more dangerous to my enjoyment than someone way up in the front that gets mad...
But that is already the case, james.
The paladin is not allowed to destroy your undeads.Removing your resources is PVP.
Now if you feel it has to be a line by line veto, then I disagree. If the party wizard wishes to cast a spell that doesn't directly damage another PC then the party (realizing it's a bad time to cast it) doesn't get to veto that action anymore than they can tell the fighter that they can't retreat because it would open up charge lanes..
-James
Why you always end making this kind of comments that aren't related with the situation at hand?
Bad tactical choice is one thing, a choice that can directly har another player is another.
When the wild rager is entering his rage is the only moment when it is possible to stop him from stating an action that can cause PVP.
After his rage has started he can't say "Ops, I have killed an enemy, I have your permission to get confused?".
