Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Rage cycling in PFS


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

As Diego Rossi and Brain in a Jar pointed out, rage cycling by stopping and restarting it the same round costs 2 rounds of rage. This will burn out quickly.

I do not see a problem with rage cycling, even if it is gained at low levels. At low levels, there are no really problematic rage powers IMO.

And even once high-level rage powers are available there are enough easy ways to deal with it: Give the barbarian a tougher opponent, ensure he can't reach opponents, bring up some high-dc heightened calm emotion spells, hit him with enough damage that he cannot dare to leave his rage or die... It's not really a problem.

It is one of those things that sound really strong or OP at first, and in fights against single opponents it shows its strengths. But when looking at fights with several opponents, drawn out fights, and looking at the specialized builds and what they give up for this tactic - no, it's not that strong anymore.

So I allow it :-)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If you are immune to fatigue, you are immune to the condition and straight up cannot have the condition.

Invigorate is a spell that does what you describe though: you still have the conditions, just don't take the penalties.

And if 2 free actions is too many that the GM is going to use that bit of text to ban something, I really feel bad for spellcasters who, to cast just about any spell, need 2 free actions as well. Or an archer shooting more than 1 arrow, as that too requires at least 2 free actions.


Actually, and easy fix is to say the rage ends when there's a round of non-rage.


I initially put this in the PFS general section but because of a well intending but misinformed mod it got shoved into rules very quickly.

I honestly didn't want this to digress into a rules issue. As I have said and Cheapy expanded upon (never knew that you had asked off the record), the legality of this option is well settled among those who were initially in on the discussion / FAQing. As far as I am concerned it is the intent of the Dev's to give barbarian's immunity to fatigue with full knowledge / endorsement of rage cycling. There are a multitude of opportunities for them to say no to rage cycling.

For those that do play / judge PFS: Would you allow rage cycling at your table? Please note that both Mark and Mike have stated that GM's can not just ban a particular rule from their table because they don't like it, so if you are for banning it I would like to know your reasoning for doing it.

I ask this because most judges initial response is to ban it even when they know that they can not ban a RAW rule. I feel that most of these judges have a visceral response to the idea feeling that it is somehow cheating or a loophole as Andrew called it.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Ending the rage at start of your next turn should not burn 2 rounds of rage. I realize RAW it does, but that's ridiculous and stupid. "1 round" is not "end of your turn." 1 round means cycling through the entire initiative count. If it is impossible to actually use rage in one round increments until down to your last round for the day, the ability itself is fundamentally flawed.

IMO, ending rage should be a non-action.

In any case, there is nothing wrong with this tactic. It is frankly the only reason to bother with most of the 1/rage powers, and even with it, many aren't worth picking up. This is the barbarian's single greatest "trick" or "combo" he has going for himself. It's peanuts compared to the bs spellcasters can pull out of their hats.


Lab_Rat wrote:
I feel that most of these judges have a visceral response to the idea feeling that it is somehow cheating or a loophole as Andrew called it.

If it looks like cheese, and smells like cheese, its probably cheese.


Funky Badger wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:
I feel that most of these judges have a visceral response to the idea feeling that it is somehow cheating or a loophole as Andrew called it.
If it looks like cheese, and smells like cheese, its probably cheese.

Yeah.

Or they just don't like it and proclaim it "cheese" so as to not seem biased about it.


Funky Badger wrote:
If it looks like cheese, and smells like cheese, its probably cheese.

Seriously, though, go look at the rage powers list, and find the 1/day rage powers (there are about ten, I think). See if there are any of them you think would be utterly broken being 1/round at 8th level (minimum to rage cycle reliably).

I did it above, but please prove me wrong. I'm genuinely trying to find a real power problem with it.


But "cheese" is total bs.

If my rogue dips Oracle for Water Sight to hide in obscuring mist and get free sneak attacks, it sounds cheesy.

But if a straight 1-20 Oracle takes the same revelation and uses it to hide in obscuring mist while lobbing save-or-lose spells (and later on can use that revelation to also *scry*, which...last time I checked is a pretty awesome ability), he is using the ability exactly as intended. Like...I have no idea what else you expect someone with that revelation to be using it for if not that.

Because rogue popped in for a level to cherry pick it, it sounds far more "cheesy" in his case, despite his build actually being much weaker in practice.

The "sniff test" is total, 100% Grade A bull****.

EDIT: "Cheese" seems to basically be "finding some good combo that the devs didn't think of" rather than "taking the outrageously powerful/awesome option they put right in front of your face" (like the Natural Spell feat for druids). Basically, it's backlash against creativity.


Funky Badger wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:
I feel that most of these judges have a visceral response to the idea feeling that it is somehow cheating or a loophole as Andrew called it.
If it looks like cheese, and smells like cheese, its probably cheese.

So, Rage Cycling is as intended and is good. Glad to hear!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

I've never seen this in PFS and I have a Barbarian / Oracle / Rage Prophet who could do it if it was worthwhile. Unless you are a straight barbarian, you don't have that many rage powers. The PFS max level also cuts down on the potential for abuse.


Thing is, I have a Barbarian who's going for Oracle and Rage Prophet, and I genuinely can't think of many reasons for him to want to do this. He *can*, but why would he? Most of the 1/rage powers are really situational.

You can maybe get a +3 or +4 to one attack/round with it, with the right rage power, or confirm your crits reliably, but you should be hitting/confirming reliably anyway.

I mean, it's nice to know that I could spell sunder two spells in reasonably quick succession, if I ever had to do that. And maybe I could get an extra attack occasionally.

That's about it, actually.


Funky Badger wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:
I feel that most of these judges have a visceral response to the idea feeling that it is somehow cheating or a loophole as Andrew called it.
If it looks like cheese, and smells like cheese, its probably cheese.

By that logic...

Quickened 9th level spells for some gp? Cheese, that's a 13th level spell slot in a game with only 9.
Being able to spend gp to refuel limited use abilities? Guess those pearls and runes are cheese to.
Oh, wait, doubling the whole base allotment of spells you get a level for gp? Cheese to I guess.
And for most of those the caster gives up...nothing but gold, even in pfs.

Contrast to the least feat/level intensive way, the magic belt. One, its a belt. What stats do belts boost. Physical. What stats do melee focus on. Physical. So they are, by default, giving up the easy stat booster. Yeah, there are others but they cost yet more money. 2nd, for the cost, its going to be a bit before they get it. How many pearls/rods can that caster buy for that?

Again, other than folks just not liking the idea, rage cycling is about as cheesey and broken as your average(unoptimized) caster, of the 6 or 9 spell level variety.


In PFS "Cheese" is not enough of a reason to ban it from a public table.

Before Synthesis Summoners were officially banned from PFS, GM's were banning synthesis summoners from their public tables because they were cheesy or overpowered or they just plain didn't like them. Mike came down heavy on this with a huge post on how GM's could not make calls like that at a public table. In a private setting GMs of PFS can do what ever, but at a public table GM's have to follow the rules as written.

I would need a real reason to say no.

For the record...I am for rage cycling in general. However, I am unsure whether to go down that road / how to judge it at a table I judge with regards to PFS since the GM does not have the power to say no in most cases in this setting.

Dark Archive

Lab_Rat wrote:
For those that do play / judge PFS: Would you allow rage cycling at your table?

Yes. I have no reason not to. 1) it's allowed per RAW (provided the character's build actually allows for it). 2) it's in no way unbalanced, unfair, munchkiny, broken, overpowered or anything else that might make be think twice about allowing it.

Also, I GM for my local PFS group roughly once a week. So far, no one has presented me with a build that can cycle Rage like this, but if one did, I'd not hesitate to allow it. I would make sure their build is capable of it, but if it is I'd allow it.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Lab_Rat wrote:

I honestly didn't want this to digress into a rules issue. As I have said and Cheapy expanded upon (never knew that you had asked off the record), the legality of this option is well settled among those who were initially in on the discussion / FAQing. As far as I am concerned it is the intent of the Dev's to give barbarian's immunity to fatigue with full knowledge / endorsement of rage cycling. There are a multitude of opportunities for them to say no to rage cycling.

For those that do play / judge PFS: Would you allow rage cycling at your table? Please note that both Mark and Mike have stated that GM's can not just ban a particular rule from their table because they don't like it, so if you are for banning it I would like to know your reasoning for doing it.

I ask this because most judges initial response is to ban it even when they know that they can not ban a RAW rule. I feel that most of these judges have a visceral response to the idea feeling that it is somehow cheating or a loophole as Andrew called it.

So let me get this straight:

• You believe the topic is settled as being legal
• You know PFS GMs are required to allow legal builds
• Therefore, you must believe that PFS GMs are required to allow this
• Believing that PFS GMs are required to allow this, you made a thread to ask PFS GMs if they would allow it

So all in all, your purpose in making this thread... was to let it be public knowledge which PFS GMs would illegally ban something without thinking it through? Or did I miss something else you were trying to accomplish?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What I find interesting about this item is that if you use this 3 times in a combat, suddenly you're going down the second you hit 10 HP remaining on average. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like it'd be pretty simple to get within the "oh crap" range due to all the non-lethal damage you'd be accruing.

Note that the author of the belt also said that Invulnerable Rager's 2*DR vs non-lethal wouldn't work here, which makes sense given the rules.

This is, of course, more or less the same as a bard "performance cycling", wherein the bard ends a performance (as a free action), starts a new one (as a swift action), does something else, ends the performance, and starts the next one as a move action. Principally available at 13th+ level, but there are some feats you can take to do this at 7th level. It quickly gets prohibitively expensive to do this, since you're burning through rounds, but it does work. The main differences of note between these two are that performance cycling takes more expensive actions to make work.

Dark Archive

StreamOfTheSky wrote:
Ending the rage at start of your next turn should not burn 2 rounds of rage. I realize RAW it does

I've read and reread the rules for Rage. I can't find where it states ending a rage at the start of your turn costs a round of Rage. Assuming no immunities or special powers:

Round 1: Start of round, free action to enter Rage. Use full round action to charge nearest target and attack. End turn (rage still active).

Round 2: End Rage as a free action. Becomes fatigued. Makes a Knowledge check to identify that creature he just hit to find out why it didn't seem to take any damage from his awesome attack. Takes a 5 foot step away from his adjacent foe and uses a move action to put away his weapon, and another move action to draw that other weapon which will overcome his target's DR.

IMO, this only used up 1 round of Rage. It was used for exactly one round.

If the barbarian had ended his rage at any other time during Round 2 (if he attacked once more before ending rage to make a Knowledge check), I'd say it uses up another round of duration. But if ending his Rage is the first thing he does on his turn, it doesn't cost any of the duration to do so.

Dark Archive

Cheapy wrote:
This is, of course, more or less the same as a bard "performance cycling", wherein the bard ends a performance (as a free action), starts a new one (as a swift action), does something else, ends the performance, and starts the next one as a move action. Principally available at 13th+ level, but there are some feats you can take to do this at 7th level. It quickly gets prohibitively expensive to do this, since you're burning through rounds, but it does work. The main differences of note between these two are that performance cycling takes more expensive actions to make work.

This is something I hadn't considered. For the barbarian, it would be more like spending a free action to begin a rage, performing a standard or move action to do something you can only do once per rage, using free action to end the range, then spending another free action to start a new rage (in the same turn) and then doing something else you can only do once per range with the remainder of your turn, and then maybe ending your rage again and starting it again once more before anyone else acts, and thus starting a new rage three times during your turn.

THIS could cost extra rounds of duration IMO.


Dust Raven wrote:

I've read and reread the rules for Rage. I can't find where it states ending a rage at the start of your turn costs a round of Rage. Assuming no immunities or special powers:

Round 1: Start of round, free action to enter Rage. Use full round action to charge nearest target and attack. End turn (rage still active).

Round 2: End Rage as a free action. Becomes fatigued. Makes a Knowledge check to identify that creature he just hit to find out why it didn't seem to take any damage from his awesome attack. Takes a 5 foot step away from his adjacent foe and uses a move action to put away his weapon, and another move action to draw that other weapon which will overcome his target's DR.

IMO, this only used up 1 round of Rage. It was used for exactly one round.

If the barbarian had ended his rage at any other time during Round 2 (if he attacked once more before ending rage to make a Knowledge check), I'd say it uses up another round of duration. But if ending his Rage is the first thing he does on his turn, it doesn't cost any of the duration to do so.

That is how I see it as well. Unfortunately, by RAW, the rage would have to end just *before* his next turn to count as only 1 rage expended, as the rage has now been active (albeit briefly) on the same initiative count more than once.

IMO, ending rage should just not be an action or something you explicitly decide on before your turn begins each round. Otherwise, it's silly and unfair, and calling them "rounds" of rage is just a lie.

Liberty's Edge

Dust Raven wrote:
Actually, you are allowed to drop Rage at the start of your turn, and not get "charged" that turn. So you could, at the start of combat, at the start of your turn, begin your Rage, and at the start of your next turn, end your Rage, and only have used up 1 turn of duration. Then, right after you drop out of Rage, you can enter a new Rage (using up 1 turn of duration), provided you can either rage while fatigued, or are for some reason not fatigued. So the cost is still 1 round per round.

Do you have a rules reference for this? Free actions can only be taken on your turn, so if you've started the turn Raging, you should already be spending that round. Stopping and then restarting would cost an additional round. I have been unable to find anything that says you can end your Rage at the start of your turn to avoid using up a round of rage that turn.


Dust Raven wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
This is, of course, more or less the same as a bard "performance cycling", wherein the bard ends a performance (as a free action), starts a new one (as a swift action), does something else, ends the performance, and starts the next one as a move action. Principally available at 13th+ level, but there are some feats you can take to do this at 7th level. It quickly gets prohibitively expensive to do this, since you're burning through rounds, but it does work. The main differences of note between these two are that performance cycling takes more expensive actions to make work.

This is something I hadn't considered. For the barbarian, it would be more like spending a free action to begin a rage, performing a standard or move action to do something you can only do once per rage, using free action to end the range, then spending another free action to start a new rage (in the same turn) and then doing something else you can only do once per range with the remainder of your turn, and then maybe ending your rage again and starting it again once more before anyone else acts, and thus starting a new rage three times during your turn.

THIS could cost extra rounds of duration IMO.

Wouldn't that only be an issue if the rage powers were swift or free actions?

With the situation you're describing, you have
Free action: start rage
Move action: Use rage power that somehow enhances movement
Free action: End Rage
Free action: Restart rage
Standard action: Use rage power that somehow helps your standard action
Free action: End rage

To me, that's not a lot worse than a fighter with Quick Draw:
Free action: Put away quick draw shield
Free action: Sheathe one-handed weapon
Move action: Move into combat while drawing two-handed weapon
Standard action: Attack with two handed weapon
Free action: Drop two handed weapon (to avoid the AoO from sheathing it)
Free action: Draw Quick-draw shield
Free action: Draw one-handed weapon

But other than running up against the "number of free actions" issue, is that fighter doing anything "wrong" or abusing the rules? (And this can be done at 1st level with one feat and one 55 gp item.)


A question about "immunity" vs. "ignores"
We've established that "immunity" means that the condition flat out never happens. However, when an effect causes you to "ignore" fatigue, are you still fatigued with no penalties, or are you not fatigued at all? ex. Cleric with the Variant Channeling: Farming causes affected characters to "ignore" fatigue for one minute.


Jiggy wrote:

So let me get this straight:

• You believe the topic is settled as being legal
• You know PFS GMs are required to allow legal builds
• Therefore, you must believe that PFS GMs are required to allow this
• Believing that PFS GMs are required to allow this, you made a thread to ask PFS GMs if they would allow it
So all in all, your purpose in making this thread...

He directly brought up the issue of Free Action economy being up to GM Fiat.

How people use that/ expect to see that used is a relevant topic, entirely within his stated aim to understand how people play this subjet within the scope of PFS.

It doesn't at all depend on blanket banning using more than 1 Free Action per round, you can treat different Free Actions differently per the GM fiat rule on that subject. Personally, I think it's rather reasonable to say that you can only Enter Rage 1/round, and you can only End Rage 1/round. That gets rid of the 'uber Rage Nova' scenario of re-entering 2/round in order to get the benefits on and off one's turn (at the cost of 2 Rage Round/round), bypassing the normal 'downside' to Rage Cycling, namely that you lose the usage of half of Rage's benefits (e.g. Rage HPs, Save Bonuses, AoO abilities, or vice-versa offensive/on-your-turn abilities), making Rage Cycling a very 'inefficient' use of your Class Abilities. For that reason it usually doesn't make sense to continually Rage Cycle (even when you can), because getting full usage out of your broad and powerful class abilities is just as useful.

I think it would be a good idea if PFS just codified that GM call, and said that Enter Rage and End Rage are EACH only do-able 1/round. Really, I wouldn't be opposed to the same applying to the de facto 'Shift Grip' free action, limiting it to 1/round (anything beyond that is doable as if Drawing a Weapon, which CAN be done as an unlimited Free Action if you have Quickdraw, which essentially lets you draw melee weapons as if they were ammo).

I agree we should get Errata for the bad RAW which implies that one CAN'T choose to spend Rage Rounds in 1 round increments unless you choose to end your Rage prematurely on your turn (due to the End Rage free action happening on your turn, like all free actions), or if you actually run out of Rage Rounds completely.


Quandary wrote:
I think it would be a good idea if PFS just codified that GM call, and said that Enter Rage and End Rage are EACH only do-able 1/round.

So, I start my turn in rage, I end rage, I start rage, I use my 1/rage power.

I spend the round being in rage.

I start my next turn in rage, end it, start it, use my 1/rage power...

Note that I'm still getting all the benefits of Rage throughout the whole initiative count, except for the split second on my turn between my two free actions.


sure, but at least it is a continuous rage, so you can't use the same 1/rage powers both on and off your turn.

hm, perhaps make a special rule about the ORDER of the actions, that once you End Rage, you can't Start Rage in that same round.
that would mean Rage Cycling would only work for 'on your turn' aspect, and one would need to End Rage before the end of one's turn.

what is general opinion about OTHER usages of Entering and Ending Rage in the same round?
such as doing so to Cast a Spell and then re-Rage?
or do your Rage stuff, then drop Rage so an Ally's spell can affect you without Superstitious Saving Throws?
AFAIK, those aren't considered problematic in any way...? or are they?
the first would also be made illegal by the above proposed rule.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Quandary wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

So let me get this straight:

• You believe the topic is settled as being legal
• You know PFS GMs are required to allow legal builds
• Therefore, you must believe that PFS GMs are required to allow this
• Believing that PFS GMs are required to allow this, you made a thread to ask PFS GMs if they would allow it
So all in all, your purpose in making this thread...
He directly brought up the issue of Free Action economy being up to GM Fiat.

Not in the OP he didn't. I asked him why he made this thread. Your dissertation on free actions is unrelated to that question (and that's not to mention that you're not him).


I just saw your final question: "Or did I miss something else you were trying to accomplish?"
and it seemed that you indeed must have missed 'something else' because he talks about 'something' else in this post:

Quote:
The only avenue I could see a table judge taking to ban this tactic is the fact that a GM is allowed to set a limit to the number of free actions you can take in a turn. Would you all as table judges ban all players from being able to take 2 free actions a turn to stop this?

That wasn't in the OP obviously, but qualifies as 'something else' by my book.

I'm not saying that negates your broader question, but it was a legitimate question he did instigate in this thread.
It seemed reasonable to point that out in the same way when a question has already been answered up-thread, or is in a FAQ, etc.

Regardless, adherence of PFS GMs to strict RAW is a valid issue to bring up, and not just to 'point fingers at bad people'. The uncomfortable details about how the RAW of ending Rage works, e.g. making it impossible to Rage on and off one's turn for 1 round only (or at the cost of 1 rage round) was even mentioned in this very thread. I'm sure pretty much no PFS GMs follow that strict RAW... contrary to PFS rules.

My comments on Free Actions weren't in response to your post, it was just following up on subjects already brought up in the thread, by myself as well as Lab_Rat and others.


The issue I have with the cycling is its a mechanistic trick of the system, and nothing to do with "the play"...

A babrarian coming out of rage is Slaine sitting down with his axe across his knees saying he did not think it too many. Not instantaneously dropping then lifting the effect...

...as such, no problem with a character using their immunity to fatigue to throw off evil sorceries is fine, but this other stuff. Sorry, it's cheesy.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Funky Badger wrote:
The issue I have with the cycling is its a mechanistic trick of the system, and nothing to do with "the play"...

"The system" explicitly says that you can end and re-start rage any number of times withing the same combat.* Doing what the Core Rulebook says you can do is not a "trick".

Quote:
A babrarian coming out of rage is Slaine sitting down with his axe across his knees saying he did not think it too many. Not instantaneously dropping then lifting the effect...

It's great that you have a vivid mental image that helps you visualize game mechanics. However, when your visualization conflicts with how the game actually works, the rules trump your visualization. Failing to meet your own personal expectations does not make a PC illegal, cheesy, or anything else. It makes it a PC you don't like. Deal with it like an adult, accepting your different preferences instead of pretending that the other person is committing an offense by not sharing your factually incorrect understandings of core mechanics.

*:
Core rage rules wrote:
A barbarian cannot enter a new rage while fatigued or exhausted but can otherwise enter rage multiple times during a single encounter or combat.


Funky Badger is correct and that, imo, is the core of the problem with rage cycling.

Raging represents a fairly "realistic" concept that you go into a crazy berserking trance. It's equally "realistic" that you take a hit after having ended it. For game design purposes it also makes sense to put limitations on certain powers. There are 1/day powers and 3/day powers etc. etc.

Now weirdness ensues, because the interaction of these two things creates a concept that is entirely arbitrary. If you somehow become immune to fatigue then you can enter rage again after having left it, and use your 1/rage power AGAIN because it counts as a new rage.

I would rule against this as it doesn't make sense from a flavour standpoint. It's nonsensical.

If the player was really REALLY adamant about being able to use those 1/rage attacks, I'd just have them bound to die rolls, like dragon breath attacks. 1d4 rounds between uses.


Ganryu wrote:

Funky Badger is correct and that, imo, is the core of the problem with rage cycling.

Raging represents a fairly "realistic" concept that you go into a crazy berserking trance. It's equally "realistic" that you take a hit after having ended it. For game design purposes it also makes sense to put limitations on certain powers. There are 1/day powers and 3/day powers etc. etc.

Now weirdness ensues, because the interaction of these two things creates a concept that is entirely arbitrary. If you somehow become immune to fatigue then you can enter rage again after having left it, and use your 1/rage power AGAIN because it counts as a new rage.

I would rule against this as it doesn't make sense from a flavour standpoint. It's nonsensical.

If the player was really REALLY adamant about being able to use those 1/rage attacks, I'd just have them bound to die rolls, like dragon breath attacks. 1d4 rounds between uses.

I agree with you. But if they didn't intend the rage cycling thing, what about the 17th level class feature that gives you Tireless Rage?

The class came out before everything that lets you deal with fatigue, Oracles, Horizon Walkers, etc.

If it wasn't intended, what exactly is the reasoning? It's pretty hard to imagine they missed thinking of that combo when they wrote the class. Maybe 17th level was pretty far down the road for most games, but it seems screwy either way.

Dark Archive

Ssalarn wrote:
Dust Raven wrote:
Actually, you are allowed to drop Rage at the start of your turn, and not get "charged" that turn. So you could, at the start of combat, at the start of your turn, begin your Rage, and at the start of your next turn, end your Rage, and only have used up 1 turn of duration. Then, right after you drop out of Rage, you can enter a new Rage (using up 1 turn of duration), provided you can either rage while fatigued, or are for some reason not fatigued. So the cost is still 1 round per round.
Do you have a rules reference for this? Free actions can only be taken on your turn, so if you've started the turn Raging, you should already be spending that round. Stopping and then restarting would cost an additional round. I have been unable to find anything that says you can end your Rage at the start of your turn to avoid using up a round of rage that turn.

Not offhand, though if I dig a little I recall a few circumstances in which an action a character takes between turns is referred to as a "free action" as opposed to anything else. Kinda like an immediate action, but it takes the time of a free action. I'll look around and see what I can find.

EDIT: In the few minutes of looking, all I can find is Speaking. "In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn." This specifically calls out speaking, and nothing else, as a free action you can perform when it's not your turn, but it's a precedent.


Raging in PF is not a berserk trance. You cannot concentrate or use certain skills, bu you're still fully aware of everything and in total control of your mental faculties. You're never at risk of turning on an ally, you are not "crazed." That is more the wild rager archetype.

I've always viewed rage more as a channeled fury. Controlled, directed, used methodically like a tool.

But I realize there is only one true way of fluffing rage and mine is incorrect.
/sarcasm

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
StreamOfTheSky wrote:

Ending the rage at start of your next turn should not burn 2 rounds of rage. I realize RAW it does, but that's ridiculous and stupid. "1 round" is not "end of your turn." 1 round means cycling through the entire initiative count. If it is impossible to actually use rage in one round increments until down to your last round for the day, the ability itself is fundamentally flawed.

IMO, ending rage should be a non-action.

In any case, there is nothing wrong with this tactic. It is frankly the only reason to bother with most of the 1/rage powers, and even with it, many aren't worth picking up. This is the barbarian's single greatest "trick" or "combo" he has going for himself. It's peanuts compared to the bs spellcasters can pull out of their hats.

Yes, it is impossible to use rage in 1 round increment if you want to benefit from it during the off turn phase of the round. I think that if rage cycling is a intended feature, burning more rounds of rage when doing that is likewise intended.

Getting an advantage at a cost.


i don't agree that's the intent... and i'm sure that 99% of PFS groups don't play that way.
rage rounds are presented as being able to be spent on a round by round basis.
not that you are automatically on the hook for 2 rounds.
if that was intended, i'm sure it would have been highlighted more specifically.

i have no problem with rage cycling granting 'an advantage at a cost'.
that's been made clear: you aren't benefitting from half your rage class abilities (on/off turn).
if you tried to bypass that by spending free actions profusely, you would be spending 2x rage rounds.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sir Ophiuchus wrote:

Thing is, I have a Barbarian who's going for Oracle and Rage Prophet, and I genuinely can't think of many reasons for him to want to do this. He *can*, but why would he? Most of the 1/rage powers are really situational.

You can maybe get a +3 or +4 to one attack/round with it, with the right rage power, or confirm your crits reliably, but you should be hitting/confirming reliably anyway.

I mean, it's nice to know that I could spell sunder two spells in reasonably quick succession, if I ever had to do that. And maybe I could get an extra attack occasionally.

That's about it, actually.

Actually spell sunder is a combat maneuver, so he can make as many attempt as he has attacks, if he is willing to burn that many rounds of rage.

That mean that a high level barbarian has a very good chance to suppress or dispel 2-3 spells every round. A spellcaster losing 2-3 spells every round has little chances to survive.

Liberty's Edge

Dust Raven wrote:


In the few minutes of looking, all I can find is Speaking. "In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn." This specifically calls out speaking, and nothing else, as a free action you can perform when it's not your turn, but it's a precedent.

yes, a precedent for Free Actions not being able to be taken on your turn since they specifically have to call out speaking as an exception.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dust Raven wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Dust Raven wrote:
Actually, you are allowed to drop Rage at the start of your turn, and not get "charged" that turn. So you could, at the start of combat, at the start of your turn, begin your Rage, and at the start of your next turn, end your Rage, and only have used up 1 turn of duration. Then, right after you drop out of Rage, you can enter a new Rage (using up 1 turn of duration), provided you can either rage while fatigued, or are for some reason not fatigued. So the cost is still 1 round per round.
Do you have a rules reference for this? Free actions can only be taken on your turn, so if you've started the turn Raging, you should already be spending that round. Stopping and then restarting would cost an additional round. I have been unable to find anything that says you can end your Rage at the start of your turn to avoid using up a round of rage that turn.

Not offhand, though if I dig a little I recall a few circumstances in which an action a character takes between turns is referred to as a "free action" as opposed to anything else. Kinda like an immediate action, but it takes the time of a free action. I'll look around and see what I can find.

EDIT: In the few minutes of looking, all I can find is Speaking. "In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn." This specifically calls out speaking, and nothing else, as a free action you can perform when it's not your turn, but it's a precedent.

As far as I know it, it is the only precedent you can find.

It is clearly spelled as an exception.
Try searching more, I doubt you will find another example of a free action that can be done off turn.

Liberty's Edge

Quandary wrote:

i don't agree that's the intent... and i'm sure that 99% of PFS groups don't play that way.

rage rounds are presented as being able to be spent on a round by round basis.
not that you are automatically on the hook for 2 rounds.
if that was intended, i'm sure it would have been highlighted more specifically.

i have no problem with rage cycling granting 'an advantage at a cost'.
that's been made clear: you aren't benefitting from half your rage class abilities (on/off turn).
if you tried to bypass that by spending free actions profusely, you would be spending 2x rage rounds.

Effects with a duration of 1 round end just before the initiative count on which they began. You pretty much are "on the hook" for two rounds once you start raging, unless you run out of available rounds before your turn starts. Unless there's a specific exemption somewhere (which I'm thinking would have shown up by now if it existed) You can't rage cycle in a single round without either giving up the benefits and drawbacks of raging between your turns, or expending 2 rounds.


Which means rage is fundamentally flawed.

It's presented as if you can actually use it in increments of rounds, down to a singular round as the smallest unit of expenditure.

But RAW that is impossible to do.

This needs to be fixed. Independent of rage cycling (which doesn't need to be "fixed"), this is an intrinsic problem of the rage class feature itself.


@Ssalarn: I think you're missing my point. I, nor anybody here AFAIK, is disputing the RAW functionality there.
When I say 'I don't agree that's the intent', I'm saying exactly that, that I doubt this RAW functionality is intended.
As stated, Rage Rounds are presented as able to be spent in 1 round increments, and Ending or Not Ending your Rage Round prematurely is certainly not highlighted as crucial to whether you are on the hook for 2 Rage Rounds.

@Diego: Sunders use the Attack Action, so getting 2-3 per round is definitely not 'standard' practice.
Of course, you certainly can do one every round for as long as you are raging.
I would hardly be surprised if there isn't SOME way to bypass the Attack Action and Sunder via other attacks, but it's not standard.

Dark Archive

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

Which means rage is fundamentally flawed.

Agreed. Entering Rage should not force a character to commit 2 rounds of duration, especially since he has the option of not using one of those rounds if he exits rage at the start of a turn. RAW the only way to avoid paying the extra round of duration is to fall unconscious before the start of his next turn.

Though technically, RAW there is nothing that states the rounds of duration are treated as currency which may be spent at any rate greater than once per round. One could interpret this to mean that once you are considered raging for a round, you need not use up extra duration to exit and re-enter rage during the same round. Of course, RAW also does not prohibit you from treating rage duration as a currency you can spend at a rate greater than once per round, so...

Rage is broken. Grab the pieces you like and have as much fun as you can with them. :)


i believe it says when you use the action to enter rage, that a rage round is spent then and there.
the point about unconsciousness being the only way to avoid spending 2 rage rounds once your rage continues off your turn is pretty apt.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I didn't say it s "standard", please, don't put word in my mouth.
I did say that it can be done if you are willing to burn the needed rounds of rage and that it has a good chance of success.

15+caster level or CMD+5 generally isn't a particularly difficult target for a raging barbarian even after adding the -5 or -10 for a second or third attack.

If he is using 2 weapons it is even easier. Or, to make something even more outlandish: Sprint, Pounce, full attack, suppress or dispel a few defences of the spellcaster. As the spell sunder ability isn't affected by miss chance from magical or supernatural effects it is a great way to remove spell like blur, displacement or mirror image, walls that block movement and plenty of other effects.
Maybe it will not benefit directly the barbarian as he will have expended his attacks suppressing the defensive magic but his companions will have a "naked" target.


sorry if you felt i was doing that,
i was questioning whether what you described was possible by a 'standard' high level barbarian with spell sunder
('standard' given you didn't mention any other special abilities modifying sunder, etc)

Diego Rossi wrote:

Actually spell sunder is a combat maneuver, so he can make as many attempt as he has attacks, if he is willing to burn that many rounds of rage.

That mean that a high level barbarian has a very good chance to suppress or dispel 2-3 spells every round.

the suggestion that you are spell sundering 2-3 spells every round seemed a bit 'non standard',

considering that regardless of character level, sunder - using an attack action (standard action) - is normally 1/round...
again, that is barring additional special abilities that let you sunder 'in place of an attack' or whatever.
if you are interested in spell sundering lots of spells (or just sundering alot), that would be a great ability...
i'm not up to date on ALL the latest crunch stuff paizo has done, so I'm not sure if there IS any such ability...?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Let's compare 2 quotes:

"Starting a bardic performance is a standard action, but it can be maintained each round as a free action."

"A barbarian can enter rage as a free action. .... A barbarian can end her rage as a free action and is fatigued after rage ..."

There is a clear difference between the two abilities. While they both have to use a free action the bard can maintain his performance, the barbarian can end his rage.

I think it is an intended difference.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quandary wrote:
considering that regardless of character level, sunder - using an attack action (standard action) - is normally 1/round...
the PRD wrote:

Sunder

You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition (see Conditions). If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.

Just to be clear, Sunder is done in place of a normal melee attack, so if I was a level 16 fighter I could take 4 sunder attacks on my turn if I performed a full attack action with a melee weapon.


read up on attack action, under standard actions in combat chapter.
jason bulmahn posts on vital strike expound on some of the relevant rationale.
the in place of a melee attack wording indicates it uses the weapon bonuses...
WITHOUT the attack action wording, the melee attack wording would allow sunder with any melee attack...
but attack action is clearly stated.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You can sunder with any melee attack. The PRD rules for combat maneuvers even mention making them as part of an AOO. Here is the relevant text:

The PRD wrote:
When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.

Sunder falls into the category of can be performed as part of a full-attack action since full-attack is still an attack action. You could even sunder an opponents weapon when he provokes from you by standing up.

Could you please provide links to the discussion and rules you are citing?

51 to 100 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Rage cycling in PFS All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.