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

101 to 137 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Andoran

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

I shared your conviction Quath, so, following Quandray comments, I did a serious search about this. There is a statement about Vital strike in which Jasom Bulman say that a attack action is a standard action. It seem a bit counter-intuitive to apply that rule to sunder but it is what we have.
I have seen several poster stating that sunder can be used multiple times in a round but no evidence changing Bulman ruling in that regard.

I have started a thread asking if someone has proof that isn't a standard action here. We will see if someone has something or if we are in error.

You can find a citation of Bullman post in the OP of the thread.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Vital strike says that "when you take the attack action..." and sunder says "as part of an attack action." The difference being that Vital strike references the attack action (the standard action) and sunder references any type of attack action (such as full attack, AoO's, and the standard attack action.)

I'll move to the other thread so this will be the last I post on the topic in this thread unless it is more relevant to rage cycling.

Osirion

Lab_Rat wrote:
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?

I don't have to set a cap of two free actions in general. I just have to cap the number of identical free actions.

This is using the same logic as banning a player from reciting the entire Gettysburg Address in one round by using multiple free speech actions.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ending sunder/attack action derail:
Jason Bulmahn, Lead Designer: "Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action."

There you have it: "attack action" is a type of standard action. This prevents combining an attack action with any other action (such as a full-attack action, charge, or different standard action). If you feel like explaining why you know better than the lead designer of the game, at least take it to a different thread.

Back to rage cycling - let's get one thing clear:

One of the premises put forth to support opposition to rage cycling is that "1/rage" powers are intended to be "1/combat". However, the Core rules for rage explicitly state that a barbarian can enter new rages any number of times per combat.* It's right there in black and white - the possibility of multiple rages per combat is the intent and the rule. Anyone with this notion that rage is intended to be 1/combat is objectively wrong.

With that in mind, the only issue with these various avenues to rage cycling is how efficiently you can do what the Core rules tell you that you can do. Rage cycling isn't doing something new that the Core rules didn't intend, it's making it more efficient. You could already go in and out of rage multiple times per combat - oracle dips and whatnot just remove the downtime in between. It's merely speeding up what you could already do.

So. "Rage cycling" (that is, entering multiple rages in one combat to get multiple uses of 1/rage powers) is Core intent. That's not even up for debate. So if you want to discuss what's intended and what's a loophole, keep in mind that you're only talking about ways to speed up a Core class feature. That's it. Not making something new, not some unforeseen phenomenon that the class was never intended to be capable of. Simply being more efficient.

So debate that. Everything else in this thread is just a demonstration of people being more interested in asserting moral superiority over others than in actually understanding how Core rules work.

*:
Since some of you may have missed it or are ignoring it, the CRB says this: "A barbarian cannot enter a new rage while fatigued or exhausted but can otherwise enter rage multiple times during a single encounter or combat."

Silver Crusade

Jiggy, if you only make a single attack in a round then that attack consumes a standard action.

It's not the other way around! If the argument was 'an attack action is a standard action, therefore any attack can only be taken as a standard action' were true, then it would be impossible to use a full attack action, take an AoO, attack at the end of a charge, or attack as a free action in the same round as casting a touch spell.

As Quath pointed out:-

'Vital strike says that "when you take the attack action..." and sunder says "as part of an attack action." The difference being that Vital strike references the attack action (the standard action) and sunder references any type of attack action (such as full attack, AoO's, and the standard attack action.)'

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

What part of "take it to another thread" was complicated?


Jiggy wrote:
One of the premises put forth to support opposition to rage cycling is that "1/rage" powers are intended to be "1/combat". However, the Core rules for rage explicitly state that a barbarian can enter new rages any number of times per combat.* It's right there in black and white - the possibility of multiple rages per combat is the intent and the rule. Anyone with this notion that rage is intended to be 1/combat is objectively wrong.

You're actually getting very close to the core problem here.

Imagine if you had a power that says that you can only use it once per combat. Now imagine you were a wizard who had this power. You used another spell to teleport to another plane of existance (now you're technically not in combat) and then teleport back a short time later. Now you've left combat and then entered combat again. You can use your once-per-combat ability again... Why? Because the limitation once-per-combat is pretty arbitrary, and there was a rules legal way to mess around with the definition of starting and ending combat.

Rage is directly related to this because we have a limitation, once-per-rage, and then we mess around with that limitation using a bizarre rule technicality in order to use it again.

My objection to rage cycling is that it is extremely gameist and is pretty much breaking the game itself. Not in terms of power, but in terms of how you player it. In my opinion, rage cycling is not rule-as-intended.

If I were a GM and you wanted to play a rage cycling barbarian, I would say that any 1/rage powers can be used with 1d4 turn intervals, much like dragon breath attacks. That would be more within the spirit of the game.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ganryu wrote:
Rage is directly related to this because we have a limitation, once-per-rage, and then we mess around with that limitation using a bizarre rule technicality in order to use it again.
Core Rulebook: Rage 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.

We're not talking about unclear rules from different parts of the book interacting in unexpected ways such that some creative interpretation lets you rage more than once per combat. We're talking about an ability going out of its way to specify that you can use it more than once per combat.

And ignoring rules you don't like doesn't make them disappear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

This falls into "I don't like it, and that means it needs to be fixed" area for some.

I think it's fine as is.


Jiggy wrote:
Ganryu wrote:
Rage is directly related to this because we have a limitation, once-per-rage, and then we mess around with that limitation using a bizarre rule technicality in order to use it again.
Core Rulebook: Rage 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.

We're not talking about unclear rules from different parts of the book interacting in unexpected ways such that some creative interpretation lets you rage more than once per combat. We're talking about an ability going out of its way to specify that you can use it more than once per combat.

And ignoring rules you don't like doesn't make them disappear.

That's still a rule technicality and my initial comparison still stands.

Teleporting out of combat is perfectly legal. It's obviously up to the gm in such a case to decide if the character is still in combat while not actually in it.

So when you teleport back, can you use your 1/combat power?

I'm not ignoring any rules. It doesn't matter if it's perfectly rules legal. I never disputed that. I dispute that it is being read as intended.

The 1/rage limitation is by itself already arbitrary, but it kindof makes sense. Even the rage rounds per day be argued to make sense because otherwise the barbarian would burn himself out. However the combined use of immunity-to-fatique and ending and restarting the rage simply does not make sense.

I would rather grant the barbarian infinite uses of 1/rage powers than I would permit a player to use rage cycling because rage cycling goes against what I believed the game is supposed to be. The problem isn't the power that rage cycling grants. The problem is the process to reach that power.


why doesn't it make sense? contrary to simply allowing infinite use of 1/rage powers,
rage cycling means that you are either giving up on half your rage abilities (on/off your turn),
OR spending double the rate of rage rounds (if allowed) to bypass that downside.
i'm done discussing this though, paizo is fine with this, it's pretty obvious to anybody who understands the rules,
all that's left is people who imagined the rules implied the game worked a certain way, when that was never true.


Jiggy wrote:
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.

** spoiler omitted **

Any chance you could be more patronising? Or indeed, point out anywhere else I'm playing the game wrong?

Thanks!


Artanthos wrote:
I don't have to set a cap of two free actions in general. I just have to cap the number of identical free actions.

I'm not sure if it's impossible to do, but somebody posted how it's definitely possible to rage cycle with a rule of 'only 1 Start Rage, only 1 End Rage'. Dropping and re-starting Rage is useful for other things as well, which I wouldn't want to impede. I still am curious what specific GM ruling re: Free Actions would be sufficient to prevent: "Double" Rage Cycling (to allow on+off turn Raging albeit at 2x Rage Round Cost).


Quandary wrote:

why doesn't it make sense? contrary to simply allowing infinite use of 1/rage powers,

rage cycling means that you are either giving up on half your rage abilities (on/off your turn),
OR spending double the rate of rage rounds (if allowed) to bypass that downside.
i'm done discussing this though, paizo is fine with this, it's pretty obvious to anybody who understands the rules,
all that's left is people who imagined the rules implied the game worked a certain way, when that was never true.

You're still looking at this from the power perspective, which is not the issue here. You're talking about the result, I'm talking about the path you have to walk to reach that result.

The real problem is how the rules interact and not the result of that interaction in terms of power gain or power loss.

Each step by itself is perfectly rules legal, but that doesn't change the nature of the interaction between these steps. My wizard example was an attempt to illustrate it.

I assume it boils down to people with different perspectives. I, personally, dislike gameist concepts and I'm more of a simulationist. For example an ability that says 1/day is quite gameist, because the decision to limit it to 1/day is arbitrary. What decides this? Why is this?

A decision to limit something to 1/combat is equally, if not even more, arbitrary, because what defines the end and beginning of combat? Day cycles are of equal length and they assume some form of rest, so a 1/day limitation kinda makes sense if you consider rest as a a part of it, but 1/combat? Maybe there's an assumption that the players rest for a short while after combat?

Quite possibly.

But this gets us back to the wizard example. If the wizard can teleport away from combat to some far away place, is he still in combat? He's not fighting anybody, and he's not interacting with the battle. If he suddenly were to teleport back into combat he'd be in combat again so it'd be perfectly rules legal to now give him the ability to recast any 1/combat abilities.

This is the very issue with rage cycling. It's dependant on rage rounds rather than some static "reliable" limitation like 1/day. The limitation of 1/rage is questionable by itself but it is in a way explained away by the rounds of fatigue that can be interpreted to be the rest period between rages.

By eliminating the fatigue problem you remove the only reliable explanation for why you can only use it once each rage. It's because you have to rest between them. If you suddenly no longer have to rest between rages there's no realistic reason why the barbarian would have to break the rage and restart it for it to be able to use the power again. It's like the wizard teleporting out of combat and back into it again to regain his 1/combat power.

My issue is purely with the flavour.

If I were to GM with a barbarian who plans to do this, I would give him two options:

1: If you gain immunity to fatique you also gain the ability to use 1/rage powers 3/day instead. Rage cycling would be banned.

2: If you gain immunity to fatigue I give you the option of spending an extra rage round to regain a use of a 1/rage power.

Notice that number 2 is functionally identical to some interpretation of rage cycling as given in this thread, but fluff wise it is entirely different.


that doesn't make sense. you AREN'T fatigued during rage. you can make use of MANY 1/rage powers within the same rage.

your whole wizard example is predicated on some imaginary 1/encounter ability: NOT A GOOD COMPARISON to this.

you're still ignoring the downsides to rage cycling as well,
as well as that EVERY VANILLA BARBARIAN DOES GET THIS ABILITY AT 17th LEVEL
(with the downsides of Rage Cycling if they choose to use it, NOT just 'all 1/rage powers become infinite')

Your last number 2 option doesn't have any fluff. I think you need to distinguish fluff from rules.

I don't understand why you refuse to consider the 'fluff' of Rage Cycling, somebody quickly stopping Rage and re-entering is akin to catching their breath... one catches one's breath because it helps one's physical capacity. How is having one's capacity to Rage and use 1/Rage Powers be refreshed by such an action (which has it's downsides) not in line with the concept of catching one's breath?

As far as I can tell, it comes down to that everybody who dislikes this essentially 'wouldn't have thought of using the strategy themself' when they first read the Rage rules. Too bad, but that doesn't convince anybody of anything.


Quandary wrote:
that doesn't make sense. you AREN'T fatigued during rage. you can make use of MANY 1/rage powers within the same rage.

Of course it doesn't make much sense. 1/x limitations don't make sense in the first place.

Quandary wrote:
your whole wizard example is predicated on some imaginary 1/encounter ability: NOT A GOOD COMPARISON to this.

It's a perfect comparison.

It's the same issue here and I explained exactly why we're dealing with the same thing.

Quandary wrote:

you're still ignoring the downsides to rage cycling as well,

as well as that EVERY VANILLA BARBARIAN DOES GET THIS ABILITY AT 17th LEVEL
(with the downsides of Rage Cycling if they choose to use it, NOT just 'all 1/rage powers become infinite')

I don't give a crap if there are downsides. It's not about power or the lack of it.

Quandary wrote:
Your last number 2 option doesn't have any fluff. I think you need to distinguish fluff from rules.

The fluff can be: Rage rounds take "rage". If you use powers you expend those rounds faster. Makes perfect sense.

Quandary wrote:
I don't understand why you refuse to consider the 'fluff' of Rage Cycling, somebody quickly stopping Rage and re-entering is akin to catching their breath... one catches one's breath because it helps one's physical capacity. How is having one's capacity to Rage and use 1/Rage Powers be refreshed by such an action (which has it's downsides) not in line with the concept of catching one's breath?

This is the first time in this thread you make sense. It's still very gameist, but atleast an attempt at a fluff explanation. In fact, given the proper bribery I might fly with this as a GM. I'd still prefer my two options above, though.

Quandary wrote:
As far as I can tell, it comes down to that everybody who dislikes this essentially 'wouldn't have thought of using the strategy themself' when they first read the Rage rules. Too bad, but that doesn't convince anybody of anything.

No that has nothing to do with it, and you just proved it because you managed provide a fluff explanation for it that actually kinda made sense. It's all about the fluff. I don't care about the rules.

Andoran

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

What Ganryu is saying is that he don't like the player to have a on/off switch with which he control his rage like it was a light bulb. He find that the style of play based on this gaming tactic distasteful, not for the power but because the player is acting like the character was only a piece of machinery, without trying to interpret him.
It is simply a matter of preference. I see why he would offer an alternate option to the on/off switch and even appreciate the idea, but people that prefer strict adherence to RAw will not agree with him.


Quote:
The fluff can be: Rage rounds take "rage". If you use powers you expend those rounds faster.

Rage Powers worked exactly like this in the Beta (or Alpha?) of PRPG. It was specifically changed to not work like that.

(I was actually in the camp that didn't have any problem with that functionality, but others didn't like tracking a VARIABLE cost per round)

I'm glad you like my fluff explanation... (it seemed pretty obvious to me, but we all have our 'can't see forest for the trees' moments)
I'm pretty sure I've even mentioned it before, but I probably wasn't emphasizing it, and it got lost in the chatter...

Andoran

@ Quandary
The idea of the Barbaian taking a deep breath and surging back into a powerful attack or maneuver was pretty much exactly how I envisioned Rage cycling. It also works well with the double round expenditure, reflecting that while you've broken momentum and revitalized your Rage, it came at the cost of burning into your physical resources that much more quickly.


wow! all that this moment needs now is a shout out from AM BARBARIAN!


Diego Rossi wrote:


It is simply a matter of preference. I see why he would offer an alternate option to the on/off switch and even appreciate the idea, but people that prefer strict adherence to RAw will not agree with him.

It seems that in this case even people who generally look for rules as intended rather than strict RAW may not agree with him. ;) "Strict RAW" is often thrown about with the unwritten implication that it is opposed to the rules as intended.

But the line about multiple rages per encounter is not a technicality (as described earlier), it's a straigtforward basic rule. If it were a technicality, that would imply it was couched in obscure or confusing language and meaningful only to a specialist. In fact, it is in straightforward English, right smack dab in the basic Rage rules, with wording that leaves no reasonable doubt as to its meaning.

I mean, really, you can hardly get plainer. Let's not pretend there is any ambiguity in RAI here.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the absence of an author/dev stating otherwise, I'm pretty sure RAI is that you never use more than 1 round of rage duration per round, that you can start a new rage in the same round the previous rage ended (and vice versa) provided you are not fatigued/exhausted or can enter a rage while affected by those conditions, and you may not enter a new rage more than once per round.

If you are immune to fatigue, or are not fatigued at the end of a rage, this means any once per rage abilities are effectively once per round.

I'm pretty sure this is how it's supposed to work, and I'm okay with that.


I agree that is RAI.

But I thought PFS ran on strict, nazi-like, immune to basic common sense and reasoning, lalalalala-ICan'tHearYou! RAW.

:p

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

I agree that is RAI.

But I thought PFS ran on strict, nazi-like, immune to basic common sense and reasoning, lalalalala-ICan'tHearYou! RAW.

:p

No, that's a myth spread by those who think they should be allowed to ban entire classes, add so-called "circumstance" penalties to actions done by PCs they don't like, add/modify/substitute monsters in an encounter to make it "more fun" (even if it means a TPK that shouldn't have happened), etc.

Some GMs want to run it like a home game, then enough complaints happen (the above list is real, not made-up) that the campaign coordinator has to step in and start a thread titled "Do not encourage cheating" (addressed at GMs), then people start throwing out terms like how you described it (also with references to "straight jackets", "video games", and "robots").

Truth is PFS GMs are supposed to interpret things intelligently, but also fairly/impartially instead of according to their own preferences. Some have trouble with the former, others with the latter. It's awfully telling, though, to see which side has b****ed loudly enough to produce a bad reputation for the other side, don't you think?

Andoran

Dust Raven wrote:

In the absence of an author/dev stating otherwise, I'm pretty sure RAI is that you never use more than 1 round of rage duration per round, that you can start a new rage in the same round the previous rage ended (and vice versa) provided you are not fatigued/exhausted or can enter a rage while affected by those conditions, and you may not enter a new rage more than once per round.

If you are immune to fatigue, or are not fatigued at the end of a rage, this means any once per rage abilities are effectively once per round.

I'm pretty sure this is how it's supposed to work, and I'm okay with that.

I agree with everything except your very first statement about not burning multiple rage rounds when same-round cycling. I believe this is a planned and intended consequence of Rage cycling (an opinion shared by our local Venture Captain and several contributors I've spoken to).

As I think about it, there's probably no reason you couldn't Rage cycle multiple times in a single round either, though I can't think of too many ways that would benefit you (a couple maybe).


I think since rage is measured in rounds, the smallest singular measure of time for a rage is one round. And therefore you cannot use 1/rage powers more than once per round.

Then again, I also think "1 round" of rage should mean "1 round" and if people are going to toss that aside in favor of stupid RAW, why should common sense apply to the above, either? O_o

Andoran

I personally don't have any problem with someone burning multiple rounds to achieve a greater effect. I think it's RAW and I think it is a pretty good representation of someone burning through their physical resources more rapidly to achieve a greater result, like a boxer throwing a flurry, or a docker carrying 6 boxes in two trips instead of carrying them one at a time. They might finish faster than the guy who conserves his energy, but they'll ultimately probably spend just as much (or more) of their stamina doing it.


Has nothing to do with fps but I can see why people have a hard time envisioning someone dropping rage and restarting it in a heartbeat.

What I like is the rage cycling without fatigue immunity the scarred rager can use.
He rages during his turn and drops it at the end of his turn.
Then he's fatigued for one round, which ends just before his next turn, so he can restart rage then.

I can very much see an angry guy using his anger for his swings at his enemy and then try to regain his brath till he once more attacks.

What I like best about this kind of rage cycling is that it opens up possibilities the other form does not. Like os immidiate action spells when it's not your turn. Or free action spell before and/or after you rage during your turn.
Something like timely inspiration comes to mind for a Barbarian with bard dip.

But the rules allow all forms of rage cycling, has was shown here it doesn't break anything so I'd rather allow that than some other shenanigans proposed on the messageboards here.

Grand Lodge

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

I agree that is RAI.

But I thought PFS ran on strict, nazi-like, immune to basic common sense and reasoning, lalalalala-ICan'tHearYou! RAW.

:p

You say that like it's a bad thing!

:p

Ssalarn wrote:


I agree with everything except your very first statement about not burning multiple rage rounds when same-round cycling. I believe this is a planned and intended consequence of Rage cycling (an opinion shared by our local Venture Captain and several contributors I've spoken to).

As I think about it, there's probably no reason you couldn't Rage cycle multiple times in a single round either, though I can't think of too many ways that would benefit you (a couple maybe).

As far as RAI vs RAW... a round is a round is a round. A round is never 2 rounds. Not being able to enter a range more than once per round falls under GM fiat of restricting free actions. When I run a table for PFS, this interpretation of what I believe is RAI falls under table variation, but technically my interpretation also adheres to RAW.

I also think it's balanced and fair, but that's just my opinion.


I'd also just like to point out that the rules support being able to burn extra rounds of rage as a resource, given that multiple rage powers and several prestige class abilities let you do just that.

Qadira

Personally I think my only possible issue with rage cycling would be the on/off free actions being right next to each other (which does smack a lot of just being a continuous rage), but... forcing the Barbarian to split those two free actions apart would just lead to unnecessary 5ft steps, droping items as a different free action between the two, and other silliness, so... just let 'em rage cycle and be done with it. The post up-thread describing the rage cycling as a literal 'quick pause for breath' I think is an excellent way to visualise it - and once I can visualise it, the mechanical tactic doesn't seem anywhere near as 'cheesy' to me as it otherwise might have.


I think that it is worth bringing up, in case someone hasn't, there are NPCs and villains who rage cycle in their tactic sheets. The most notable is a Barbarian in the NPC Codex, granted he's at level 17 or 18.

Osirion

Funky Badger wrote:
Rage cycling: cheesy, and I wouldn't allow it. The powers are clearly meant to be 1/combat.

I would rule the barbarian could enter rage once per round and leave rage once per round. (Well, leave rage twice if he started the round raging and wanted to use two abilities that terminated rage.)

If the barbarian wants to drop their off-hand item and start nocking arrows while yelling a warning at same time, go for it.

Silver Crusade

This conversation was two years old...and here you go poking the sleeping giant.

Shadow Lodge

From the various notes to self by EvilPaladin, or why I am posting in this thread:
*Make the will save to not poke the sleeping giant.
*Make the Will Save to NOT Poke the Sleeping Giant!
*MAKE THE WILL SAVE TO NOT POKE THE SLEEPING GIANT!

*walks past sleeping giant*
*pulls out poking stick*
"Am I forgetting something?"

Really, I don't see any problem with rage cycling. The ability is far from OP, and really is just martial and synergistic with class features [which almost never happens]. You must expend resources that could be spent doing things that actually help you do damage or take damage instead of be able to use this ability a bit more, and requires you to take 1/rage rage powers[most of which are meh]. It also isn't all that much of a "cheese" issue either, as although it goes against intent a bit and clearly is controversial, it also isn't any ability that will unbalance the game or make other characters feel less effective. It does encourage a player to use tactics however, as rage cycling is something you have to be careful about. If you are leaving rage each round, you can't use the HP you get from Con each round because you lose it each round. You also either burn through rage quicker[may seem pointless, but I have seen full Barbarians and full Bloodragers run out of rage at levels 6-10 in PFS before] or don't gain your bonuses to AoO's or Saves as you aren't raging out-of-turn.


ErrantPursuit wrote:
This conversation was two years old...and here you go poking the sleeping giant.

Or restarting the cycle of rage....

Grand Lodge

As a PFS Gm I have run a barbarian that rage cycled. She used it for a few basic things:

Turning off rage so she could be the target of a readied spell.

Unexpected Strike Recycling

She did how discover one problem with rage cycling that I pointed out to her, if you are using the normal barbarian rage you lose HP each time rage shuts off, so at level 8 your hp drop by 16, unless you increase CON further. Keep an eye out for those circumstances because a barbarian could easily drop rage and be unconscious rather than going back into rage. Being low on hp actually prevented her from rage cycling during several fights in one scenario.

101 to 137 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.