|
The new rule: "A barbarian may rage only when he is wearing no armor, light armor, or medium armor and not carrying a heavy load."
The requirements are the same as for Fast movement and similar in philosophy to the 3.5 monk's limitations: When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses the AC bonus, as well as the fast movement and flurry of blows abilities.
Flavour-wise, it makes sense to limit access to raging to relatively unencumbered and flexible warriors. The rule doesn't penalize barbarians.
It prevents fighters which rely on heavy armour from "dipping" into one level of barbarian.
Flavour-wise, it makes sense to limit access to raging to relatively unencumbered and flexible warriors. The rule doesn't penalize barbarians. It prevents fighters which rely on heavy armour from "dipping" into one level of barbarian.
I don't like this for 2 main reasons. Firstly, if a Fighter, or any other class wants to take a level in Barbarian, let them. They won't get all the rage powers and only a small pool of points. The Alpha 2 has fixed this as an issue. Secondly, there sill be times when your Barbarian needs to rage whilst encumbered some how. 2 Examples off the top of my head:
1) Barbarian caught by his enemies and put in the stocks/chained up/concrete overcoated or something. He's going to want to rage to escape. And, as a player, are you going to be happy with the response from your DM "Nope, sorry, you can't rage as the [situation] is too heavy for you." What about Hercules? What about Samson?
2) Barbarian is lifting a huge weight during a battle/round by round event. Like that scene in Thundercats when Panthro and Lion-O are holding back that landslide to save the village. Or perhaps your friend is trapped under a huge rock. Again, as a player, are you going to be happy with the response from your DM, saying you can't rage because the [X] is too heavy.
It's that primal rage that Barbarians tap into. Conan never grunts, sweats and heaves when there is nothing to wrestle/lift. Well maybe he grunts. :) (As an aside there are a lot of times when he's wearing heavy armor too.)
Also, how would the rule work if you lift something heavy whilst raging. "Oh, I'm sorry, now you've lifted the [X] you can't rage any more as it's too heavy for you". Funny, yes. Cartoonish, yes. Fun and balanced mechanic? No.
All, IMHO
Peace,
tfad
|
|
1) Barbarian caught by his enemies and put in the stocks/chained up/concrete overcoated or something. He's going to want to rage to escape. And, as a player, are you going to be happy with the response from your DM "Nope, sorry, you can't rage as the [situation] is too heavy for you." What about Hercules? What about Samson?
I don't think we should expand the suggested rule to situations which do not involve actual armour. A "heavy" situation is not always a heavy load. See http://www.d20srd.org/srd/carryingCapacity.htm
2) Barbarian is lifting a huge weight during a battle/round by round event. Like that scene in Thundercats when Panthro and Lion-O are holding back that landslide to save the village. Or perhaps your friend is trapped under a huge rock. Again, as a player, are you going to be happy with the response from your DM, saying you can't rage because the [X] is too heavy.Also, how would the rule work if you lift something heavy whilst raging. "Oh, I'm sorry, now you've lifted the [X] you can't rage any more as it's too heavy for you". Funny, yes. Cartoonish, yes. Fun and balanced mechanic? No.
Nothing in the suggested rule prevents the barbarian from raging (free action) and then tackling the weight. The rule would simlpy prevent already encumbered characters from raging.