Hey there!
I think I read about a medicus from around you. ;)
Hmm. I think you might be right.
Since CON is also about vitality and resistance against poison and deseases, I wonder why raging should help resisting that.
I would prefer a STR boost and a damage reduction instead.
But I fear this wouldn't make it because of the allmighty BWC.
|
I agree with this assessment simply because in the games I've played once a barbarian is worried about dying if they get hit (0 hit points, stop raging, lose +Con bonus, die immediately), they stop using the power. The thing is, I'm afraid that just turning the bonus from a +Con to a set of enhancements that mimic +Con isn't really the best way to handle it. In the end it's the same thing, and would be better served by just saying "hit points gained through the bonus Constitution are treated as temporary hit points and are lost first when the rage has ended."
I wouldn't mind seeing part of the damage taken turned into subdual damage, or something of the sort, but the biggest thing is that a -2 AC and the fatigue doesn't really cut it for downsides as far as I'm concerned. Rage never really felt like a rage before, and I'd like to see something with bigger highs and bigger lows (but not so low that it means insta-death).
I explain myself, the increased CON is the biggest cause of mortality among barbarians, more than the very adversaries, and much more in high levels.
I agree with this assessment simply because in the games I've played once a barbarian is worried about dying if they get hit (0 hit points, stop raging, lose +Con bonus, die immediately), they stop using the power.
That's a strange way of looking at things. If your raging barbarian is taking X pts of damage and then dying when he comes out of rage, surely the cause of death is the X pts of damage, not the rage. Rage is prolonging his life, not shortening it! How would it help his survival to stop using rage?
|
That's a strange way of looking at things. If your raging barbarian is taking X pts of damage and then dying when he comes out of rage, surely the cause of death is the X pts of damage, not the rage. Rage is prolonging his life, not shortening it! How would it help his survival to stop using rage?
Agreed, I just don't understand where the OP is coming from, because without the rage he just woulda dropped sooner.
|
I fully agree, and have made the same suggestion.
When you rage, and you get 'extra hit points', they're almost not worth considering. If you go below your 'normal hit point total', even though you're raging, you're going to die if you stop raging.
The problem is two-fold. First, the Sage has declared that you don't stop raging just because you're unconscious. They did that to keep barbarains from dying all the time. This seems strange and doesn't fit my concept of a rage.
Secondly, the PC has an interest in keeping his character alive for many reasons. When he goes below his 'full normal' hit points, but he still has a significant chunk from rage, it wouldn't fit the concept of rage to stop fighting. Thus, the way the hit points are given, it encourages a player to play the concept poorly.
Giving temporary hit points that are lost first solves both of those problems.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Rage is prolonging his life, not shortening it! How would it help his survival to stop using rage?
Agreed, I just don't understand where the OP is coming from, because without the rage he just woulda dropped sooner.
Rage is like "Diehard", that ridiculous feat that allows your PC to keep acting when you're at negative hitpoints. They keep your Barbarian up and fighting, accumulating more hits, and taking more damage, when a normal body would have the sense to lie down and try to stabilize.
Until the Sage came out with a rules clarification, most DMs ended a Barbarian's rage when the character fell unconscious. This almost always killed a Barbarian of at least 5th Level.
Hmm. You made me think about it again.
Back in the (good old) AD&D2nd times, a raging character lost the knowledge of his actuall hit points.
The DM just said stuff like: you were hit hard but don't feel much pain...
I think this might be the way to go.
As soon as a character starts raging, he tells the DM his actual HPs and from then the DM secretly applies the damage.
... Yes I think I will add this back again into my rules.
|
|
Until the Sage came out with a rules clarification, most DMs ended a Barbarian's rage when the character fell unconscious. This almost always killed a Barbarian of at least 5th Level.
(Edit)
I'm an idiot, I missed the post one higher explaining the sage advice. I do have to agree with the previous poster though, letting individuals rage even when unconscious doesn't fit my concept of rage. I do like the idea of taking away their hit points though and taking control of them myself!
The problem is two-fold. First, the Sage has declared that you don't stop raging just because you're unconscious. They did that to keep barbarains from dying all the time. This seems strange and doesn't fit my concept of a rage.
In Pathfinder, it looks like you have to make a conscious decision to keep raging. So there's no more "sleep-raging" (as per the Sage).
Secondly, the PC has an interest in keeping his character alive for many reasons. When he goes below his 'full normal' hit points, but he still has a significant chunk from rage, it wouldn't fit the concept of rage to stop fighting. Thus, the way the hit points are given, it encourages a player to play the concept poorly.
This part I understand, but I don't necessarily think it's the responsibility of the rules to make every concept viable. For instance, if I have a paladin who refuses to retreat in the face of evil, that doesn't necessitate a change in the rules to keep me alive when I do so. Similarly, if I have a barbarian who fights on where a normal man would die, kept alive only by adrenaline, it doesn't mean that the rules have to change to make this a viable long-term concept. If you want a character who is dangerously reckless in battle, that's fine -- but don't expect it to be "fake danger".
All of this is just my opinion, of course.
|
The problem is two-fold. First, the Sage has declared that you don't stop raging just because you're unconscious. They did that to keep barbarains from dying all the time. This seems strange and doesn't fit my concept of a rage.In Pathfinder, it looks like you have to make a conscious decision to keep raging. So there's no more "sleep-raging" (as per the Sage).
Secondly, the PC has an interest in keeping his character alive for many reasons. When he goes below his 'full normal' hit points, but he still has a significant chunk from rage, it wouldn't fit the concept of rage to stop fighting. Thus, the way the hit points are given, it encourages a player to play the concept poorly.This part I understand, but I don't necessarily think it's the responsibility of the rules to make every concept viable. For instance, if I have a paladin who refuses to retreat in the face of evil, that doesn't necessitate a change in the rules to keep me alive when I do so. Similarly, if I have a barbarian who fights on where a normal man would die, kept alive only by adrenaline, it doesn't mean that the rules have to change to make this a viable long-term concept. If you want a character who is dangerously reckless in battle, that's fine -- but don't expect it to be "fake danger".
All of this is just my opinion, of course.
110% agreed.
The problem is that while you might not like the idea of "Fake Danger", a lot of us don't like the idea of "Fake Hitpoints".
The hitpoints gained from Raging are a fake out. You can't use them like normal hitpoints (because they will always, no matter what, go away later), so you can't play Rage like you would normally.
Let me put it this way:
How often have you seen a Raging character in ANY media other than D&D do anything other than go all out attack and not care that he gets hit?
Now.. how often do you see Raging characters OUTRIGHT DIE after their rage ends? Not fall unconscious.. not be "really really tired". I'm talking about DEAD. Ex-Barbarian. Gone to Valhalla or Tartarus or wherever... Soul-Be-Gone DEAD.
Honestly, I can't think a time that has EVER happened outside of D&D.
And yet... a Barbarian in D&D played in that manner would die nearly EVERY time unless he has frantic healing done.
...
How about a compromise?
If the Barbarian would have died from losing the Con from Raging, he instead is unconscious (regardless of feats) stabilized at -9.
He could easily die again the very next hit, but he'd at least be given the chance to go down, unconscious and be left alone as his enemies go after different targets, or be captured, etc.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
How about a compromise?If the Barbarian would have died from losing the Con from Raging, he instead is unconscious (regardless of feats) stabilized at -9.
I like that, but, heck, if the Barbarian has the Diehard feat, then, sure, keep him conscious at -9 hp if that's what he wants. Bleeding from massive wounds, fatigued, numbed and weakened, if he wants to attack one last time and likely kill himself, whoop!
|
|
I like that, but, heck, if the Barbarian has the Diehard feat, then, sure, keep him conscious at -9 hp if that's what he wants. Bleeding from massive wounds, fatigued, numbed and weakened, if he wants to attack one last time and likely kill himself, whoop!
How about a compromise?If the Barbarian would have died from losing the Con from Raging, he instead is unconscious (regardless of feats) stabilized at -9.
The classic example of this is Boramir in The Lord of the Rings. When the Urik-Hai attacks the Fellowship he struggles to defend his companions. Even though he is struck by so many arrows that a porcupine would be jealous, he continues to fight even though he knows that he will die from his wounds.
I really didn't think of Boromir as a Rager.
Rather, that scene really just shows a cinematic thing that isn't easily replicated in D&D: dying but can still deliver lines and wait to die in the arms of someone.
If you want to use Boromir as the example here.. then you'd be looking at giving anyone and everyone the current Rage mechanic when they decide to go fight to the death, just so they can hold off death for a cinematic period of time.
It doesn't feel like the Rage a Barbarian has though, and that's kind of the point.
|
|
There are celtic and nordic legends of warriors who, after they defeated all their enemies, suddenly realized they were dead. So, the characters don't die after they rage, they fight on after the have already died. That is what rage is all about, disregard for your own life and safety. I actually like the rules as they reflect the berserkers of legend quite well. As of historical figures, you could view the legend Klaus Stoertebecker's execution as an example of a raging characters (it seems that he was vulnerable against trip attempts, though). It's the cinematic archetype of the character who just doesn't die until he knows his friends are save.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I really didn't think of Boromir as a Rager.
Rather, that scene really just shows a cinematic thing that isn't easily replicated in D&D: dying but can still deliver lines and wait to die in the arms of someone.
If you want to use Boromir as the example here.. then you'd be looking at giving anyone and everyone the current Rage mechanic when they decide to go fight to the death, just so they can hold off death for a cinematic period of time.
It doesn't feel like the Rage a Barbarian has though, and that's kind of the point.
Boromir = Ranger with diehard feat and a lot of Action Points.
There, solved that one :-)
And yes I agree, Rage HP should come off first. Sleep raging is silly (sorry Sage)
|
|
What about an idea like making the Barbarian lose his extra HP at a certain rate per round. Instead of dropping dead immediately after raging, he realizes he's hurt and drops dead 5 seconds later.
In Pathfinder the duration of the rage isn't fixed. So, when a barbarian would die if his rage ended, he might better not let it end. Also, in Pathfinder there are more options to heal the party than in 3.5. The clerics Channelling ability is a great tool to keep the barbarian alive. If the barbarian doesn't want to die, he should just let his rage end when his hitpoints would be in the negatives without rage. It's not that difficult anymore. He can even use rage points to heal himself if he has taken renewed vigor, so the barbarian mortality rate shouldn't be that high anymore. Also, spells like breath of life are a good way of stopping a barbarian from dying.
|
|
How often have you seen a Raging character in ANY media other than D&D do anything other than go all out attack and not care that he gets hit?
Now.. how often do you see Raging characters OUTRIGHT DIE after their rage ends? Not fall unconscious.. not be "really really tired". I'm talking about DEAD. Ex-Barbarian. Gone to Valhalla or Tartarus or wherever... Soul-Be-Gone DEAD.
Umm... this is a fairly common literary twist. It doesn't usually happen to primary characters because that shortens the story but it's not an unheard of end.
And yet... a Barbarian in D&D played in that manner would die nearly EVERY time unless he has frantic healing done.
Frantic post combat healing is often part of literary heroics. Often requiring days of recovery.
The EFFECT of the Sage Advice that rage HP remain until the rage runs out works quite well actually. Obviously the idea that you can rage while unconscious is silly but the idea that a barbarian's body is resilient for some time after he rages isn't.
-- Dennis
Ok, I'm confused.
You are a player. You keep track of your own HP, unless your DM has some odd houserule.
You know that Raging gives you X "extra hp" so to speak.
Now, if you do not want to use those HP, then get your butt out of combat when you get close to that threshold. Period.
There is no need to "rule away" the extra HP. They are a bonus. A freebie. If you do not want to use them then get your character out of danger before they are used up. I fail to see the problem here.
If you take away those "free hp" then the barbarian dies, even while raging, if they hit their HP. Period.
The current system gives them a small window to keep fighting when, otherwise, they'd just be dead. True, they better take at least *some* of that free time to quaff a potion or beg a heal or something,- but it's time that raging gives them that they'd not otherwise have had.
The way it exists currently is just fine. If you don't want to take advantage of the HP it gives you, then get out of combat a little sooner rather than a little later.
-S
I would just like an option for the barbarian not to be forced to continue to rage after the battle has ended just to be able to stay alive. I would rather he be able to just stop raging and collapse when there are no more enemies rather than continue screaming and frothing at the mouth while downing a few potions of cure light wounds.
The current system gives them a small window to keep fighting when, otherwise, they'd just be dead. True, they better take at least *some* of that free time to quaff a potion or beg a heal or something,- but it's time that raging gives them that they'd not otherwise have had.
The way it exists currently is just fine. If you don't want to take advantage of the HP it gives you, then get out of combat a little sooner rather than a little later.
-S
Otherwise, they would probably be unconscious most of the time.
How many times have people seen enemies attack the a creature just because they were still standing? If they fell down they would just walk over the body to block the healer easy access to the body without putting himself in a weak position?
I don't want my barbarians to be more concerned about the wounds they are taking than the fighters. "Barbarian will go down if he takes two more hits. WITHDRAW!" vs. "Fighter will go down if he takes three more hits. STAND YOUR GROUND!"
The hitpoints gained from Raging are a fake out. You can't use them like normal hitpoints (because they will always, no matter what, go away later), so you can't play Rage like you would normally.
Let me put it this way:
How often have you seen a Raging character in ANY media other than D&D do anything other than go all out attack and not care that he gets hit?
I agree that the hit points are a "fake out" if you don't have a cleric or healing potion on standby.
But arguments about "you don't see X in books, movies, etc." don't impress me much. D&D wizards and clerics both fail the "books & movies" test spectacularly, but I don't have a problem with them. The fact is that D&D often involves getting beaten to a pulp, running away, resting, and coming back the next day. It doesn't matter whether you're a barbarian, a paladin, a cleric, or whatever -- the built-in assumption in the game is that you have to retreat and rest at some point or you'll die. I agree that it doesn't strike me as particularly heroic, but it's part of the game.
At any rate, Pathfinder has a barbarian ability that gives some healing; you could always use that if you think you're about to die post-rage.
|
|
Ok, I'm confused.
You are a player. You keep track of your own HP, unless your DM has some odd houserule.
You know that Raging gives you X "extra hp" so to speak.
Now, if you do not want to use those HP, then get your butt out of combat when you get close to that threshold. Period.
There is no need to "rule away" the extra HP. They are a bonus. A freebie. If you do not want to use them then get your character out of danger before they are used up. I fail to see the problem here.
The problem many of us have though is that this is no longer indicative of raging. If my barbarian is frothing at the mouth making a bloody path through fallen opponents, but taking damage that may eventually kill him, he shouldn't have to think "oh crap, I'm going to die in four rounds when my rage ends, runaway!!!!!!" That is no longer a rage, that is a character with a bit more strength and the same mental facilities fighting opponents the same way he did before. All I'm arguing is that being at 14 hit points remaining should not mean you're instantly dead 2 rounds later when the rage ends just because you're about to lose 16 "fake temporary hit points."
The problem is that there is a difference between raging and when it ends falling on the battlefield bloodied and dying of exhaustion and being just plain old dead. One is fun for characters and allows them to act as if you would imagine in a rage, the other turns barbarians into sniveling scardy-cats who run away when they have 20 hit points left. I like the -9 hit point but stabilized option, I like the idea of taking away the ability to count hit points from the player but leaving their total the same, I like the idea of giving them temporary hit points that go away first, I just don't like the concept of insta-death.
|
|
The problem is that there is a difference between raging and when it ends falling on the battlefield bloodied and dying of exhaustion and being just plain old dead. One is fun for characters and allows them to act as if you would imagine in a rage, the other turns barbarians into sniveling scardy-cats who run away when they have 20 hit points left.
Again, the sage advice ruling while it seems a bit silly thematically it works in exactly the way you describe. In Pathfinder a barbarian can continue to "rage" as long as he has rage points remaining even if he is unconscious. It would be nice to see something to this effect in the rules but if it's omitted that's how I will DM it.
The heroic barbarian fights until he collapses, he's bleeding and any normal man would be dead but his body continues to fight death tooth and nail. Without intervention he will soon die...
As for how big a problem this is... I suppose it depends on how often your nearly kill your players because it's only an issue when the character takes enough damage that would kill the equivalent fighter.
-- Dennis
The Barbarian, like everyone else, has to be conscious of his HP total. Period. Removing this option /removes an option/. It doesn't actually change combat, except that instead of the barbarian choosing to push forward knowing he will die but can take out the BBEG in the process, he instead just.. dies.
You say you are worried that now he has to think about retreating-
I say at least he has the capacity for thought. Under your scenario instead of moving back to get healed since he's in the area of his temporary HP- he is just dead on the ground, doing no one any good.
I prefer to have the option: When I get close to, or am in the "red" so to speak, i can decide: pull back or push forward. I may die pushing forward- but that is what heroic is all about.
Again- if you don't like using the Extra hp then *do not use them*. But there is no need for you to remove the option for those barbarians who choose to use the buffer.
-S
|
|
The Barbarian, like everyone else, has to be conscious of his HP total. Period. Removing this option /removes an option/. It doesn't actually change combat, except that instead of the barbarian choosing to push forward knowing he will die but can take out the BBEG in the process, he instead just.. dies.
But this is not the case. Take the Pain Editor for Shadowrun (something I'm intimately familiar with because of my years as a Shadowrun GM). The item provides a +1 to wil, -1 to int, but more importantly it prevents all the penalties associated with being wounded (something that can royally mess one up in Shadowrun). The real penalty though is that the character has to turn over his wound track to the GM. I've seen it used twice on characters by two different players and in both instances, the moment they turned control of how badly they were wounded to the GM they acted as if raged. They would charge into combat, take crazy risks they might not have attempted otherwise, and didn't pay attention to their wounds beyond the occasional check of "how much blood do I have on myself." Although they both fell in combat to a deadly wound each on at least one occasion, neither of them died because they received adequate medical attention after they went down. I've watched the same player pussy foot around in combat as a barbarian because he was worried of outright dying if his hit points got to low. So I can attest from personal experience that removing the option can help and absolutely does not make people play barbarians refuse to push forward.
|
|
I really didn't think of Boromir as a Rager.
Rather, that scene really just shows a cinematic thing that isn't easily replicated in D&D: dying but can still deliver lines and wait to die in the arms of someone.
If you want to use Boromir as the example here.. then you'd be looking at giving anyone and everyone the current Rage mechanic when they decide to go fight to the death, just so they can hold off death for a cinematic period of time.
It doesn't feel like the Rage a Barbarian has though, and that's kind of the point.
I was actually referring to the Diehard feat in this instance.
This particular feature is what has kept most of our group from ever playing a Barbarian. The Dwarven Defender has a similar mechanic. A first level class feature that can kill you is not attractive.
I like the idea of a frothing-at-the-mouth raging barbarian wading through his enemies, only to collapse at the end. But must the collapse be death?
We developed a house rule to make the temporary hit points like any other and come off the top. But when the rage ends, the barbarian suffers an equal amount of non-lethal damage, often knocking him out, but never just killing him.
Sure its heroic to drive your character into a death-pitch fight, but as a basis for the character class? RAW, a barbarian would never survive to high levels, unless he did the very un-barbarian thing of running away when hits were low or crawl whining to the cleric for healing.
-Jack
|
|
The rules can be changed.
There is a vision for Pathfinder. The rules can support that vision. The rules regarding barbarian rage hit points does not seem to support that vision. Therefore, the rule should be changed.
A barbarian of 10th level gains a +4 to Con, gaining 20 hit points. These hit points will disappear after the rage. So, to make the math easy, let's assume he has 100 hit points at 10th level. When he rages he goes from 100 hit points to 120 hit points. When he takes 100 hit points of damage, he feels fine. He has 20 hit points left over. When his rage ends, he will lose 20 hit points and go to -20. This means he should be dead.
Now, some people on this thread have proposed that when a barbarian gets to 20 hit points, he should not continue to attack. If the character values his life, he should withdraw, drink some healing potions, or beg from healing from the cleric. These same people seem to fail to understand the concept of Rage. A raging barbarian should attack somebody. It is no wonder that the Frenzied Berserker is likely to attack friends if no enemies are left. A raging barbarian that withdraws from combat, drinks healing potions, or begs for healing isn't just failing to be heroic - he's metagaming in a major way. And that isn't fun for the player and it isn't fun for the DM, and it isn't fun for the group. The game is in large part about building a narrative. And a narrative of barbarians who continue raging while they flee from concept is not the kind of narrative anyone should be trying to make.
Thus, the rule needs to change.
A barbarian in rage should not be afraid of combat. A barbarian shouldn't be expected to die after every fight beginning at around 5th level. The player has an obligation to try to survive because the narrative over 10 levels has proven his importance to the story. Losing a player character without a narrative reason is bad for the game. It is also bad for the player. Spending time waiting for a resurrection is not fun. Spending time making up a new character while the rest of the party plays is not fun. Death is not fun.
Now, I think that death is important in the game. It should be part of it. If nothing else, it should serve to punish players that 'make mistakes'. Challenging a Pit Fiend to mortal combat at 1st level, for instance, should involve a character that may be dead or worse. The game should have realistic consequences for failures to evaluate challenges.
But a 10th level barbarian is expected to go toe to toe with characters that can quickly deal 100 points of damage - maybe even in a single round. This means that the barbarian is expected to die, or the game assumes that the cleric will heal the barbarian. These are assumptions that I want to change. It is hell on a low magic game, for instance.
So, a change to the way hit points are given to the barbarian is great. I really like the idea of giving him x hit points, and at the end of the rage giving him x subdual damage. This would mean that a barbarian couldn't 'cheat' by raging and then stopping, and then starting, etc. If they raged and gained 20 extra hit points, but would take 20 subdual damage when those hit points went away (even if they hadn't taken any damage) fits the flavor of the class (suffering after raging) and takes care of the problem (going from 'fine' to dead).
Not everyone will agree that there is a problem, but if you play a barbarian or have one in your group, you'll probably find that there is a problem. If you don't have a problem, but you see that others do, you still might look for a solution. I do think that the barbarian hit points are a problem with 3.5, and I expect that Pathfinder CAN fix the problem. I believe that Pathfinder SHOULD fix the problem, and I think that the solution(s) have been outlined by others and by myself in this thread.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I think that the problem that a lot of people are having with this is not that the Barbarian collapses at the end of his rage; it's that the loss of extra HP from raging shoots him straight from "fighting" to "dead", skipping the "dying, but can be healed" stage entirely.
If my Barbarian gets 16 temporary HP from raging, but has only 2 hp left, and he takes 3 damage, suddenly he's at (2-3-16 =)-17 HP -- dead. He missed the chance to sit at -1 to -9 for a while and bleed out while the Cleric rushes over to heal him.
The only system I can think of that is simple enough to be playable would be for the extra rage HP to be lost first, but that has problems of its own, as discussed above. But finding another solution is worth thinking about.
*ponders. . . . *
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Wow, I must have taken more time composing my post than I thought!
So, a change to the way hit points are given to the barbarian is great. I really like the idea of giving him x hit points, and at the end of the rage giving him x subdual damage. This would mean that a barbarian couldn't 'cheat' by raging and then stopping, and then starting, etc. If they raged and gained 20 extra hit points, but would take 20 subdual damage when those hit points went away (even if they hadn't taken any damage) fits the flavor of the class (suffering after raging) and takes care of the problem (going from 'fine' to dead).
I think this is a great solution. The only issue I could see with it would be the fact that healing spells fix normal and subdual damage at the same time, effectively healing twice as much. But I think that overall, this is a much better mechanic than the current one.
There is a nice mechanic in UA, where the negative HP are substituted for a number of FORT-saves.
I think you know what I mean.
I really liked it more than negative HPs and might be the solution "we" search.
|
|
The rules can be changed.
There is a vision for Pathfinder. The rules can support that vision. The rules regarding barbarian rage hit points does not seem to support that vision. Therefore, the rule should be changed.
<snip some text here>
So, a change to the way hit points are given to the barbarian is great. I really like the idea of giving him x hit points, and at the end of the rage giving him x subdual damage. This would mean that a barbarian couldn't 'cheat' by raging and then stopping, and then starting, etc. If they raged and gained 20 extra hit points, but would take 20 subdual damage when those hit points went away (even if they hadn't taken any damage) fits the flavor of the class (suffering after raging) and takes care of the problem (going from 'fine' to dead).
1) I just want to reiterate that DeadDMWalking just put into much better words than I have exactly what a lot of DMs problems are with Barbarian Rage. You hit the nail on the head.
2) The idea of subdual damage I like and think could be very cool. The longer or more powerful the rage, the harder it is to pull the barbarian out of it (more subdual damage to remove). I think this is what I am going to implement in my system.
I agree with DeadDMWalking's assessment of why Temp HP doesn't work.
Gods of War: "The Sons of Odin"Onward into the heart of battle
Fought the sons of OdinOutnumbered many times
Still - they fought onBlood poured forth from their wounds
Deep into the earthVultures waited for the broken shells
That once were bodiesBut Odin alone would choose the day
They would enter ValhallaAnd in their hour of need
He sent forth onto them
The Berserker RageNow gods among men
They rose up from the ground
Screaming like wild animalsSuch is the gift of absolute power
No blade or weapon could harm them
They killed men and horses alikeAnd all who stood before them died that day
Hail Gods Of War
From the standpoint of honoring the legendary flavor of the ability and keeping the gameplay mechanics simple, I'd advocate simply replacing the CON increase with a boost to Fort and increased DR.
BWC shouldn't be an issue as it's a simple class-ability replacement. When looking at non-PRPG stats, the DM simply ignores the "raging" stats for HP and applies the DR change instead. Likewise if a DM running a 3.5 game was using a PRPG-statted creature, they could simply add the proper number of extra HP and ignore the increased DR (just as they would ignore the rage-points that they have no clue about).
YEAH BABY! That's exactly what I listend to the last hour!
*hums* ... carry me who died in battle, cross the land and see, across the rainbow bridge to valhalla, odin's waiting for me... *hums*
I explain myself, the increased CON is the biggest cause of mortality among barbarians, more than the very adversaries, and much more in high levels.I agree with this assessment simply because in the games I've played once a barbarian is worried about dying if they get hit (0 hit points, stop raging, lose +Con bonus, die immediately), they stop using the power.That's a strange way of looking at things. If your raging barbarian is taking X pts of damage and then dying when he comes out of rage, surely the cause of death is the X pts of damage, not the rage. Rage is prolonging his life, not shortening it! How would it help his survival to stop using rage?
The thing is they realize that they have to pay attention to their actual hit points not their current hit points.
P.S. You don't think that maybe all that power would have a balancing point right?
From the standpoint of honoring the legendary flavor of the ability and keeping the gameplay mechanics simple, I'd advocate simply replacing the CON increase with a boost to Fort and increased DR.
Fine by me. I'd even toss in the free benefit of the Diehard feat, but that'd probably be seen as a "trap" again.
MisterSlanky; I am familiar with the Pain Editor; but it's rules are not at issue here.
Here we are talking about raging barbarians and such characters by Raw are aware of their own HP. A DM may take away the character sheet but that then becomes the realm of house Rules and isn't a problem Paizo or anyone else can resolve.
Barbarians, and anyone else, have a choice in battle: Fight until the opponent is dead or fight until they themselves are dead.
Barbarians are given a little extra oomph in this regard in that while raging they can actually stay in combat longer.
It is clearly not an accident that if you end your rage too soon after taking too many HP in damage that you die. This is working as intended. If a barbarian while raging, gets too close to the brink, then after the "rush" is over they slide over the edge. i.e. they die.
It is a choice a barbarian makes, and it is a risk they take by Raging.
It is the Only risk they take by raging. (personally, i've yet to see combat outlast rage. Usually combat is over far sooner, so the "fatigued for the duration of the encounter" tends to be just so much wasted ink on the page. your mileage in that regard may vary however).
While rage does take away some of their ability to use some non-combat skills it doesn't make them a raving lunatic, and a moron. Barbarians can still retreat, they can still use tactics, they still have their minds.
They have a choice to make: When they are obviously taking so many wounds that they'd have otherwise be dead, or nearly so, they can keep going and try to strike down the badguy anyway or they can backoff.
Rage is endable at the will of the player. They are not Frenzied barbarians, that must keep fighting until an arbitrary number of rounds are reached.
-S
|
|
I am familiar with the Pain Editor; but it's rules are not at issue here.
Here we are talking about raging barbarians and such characters by Raw are aware of their own HP. A DM may take away the character sheet but that then becomes the realm of house Rules and isn't a problem Paizo or anyone else can resolve.Barbarians, and anyone else, have a choice in battle: Fight until the opponent is dead or fight until they themselves are dead.
Barbarians are given a little extra oomph in this regard in that while raging they can actually stay in combat longer.
To pick nits, this is the Pathfinder Alpha board. The point of this thread, and threads like it is to provide alternate "house rules" of portions of the system we find broken so that they can be considered, and if appropriate incorporated into the Pathfinder system if they make the system better or better fit the game.
Many of us find the rage you describe as pure metagaming. The player may be fully aware of what's going on to their character, but it's not always appropriate that the character reacts as such. Barbarians lose all access to wis, cha, and int based skills in an effort to indicate that they do lose mental facilities. In my opinion, paying attention to your hit points and deciding to run away because you're hurt in my opinion does not fit that criteria. Furthermore, we disagree that rage *should* be insta-death. I'll defer to the more descriptive and eloquent post above of the exact reasons why, but basically, it doesn't feel appropriate in my mind to force players to play barbarians as this intelligent and in full control of their capacities when raging or they're dead and have to roll up a new character.
Re-read the previous posts. My pain editor comment was not meant to describe how things are implemented or should be implemented, but was mean to demonstrate player reactions under a differing set of circumstances. I appreciate you disagree, but please try to understand we're not arguing how "official" rules must be played, I'm arguing "possible alterations to suggest" which may improve the new Pathfinder system.
|
|
So, a change to the way hit points are given to the barbarian is great. I really like the idea of giving him x hit points, and at the end of the rage giving him x subdual damage.
I don't agree with your fix because I think it makes things to soft. With your method it's almost impossible to actually kill a barbarian character in combat. Also, as was pointed out above subdual damage is much easier to heal.
So your example 100HP barbarian rages then takes his 120HP damage losing consciousness. He's now at 0HP with 20 HP in subdual damage, he can sleep that off in less than a day. Also, what happens if the barbarian rages again before the subdual damage goes away?
So I have a counter idea which I think will satisfy you:
Hit points from rage last the duration of the rage plus one minute per level or until the beginning of the characters next rage.
Maybe a player might still metagame this if he knows there is no healing available after melee but it seems much less likely to me.
Hmm. You made me think about it again.
Back in the (good old) AD&D2nd times, a raging character lost the knowledge of his actuall hit points.
The DM just said stuff like: you were hit hard but don't feel much pain...
I think this might be the way to go.
As soon as a character starts raging, he tells the DM his actual HPs and from then the DM secretly applies the damage.
... Yes I think I will add this back again into my rules.
This excellent suggestion came up at our gaming table last week. I think it is an excellent suggestion and one I plan on implementing as well.
As far as worrying about barbarians dying from "over raging" issues, as the GM I'm not terribly worried. The amount of damage a barbarian can now do with backswing and the like is truly horrific. Every benefit should have a cost.
CJ
You are right, that is what the Alpha is here to do. I am merely pointing out that not everyone agrees that the mechanic is broken.
Personally, I hope it isn't altered.
ALL PC's metagame their HP. The rules specifically allow for it. People may not like it, but it is what it is. Calling the barbarian PC out because his mechanics rely on it , doesn't make the barbarian rage broken. It just means that one aspect of the game must be metagamed, by Raw. Unless you houserule otherwise characters are aware of their own health level. Acting on that knowledge is what keeps PC's from becoming corpses.
"Wow he hit me for half my HP, i'm withdrawing"
"Wow, he hit him for half his HP, I'm casting a healing spell"
"Wow I'm in the rage-death range. I better back off"
Mind you, I'm not saying the game wouldn't be served for there to be some RAW method of keeping PC's from metagaming their health: but at the moment such doesn't exist. And it's a core effect of the rules I doubt they are going to fiddle around with.
-S
Yeah sure, but not feeling the pain and not being aware of the possible death thread is a CORE aspect of a berserker rage (in "reality").
That's why I vote for the DM to manage the ragers HPs as soon as he begins raging.
Just tell him: "You were hit by it's claws but where should be pain there is only hate."
Or something like this.