In this thread Eric Meepo made a comment regarding exactly how useful the Animal Fury rage power is:
That power lets you make an extra attack as part of a full attack; attack twice during a charge; attack one opponent, make a full move, then attack another opponent; perform a standard action and a melee attack in the same round; and a number of similar feats. If there was any one rage power I saw used every single round in playtests, it was this one. Especially when the barbarian invests in a few rogue levels to add sneak attack damage to his bite attacks.
At first I thought "No, this is wrong, the power doesn't let you do this". Then I read the section and it specifically says "Unless otherwise noted rage powers are Swift Actions", in the description of the power it does not say anything regarding what sort of action the attack is. My thought is that it's just an additional attack in the normal attack sequence, but I can also understand Eric's interpretation that it is a swift action. Personally I feel that 2 rage points is way too cheap for a swift attack at any point in the round.
Am I missing something here? Maybe the wording on this power needs to be cleaned up a bit to clarify this.
I hate bumping threads but alas...
Any thoughts?
It appears as though they can indeed to this.
Can't monks also, with their ki pool business?
-S
It appears as though they can indeed to this.
Can't monks also, with their ki pool business?
I don't believe so, the way the power is worded it's activated my a swift action but it says clearly that the extra attack is part of the flurry of blows attack. Similarly the movement is an increase to his existing speed.
By spending 1 point from his ki pool, a monk can make
one additional attack at his highest attack bonus when making a flurry of blows attack. In addition, he can spend 1 point to increase his speed by 20 feet for 1 round. Finally, a monk can spend 1 point from his ki pool to give himself a +4 dodge bonus to AC for 1 round. Each of these powers is activated as a swift action. A monk gains additional powers that consume points from his ki pool as he gains levels.
The Animal Fury makes no real provision for when the attack is allowed.
Animal Fury (Ex): The barbarian may make a bite attack using her full base attack bonus plus her Strength modifier.
If the bite hits, it deals 1d6 points of damage (assuming the barbarian is Medium; 1d4 points of damage if Small) plus the barbarian’s Strength modifier. A barbarian can use this power while grappled. If the bite attack hits, any grapple checks made against the target this round are at a +2 bonus. (2 rage points)
I always assumed that the attack was part of a full round attack and a secondary attack (with the -5 penalty). Or could be made as the standard action in lieu of a real attack.
In no reading of it did I assume it was a swift action, but it seems to make sense now that such has been suggested. I don't think it is too powerful for 2 rage points though. Spellcasters get Quicken spell which deals way more damage even with a quickened 1st level spell than this bite attack is going to do.
I always assumed that the attack was part of a full round attack and a secondary attack (with the -5 penalty). Or could be made as the standard action in lieu of a real attack.
I just assumed that it was an additional attack as part of the barbarians normal attack sequence. On rereading it though I can see that Epic's interpretation is equally valid.
In no reading of it did I assume it was a swift action, but it seems to make sense now that such has been suggested. I don't think it is too powerful for 2 rage points though. Spellcasters get Quicken spell which deals way more damage even with a quickened 1st level spell than this bite attack is going to do.
Except a quickened first level spell uses a 5th level spell slot and they can't cast it until 9th level. Looking at the other 2 point rage powers they aren't nearly as powerful as this.
The Alpha document is a triumph of cool game design -- I love what they've done with all the classes -- but let's face it, it's inordinately sloppy in terms of terminology, to the point where a lot of sections just don't say what they're supposed to mean. The section on wizards, for example, implies that bonded items can be the subjects of mind-affecting spells. Obviously, this isn't the case; it's just that "enchant" was used in place of "enhance" or "augment." Similarly, it's often VERY hard (or even impossible) to tell whether the Alpha really means "class level" instead of "caster level" in quite a number of places (esp. with respect to the gaining of wizard specialist powers and cleric domain powers). Meepo's reading of the rage power to make the bite attack a swift action, rather than the growing of teeth as a swift activation is yet another case in point. For what it's worth, I've ruled the latter.
I hope and pray that someone with a much more persickety eye for semantics/technical writing edits the Beta. If not, the final Pathfinder rulebook for sure will need a SERIOUS dose of it, to prevent these types of questions from inundating the poor Paizo staff forver after.
I think you are right, in general with rules I like to try and read the rules as written without trying to read intent into the rules. That is what frustrates me. I think in the Alpha you sort of have to try and figure out what was intended by the Jason and test that and point out the inconsistency.
Maybe this should go into the Errata thread then instead. I'll check out what the wording in the beta says.
FWIW they have been cranking out this stuff pretty quick and it's extremely hard to edit this stuff in such a way that it won't be abuse-able.