|
| 21 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Furious Focus (from Ultimate Combat) allows you to immediately deal max damage but ends your rage.
It has the text "If you do, your rage immediately ends, and you are fatigued (even if you would not normally be)"
Obviously this means that a Barbarian with Tireless Rage is fatigued afterwards.
My question though is how it interacts if someone actually is immune to fatigue?
I can see arguments either way.
Even if you would not normally be may just mean you're fatigued, no matter what.
I could also see it interpreted as after using the feat, you gain the fatigued condition. Immunity to fatigue means that you cannot gain the "fatigued condition."
Thoughts?
In my game I think I'd go with the former as it would allow a very broken character build otherwise.
Furious Focus (from Ultimate Combat) allows you to immediately deal max damage but ends your rage.
It has the text "If you do, your rage immediately ends, and you are fatigued (even if you would not normally be)"
Obviously this means that a Barbarian with Tireless Rage is fatigued afterwards.
My question though is how it interacts if someone actually is immune to fatigue?
I can see arguments either way.
Even if you would not normally be may just mean you're fatigued, no matter what.
I could also see it interpreted as after using the feat, you gain the fatigued condition. Immunity to fatigue means that you cannot gain the "fatigued condition."
Thoughts?
In my game I think I'd go with the former as it would allow a very broken character build otherwise.
uhmm... that's not furious focus...
furious focus is a feat from the APG that allows you to ignore the power attack penalty on your first attack
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I think he means furious finish.
Its spelled out in the feat. Your rage ends and you are fatigued. If you are immune to fatigue you are presumably not fatigued.
Tireless rage does not make you immune to fatigue. The feat specifically says you are fatigued even if you would not normally be.
Immunity means that when you are subject to the effect, it has no effect on you.
so it´s lovely that Furious Finish applies the Fatigued Effect to you ´no matter what´, you are still Immune to it.
Just like if somebody is Immune to a given disease, it doesn´t matter if they are infected with it or not.
Or if an Elemental is Immune to Critical Hits, and you have an auto-Crit ability, they don´t care because they are Immune to it.
Tireless Rage is just changing how Rage works, by not making it cause Fatigue normally, but it doesn´t change your RESPONSE to Fatigue or vulnerability to it.
I take it to mean that if you are immune to fatigue, you are still fatigued. The specifics of the feat override the general nature of the immunity.
I highly suspect that this is the intent as well, since it was brought up in the feat.
Tireless Rage is not the only way to not be fatigued. Actual fatigue immunity exists.
I agree with the others, you'd be fatigued even if immune.
Tireless Rage is just changing how Rage works, by not making it cause Fatigue normally, but it doesn´t change your RESPONSE to Fatigue or vulnerability to it.
Total agreement here... Tireless Rage means the fatigue clause no longer triggers after the rage ends. Using Furious Finish means you've now got a way to become fatigued again.
However, being immune to fatigue means you can never be subject to fatigue. Even after a furious finish. It imparts fatigue on you, cool. You're immune, no effect.
Furious Focus (from Ultimate Combat) allows you to immediately deal max damage but ends your rage.
It has the text "If you do, your rage immediately ends, and you are fatigued (even if you would not normally be)"
Obviously this means that a Barbarian with Tireless Rage is fatigued afterwards.
My question though is how it interacts if someone actually is immune to fatigue?
I can see arguments either way.
Even if you would not normally be may just mean you're fatigued, no matter what.
I could also see it interpreted as after using the feat, you gain the fatigued condition. Immunity to fatigue means that you cannot gain the "fatigued condition."
Thoughts?
In my game I think I'd go with the former as it would allow a very broken character build otherwise.
Immunity to fatigue means that you can't gain the condition. I suggest to don't let barbs do "rage cycle". With 1 oracle level at level 9 a barb can be immune to fatigue of all kind. Just consider ability (or feats) that you can use once a rage to be once per encounter.
I suggest to don't let barbs do "rage cycle".
Why not? Why wouldn´t that be the obvious implication of the Tireless Rage Ability?
If they were intended to just be 1/encounter Powers, that would have been ridiculously easy to write, but that wasn´t done: they were made 1/Rage and each Rage was subject to ´limits´ based on Fatigue, while CORE methods of dealing with Fatigue are present in the very Class itself. (likewise, a Familiar using a Wand that removes Fatigue also does the job)I personally think it´s reasonable to limit Entering Rage to 1/round and Leaving Rage to 1/round, from the perspective of not allowing repeating a given Free action infinitely per round, which basically means it isn´t an option to spend 2x the Rage Rounds to continually´ be in a new Rage ON and OFF your turn, which high-lights the DOWNSIDE of Rage Cycling (if you don´t spend 2x Rage Rounds): you are missing out on roughly half your class ability benefits, either ´defensive´ (appying to/reacting to actions of enemies off your turn) or ´offensive´ (applying to your own actions on your own turn). This is not to mention the loss of Rage HPs when you leave Rage.
Many people react to the concept as if it were heresy, yet the fact is most Barbarians who have an easy way of Rage Cycling aren´t going to be using it every round of every fight - maintaining a single Rage has it´s own benefits, is efficient, and with several 1/Rage powers you will still be putting out ´stronger´ actions each round of Rage.
(stuff about Rage Cycling and using 2x the Rage Rounds)
You know, I didn't think of that.
I always assumed if you exit rage at the beginning of your turn, you don't use up that round of rage (since you're not using it) but I guess, technically, you can't take that free action until your turn, and when it's your turn, you're still raging, thus it costs you one more round.
The only way to use only 1 round of rage is to rage, do stuff, then end rage before the end of your turn, leaving you un-raged and potentially fatigued during the rest of the round.
I guess you could rage cycle by Raging, doing stuff, end raging, then re-raging on your turn again. Each of your turns would only spend 1 round of rage (same as just leaving it on the whole time) and you could use a 1/rage power every turn, but you wouldn't be raging during the other characters' turns.
The ability says:
"If you do, your rage immediately ends, and you are fatigued (even if you would not normally be)"
Nothing in the ability specifically counters Immunity. But earlier in the very same sentence it is talking about rage ending, which is AT THE LEAST a plausible context for ´even if you would not normally be´ (i.e. ending Rage NORMALLY causes Fatigue until 17th level). Maybe that could be cleared up more via FAQ, but it´s definitely a plausible reading.
Unless an ability specifically says so, I see OTHER CREATURE¨S ABILITIES still functioning as normal.
Again, same for Crits... An ability saying you automatically Crit doesn´t over-ride a target´s Immunity to Crits.
And, again, I'd argue that the general (aka: the immunity to fatigue) is overruled by the specific (the feat saying "and you are fatigued (even if you would not normally be)).
Normally, you wouldn't be fatigued, since you are immune to it.
The specifics of the feat override the generality of the immunity.
Either way you cut it, this feat needs clarification. I'm wondering why so few people have hit the FAQ button.
Normally, you wouldn't be fatigued, since you are immune to it.
Not exactly true... you would still be able to gain the condition fatigued. However, the fatigue condition's penalties do not apply to you as you are immune (but you are ab;e to gain it, mechaniclly, before it is negated entirely).
I don't know why this is becoming nebulous. You become fatigued, but you're immune to it's effects.
The feat in question is not talking about fatigue immunity (which barbs never gain on their own) but Tireless Rage (where barbarians no longer gain the fatigued condition after their rage ends).
You can still gain fatigue all you like, but you're still immune to the effects and immediately negate the condition if you've got Immune to Fatigue.
I suggest to don't let barbs do "rage cycle".Why not? Why wouldn´t that be the obvious implication of the Tireless Rage Ability?
If they were intended to just be 1/encounter Powers, that would have been ridiculously easy to write, but that wasn´t done: they were made 1/Rage and each Rage was subject to ´limits´ based on Fatigue, while CORE methods of dealing with Fatigue are present in the very Class itself. (likewise, a Familiar using a Wand that removes Fatigue also does the job)I personally think it´s reasonable to limit Entering Rage to 1/round and Leaving Rage to 1/round, from the perspective of not allowing repeating a given Free action infinitely per round, which basically means it isn´t an option to spend 2x the Rage Rounds to continually´ be in a new Rage ON and OFF your turn, which high-lights the DOWNSIDE of Rage Cycling (if you don´t spend 2x Rage Rounds): you are missing out on roughly half your class ability benefits, either ´defensive´ (appying to/reacting to actions of enemies off your turn) or ´offensive´ (applying to your own actions on your own turn). This is not to mention the loss of Rage HPs when you leave Rage.
Many people react to the concept as if it were heresy, yet the fact is most Barbarians who have an easy way of Rage Cycling aren´t going to be using it every round of every fight - maintaining a single Rage has it´s own benefits, is efficient, and with several 1/Rage powers you will still be putting out ´stronger´ actions each round of Rage.
Why? Obvious. If you have some abilities that are intended to be used once per encounter and are balanced for your levels how they can be balanced if you can use every round one level after? So, it's normal that a PC can absorb energy damage, a spell, take half damage from a blow, etc... and all this thing every round? It's like take a class ability that normally you use 5-6 times a day and say that you can use it every round. You don't need also spending more rounds of fury: just end rage when you round starts or end.
BUT... this is just an advise. If you want to allow rage cycle, it's not my game that is ruined.
If they had just meant Tireless Rage, they probably would have said it. Well, if I was designing it, I would have done that.
I just don't see why it wouldn't be talking about any form of fatigue mitigation, whether it is talking about tireless rage or immunity to fatigue (stranger things have happened), or even heart of the fields. If it had meant just one of those, it probably would have said so.
Why? Obvious. If you have some abilities that are intended to be used once per encounter...
But there´s no evidence that is the intent, even if you ´short-handed´ that it works that way in your head. TOTALLY IGNORING ´RAGE CYCLING´, the CORE Rage rules in fact envision entering Rage multiple times during one encounter: Rage 1 Round, drop Rage, you are fatigued for 2 rounds* but you still can move & attack, etc, re-Enter new Rage once you aren´t Fatigued (which can be as early as Round 3). Given the limeted number of Rage Rounds, it seems pretty implausible to claim the developers ONLY intend that you be Raging every round of every encounter, or that Barbs would never re-enter Rage the same encounter after dropping it (including when they are forced to drop it, e.g. Calm Emotions).
So I don´t see any intent that you can only Rage once per encounter, and thus that 1/Rage Rage Powers are intended to be 1/encounter. Not to mention the many other ways to remove Fatigue in the game: Lesser Restoration spell (Cleric 2/Paladin 1), Community Domain & Restoration Sub-Domain´s Touch Ability, Merciful Healer Cleric´s Channel Energy, 3rd level Paladin Mercy.
* or only 1 round of Fatigue for 1 round of Rage if you take the Scarred Rager Archetype from UC.
That allows entering Rage at beginning of Turn, doing your stuff, dropping Rage at end of Turn, being Fatigued and Out-of-Rage off your Turn (during enemy/ally actions), and then NOT BEING FATIGUED at the beginning of your next turn since 1 round duration effects expire just before your next turn: allowing to re-enter a new Rage. That´s available from level 2 of Barbarian. Incidentally, I love the Scarred Rager Archetype on so many levels, even if one never wanted to use this ´weak Rage Cycling´. :-)
To be clear, what is the NORMAL functioning of Rage without this Archetype?
1 Rage Round = 2 rounds of Fatigue.
That means Round 1: you Rage, act, drop your Rage before your turn ends... and are not Fatigued on your turn of Round 3.
(this is how X round duration effects work)
In other words, you can re-Rage, using 1/Rage Rage Powers EVERY OTHER ROUND although you are Fatigued in-between.
How does one get from that, the BASE LINE function of Rage, to viewing Rage (and 1/Rage Powers) as 1/encounter abilities?
Because most people, and probably the devs too, assume that you turn it on for the combat. Atleast, I haven't seen any examples in modules of barbarians doing that.
|
Because most people, and probably the devs too, assume that you turn it on for the combat. Atleast, I haven't seen any examples in modules of barbarians doing that.
Some of the problem, probably, stem from leftover pieces of rules and mindsets from 3.x, where you were fatigued till the end of the fight and you had a specific number of uses/day instead or rounds/day.
In the other thread I have asked if there is some specific rule that allow you to "shed" the rage fatigue while fighting.
From a simulationist point of view "curing" fatigue by doing a strenuous activity is a bit strange.
Probably I am suffering from 3.xitis but it seem a reasonable question.
A barbarian cannot enter a new rage while fatigued or exhausted but can otherwise enter rage multiple times during a single encounter or combat.
Not to mention Barbs who need to do something that conflicts with Rage, like cast a spell if they are multi-classed... That will probably result in multiple Rages per encounter.
I`m really surprised anybody finds this controversial...
A Fighter may not normally use the Withdraw action, that doesn`t mean he CAN`T use it.
As I mentioned, not using all your class abilities (by staying in Rage on and off your turn) just isn`t something you are going to do all the time... That said, there`s no reason you can`t use the RAW with the consequences they have built into them.
Are there other examples of something being declared immune to an effect and something else trumping it?
+1 for Quandary's conclusions.
Are there other examples of something being declared immune to an effect and something else trumping it?
Exactly.
+1 for Quandary's conclusions.
Are there other examples of something being declared immune to an effect and something else trumping it?Exactly.
I believe that was a question, not a statement.
That said...quite a few.
Dirge Bard's Secrets of the Grave
Serpentine Bloodline's arcana is arguable.
Those are just the ones off the top of my head. And frankly, unless someone is planning on keep on saying "but other than those...", that should be good enough.
I'm bored though, so let's see what else there is, eh?
Brutal Pugilist's Savage Grapple negates the no-AoO bit of Improved Grapple
Oh hai der Chill Touch. This the third such example so far from the CRB, if that matters.
And I'm suddenly not bored, so that's it for now.
Brutal Pugilist and Chill Touch don't do anything that beat immunity (panicked isn't mind effecting).
But the other things you listed do beat immunity. What's interesting in the language of those abilities is that they all say that you treat something immune as something that isn't immune, instead of simply saying they ignore immunity. I'm not saying that means that furious finish doesn't bypass immunity, I'm just saying that the language is different.
Brutal Pugilist and Chill Touch don't do anything that beat immunity (panicked isn't mind effecting).
But the other things you listed do beat immunity. What's interesting in the language of those abilities is that they all say that you treat something immune as something that isn't immune, instead of simply saying they ignore immunity. I'm not saying that means that furious finish doesn't bypass immunity, I'm just saying that the language is different.
The reason I included Chill Touch is because it says "as if panicked". There are two ways to interpret that. One is that they are normally immune to fear-effects, but this gets around that. The other is that it just can't be removed, like a condition could be.
And I'm convinced that the RAI for Shaken / Panicked / Frightened is that they are fear-effects. Otherwise is just silly.
Brutal Pugilist is a bit of a stretch, but it is an example of one ability overcoming another ability. Improved Grapple makes you "Immune" to provoking AoOs from grappling.
The other abilities don't mention immunity, they just say that they are susceptible, so explicitly saying you overcome immunity is not necessary.
Maybe I'm just overly worried about a barbarian with a double hackbutt using this suddenly becoming the best sniper ever.
All the abilities that allow you to affect things normally immune to mind effecting abilities say that you treat them as something else, not that you get through there immunity. If any of those types have a second source of immunity they won't be effected.
And Come and Get Me allows a barbarian to AoO someone with improved grab already.
Double hackbutt has base 2d12 damage.
Vital Strike makes that 4d12.
This feat maximizes the damage dice. So, before taking into consideration anything else, we're already two points away from Massive Damage.
A musket master 5 / urban barbarian 1 would be disastrous with this.
Well, once they get VS and this. Would be causing Massive Damage with every shot.
Massive damage doesn't exist in Pathfinder, so Pathfinder doesn't need to be balanced around the silliness that was "massive damage".
Likewise, 48 damage isn't bad for a single shot. Seriously, the same barbarian could deal 45 damage per swing of a greatsword assuming he was under the effects of enlarge person. Even more if he had lead blade applied to it.
|
Massive damage doesn't exist in Pathfinder, so Pathfinder doesn't need to be balanced around the silliness that was "massive damage".
Likewise, 48 damage isn't bad for a single shot. Seriously, the same barbarian could deal 45 damage per swing of a greatsword assuming he was under the effects of enlarge person. Even more if he had lead blade applied to it.
Sure it does, if you play with the optional rule from the core rule book:
Massive Damage (Optional Rule): If you ever sustain a single attack that deals an amount of damage equal to half your total hit points (minimum 50 points of damage) or more and it doesn't kill you outright, you must make a DC 15 Fortitude save. If this saving throw fails, you die regardless of your current hit points. If you take half your total hit points or more in damage from multiple attacks, no one of which dealt more than half your total hit points (minimum 50), the massive damage rule does not apply.
Massive damage doesn't exist in Pathfinder, so Pathfinder doesn't need to be balanced around the silliness that was "massive damage".
Likewise, 48 damage isn't bad for a single shot. Seriously, the same barbarian could deal 45 damage per swing of a greatsword assuming he was under the effects of enlarge person. Even more if he had lead blade applied to it.
Sure it does, if you play with the optional rule from the core rule book:
Massive Damage (Optional Rule): If you ever sustain a single attack that deals an amount of damage equal to half your total hit points (minimum 50 points of damage) or more and it doesn't kill you outright, you must make a DC 15 Fortitude save. If this saving throw fails, you die regardless of your current hit points. If you take half your total hit points or more in damage from multiple attacks, no one of which dealt more than half your total hit points (minimum 50), the massive damage rule does not apply.
Last time I checked, variant rules don't count. :P
|
|
Last time I checked, variant rules don't count. :PMassive damage doesn't exist in Pathfinder, so Pathfinder doesn't need to be balanced around the silliness that was "massive damage".
Likewise, 48 damage isn't bad for a single shot. Seriously, the same barbarian could deal 45 damage per swing of a greatsword assuming he was under the effects of enlarge person. Even more if he had lead blade applied to it.
Sure it does, if you play with the optional rule from the core rule book:
Massive Damage (Optional Rule): If you ever sustain a single attack that deals an amount of damage equal to half your total hit points (minimum 50 points of damage) or more and it doesn't kill you outright, you must make a DC 15 Fortitude save. If this saving throw fails, you die regardless of your current hit points. If you take half your total hit points or more in damage from multiple attacks, no one of which dealt more than half your total hit points (minimum 50), the massive damage rule does not apply.
Yep, like anything outside of the core book/bestiary..
Last time I checked, variant rules don't count. :PMassive damage doesn't exist in Pathfinder, so Pathfinder doesn't need to be balanced around the silliness that was "massive damage".
Likewise, 48 damage isn't bad for a single shot. Seriously, the same barbarian could deal 45 damage per swing of a greatsword assuming he was under the effects of enlarge person. Even more if he had lead blade applied to it.
Sure it does, if you play with the optional rule from the core rule book:
Massive Damage (Optional Rule): If you ever sustain a single attack that deals an amount of damage equal to half your total hit points (minimum 50 points of damage) or more and it doesn't kill you outright, you must make a DC 15 Fortitude save. If this saving throw fails, you die regardless of your current hit points. If you take half your total hit points or more in damage from multiple attacks, no one of which dealt more than half your total hit points (minimum 50), the massive damage rule does not apply.
But they count as existing. *shrug*
Lessee...enlarged leadblades (not sure how he got a ranger only spell with a Range of personal in any matter that's consistently available and isn't a drain on resources, but whatever) with a greatsword would be doing...4d6 points of damage with this VS, so 24 base damage. 24 str seems about right for level 8, so 28 with Rage, for +9 damage. Two handing, so that's +13. Power attack, so that's -3 / +6 (+9 from two-handing), so that's a total of +21. Maybe +2 from weapon enhancement? So +23, giving 47 total damage. They probably won't be having Elemental weapons to push them over...so they won't trigger massive damage.
This guy will, from 50 feet away easily. Spend a grit to target any ranger and you're golden. And there's an ok chance (if squishie) you'll OH-KO the guy anyways, regaining that point :) Shrug, guess it won't be as bad as I expected.
Still think that it's not as clear cut whether or not this bypasses immunity, since there are abilities that do so in the game already.
FWIW, here's an example of them explicitly saying something bypasses immunities:
At 3rd level, an antipaladin radiates a palpably daunting aura that causes all enemies within 10 feet to take a –4 penalty on saving throws against fear effects. Creatures that are normally immune to fear lose that immunity while within 10 feet of an antipaladin with this ability. This ability functions only while the antipaladin remains conscious, not if he is unconscious or dead.
But you guys are right. I admittedly never noticed it was even a variant rule in the core book. :P
As for the lead blade, that's easy. Magic item. It only costs 4,000 gp market price. Not an issue. Alternatively, 800 gp for up to 10 rounds of lead blade per day, split as desired. Also easy.
Same with Enlarge Person, or you can just have your party's caster use it on you.
With vital strike, your base damage is 6d6 + str * 1.5, so if you're pulling a 22 Str (18 + 4 rage for example) then you've got 45 damage as a standard action via vital strike. Being enlarged would raise the damage from 3d6 to 4d6, bringing you to 51 damage on a vital strike.
Simple enough. I wasn't even counting Power attack, but that would be another +3 at 1st, +6 at 4th, +9 at 8th, and so forth. Easily negating the need to even be enlarged or have lead blades (one or the other is optional really).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it a bit funny that one variant rule was dismissed, but then custom item creation, possibly the largest variant rule in the game, is brought up :)
And yea, I did forget to VS the greatsword dude, d'oh.
|
|
She used:
CL 1 * SL 1 * 2.000 * 2 (duration, minutes) = 4.000
The same way you "make" a pair of use activate (walking) boots of cure light wounds, or a constant ring of True strike.
I.e. discarding this:
"Not all items adhere to these formulas. First and foremost, these few formulas aren't enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point. The pricing of scrolls assumes that, whenever possible, a wizard or cleric created it. Potions and wands follow the formulas exactly. Staves follow the formulas closely, and other items require at least some judgment calls."
In particular, personal use spells are always a bad thing to make into magic items as they are generally overpowered when make available to everyone.
|
|
Not that one Rossi, the 4,000 GP Ring (or Belt or Glove) of Lead Blades is normal and totally something I'm hoping to find in the one game in which I'm currently a player for once.
I was referring to the 800 GP 10 rounds per day item she mentioned.
Edit: also, personal spells are just a wand and a UMD check away from anyone who wants them, so I find that argument rather weak.
One UMD check at 20 (use wand) and one action.
Plenty of differences from a use activated item.Note that you can't make potions out of personal spells.