Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Brain in a Jar wrote: Saying its abusive to use the rage powers as intended is like saying its abusive to cast spells, combo invisbility with sneak attack, or use class features. I wouldn't hesitate to call other rules legal things abusive. I'd called two weapon fighting with double shot pistols abusive (but legal). If I believe you are far exceeding what I believe the author intended when he wrote a rule set, then I believe you're abusing them.
Rules legal or not.
Maezer wrote: Brain in a Jar wrote: Then you look at the Rage Powers. Why would anyone make them 1/Rage knowing full well that in Pathfinder you can enter/end Rage multiple times in the same encounter. ....Funny that's the exact same question I'd ask you. But I'll answer first.
I would limit something to 1/rage if I expected it to be used once or twice per fight. Maybe a few more times if an encounter was of epic scope and length. But, much like a breath weapon there would be a recharge time between each use.
If I expected it to be used or available on every single attack, as is done via rage cycling, I'd realize that writing 1/rage is pointless and in fact misleading text. I'd write something like 'when raging you can (unlimited/optional) apply X modifier to an attack.'
Why do you think author's wrote 1/rage into rage powers? It's certainly legal. Given the number of ways to remove/avoid fatigue that have been added since rage cycling became a thing, I think it's now intended, though I still do thing it was an unintended consequence to the changes in rage from 3.5 - remember that not only was rage once per fight, but there weren't even rage powers.
That said, I think it's bad game design. An example of the kind of design that's common in 3.x & PF that I really don't like. "We'll put a limit on this, but if you're clever there are ways around them." Rewards for system mastery in the build game.
I don't think it's really overpowered. I'd just much rather have the limits and relaxations of them spelled out directly. If they want you to be able use them more than once per fight, say that. That also lets them expand usage gradually - maybe 2/rage at 5th level, 3/rage at 10th, etc. Rather than all or nothing.
I also find it aesthetically irritating - "Now I'm really mad! Now I'm not. Now I am again!" There are ways to fluff barbarian rage so that makes more sense, but then you lose the actual rage flavor, which I prefer.
thejeff wrote: Maezer wrote: Brain in a Jar wrote: Then you look at the Rage Powers. Why would anyone make them 1/Rage knowing full well that in Pathfinder you can enter/end Rage multiple times in the same encounter. ....Funny that's the exact same question I'd ask you. But I'll answer first.
I would limit something to 1/rage if I expected it to be used once or twice per fight. Maybe a few more times if an encounter was of epic scope and length. But, much like a breath weapon there would be a recharge time between each use.
If I expected it to be used or available on every single attack, as is done via rage cycling, I'd realize that writing 1/rage is pointless and in fact misleading text. I'd write something like 'when raging you can (unlimited/optional) apply X modifier to an attack.'
Why do you think author's wrote 1/rage into rage powers? It's certainly legal. Given the number of ways to remove/avoid fatigue that have been added since rage cycling became a thing, I think it's now intended, though I still do thing it was an unintended consequence to the changes in rage from 3.5 - remember that not only was rage once per fight, but there weren't even rage powers.
That said, I think it's bad game design. An example of the kind of design that's common in 3.x & PF that I really don't like. "We'll put a limit on this, but if you're clever there are ways around them." Rewards for system mastery in the build game.
I don't think it's really overpowered. I'd just much rather have the limits and relaxations of them spelled out directly. If they want you to be able use them more than once per fight, say that. That also lets them expand usage gradually - maybe 2/rage at 5th level, 3/rage at 10th, etc. Rather than all or nothing.
I also find it aesthetically irritating - "Now I'm really mad! Now I'm not. Now I am again!" There are ways to fluff barbarian rage so that makes more sense, but then you lose the actual rage flavor, which I prefer. Rage is not about being mad at all, it's just using some inner Str to become more powerful.
*A barbarian can call upon inner reserves of strength and ferocity, granting her additional combat prowess*
People keep thinking rage is about going berserk, which is not, it's just using more un-careful form of combat which gives you more str and resistance to death.
I can't honestly think how someone would consider rage cycling op, when a wizard can teleport 1 billion miles, create a duplicate of himself. Meanwhile the barbarian can dispel you ONCE per encounter against a wizard who will have on himself several buffs.
Let barbarian rage cycle, you have invested in it in some way, whether equipment, feats or traits.
Letric wrote: can't honestly think how someone would consider rage cycling op, when a wizard can teleport 1 billion miles, create a duplicate of himself. Meanwhile the barbarian can dispel you ONCE per encounter against a wizard who will have on himself several buffs. Stating as your basis of comparison, something that only an extremely permissive GM who allows wizard players to break rules left and right would stomach, is a very weak argument.
Letric wrote: thejeff wrote: Maezer wrote: Brain in a Jar wrote: Then you look at the Rage Powers. Why would anyone make them 1/Rage knowing full well that in Pathfinder you can enter/end Rage multiple times in the same encounter. ....Funny that's the exact same question I'd ask you. But I'll answer first.
I would limit something to 1/rage if I expected it to be used once or twice per fight. Maybe a few more times if an encounter was of epic scope and length. But, much like a breath weapon there would be a recharge time between each use.
If I expected it to be used or available on every single attack, as is done via rage cycling, I'd realize that writing 1/rage is pointless and in fact misleading text. I'd write something like 'when raging you can (unlimited/optional) apply X modifier to an attack.'
Why do you think author's wrote 1/rage into rage powers? It's certainly legal. Given the number of ways to remove/avoid fatigue that have been added since rage cycling became a thing, I think it's now intended, though I still do thing it was an unintended consequence to the changes in rage from 3.5 - remember that not only was rage once per fight, but there weren't even rage powers.
That said, I think it's bad game design. An example of the kind of design that's common in 3.x & PF that I really don't like. "We'll put a limit on this, but if you're clever there are ways around them." Rewards for system mastery in the build game.
I don't think it's really overpowered. I'd just much rather have the limits and relaxations of them spelled out directly. If they want you to be able use them more than once per fight, say that. That also lets them expand usage gradually - maybe 2/rage at 5th level, 3/rage at 10th, etc. Rather than all or nothing.
I also find it aesthetically irritating - "Now I'm really mad! Now I'm not. Now I am again!" There are ways to fluff barbarian rage so that makes more sense, but then you lose the actual rage flavor, which I prefer. Rage is not about being mad at all, it's just using some inner Str to become more powerful.
*A barbarian can call upon inner reserves of strength and ferocity, granting her additional combat prowess*
People keep thinking rage is about going berserk, which is not, it's just using more un-careful form of combat which gives you more str and resistance to death.
I can't honestly think how someone would consider rage cycling op, when a wizard can teleport 1 billion miles, create a duplicate of himself. Meanwhile the barbarian can dispel you ONCE per encounter against a wizard who will have on himself several buffs.
Let barbarian rage cycle, you have invested in it in some way, whether equipment, feats or traits. Did you read my post?
Rage isn't rage? Then they shouldn't call it rage. You can certainly refluff it, but I like the flavor of rage. And even if it's "using a more un-careful form of combat" - "Now I'm being un-careful. Now I'm being careful. Now I'm being un-careful again." Still pretty tacky.
And I don't think it's overpowered. I think it's an awkward, hidden, aesthetically displeasing way of doing it. I would much rather just let barbarians use their abilities more times per fight or per round than make them jump through hoops to be able to turn their rage on and off to do what they should just be able to do.
Maezer wrote: Brain in a Jar wrote: Then you look at the Rage Powers. Why would anyone make them 1/Rage knowing full well that in Pathfinder you can enter/end Rage multiple times in the same encounter. ....Funny that's the exact same question I'd ask you. But I'll answer first.
I would limit something to 1/rage if I expected it to be used once or twice per fight. Maybe a few more times if an encounter was of epic scope and length. But, much like a breath weapon there would be a recharge time between each use.
If I expected it to be used or available on every single attack, as is done via rage cycling, I'd realize that writing 1/rage is pointless and in fact misleading text. I'd write something like 'when raging you can (unlimited/optional) apply X modifier to an attack.'
Why do you think author's wrote 1/rage into rage powers? They are 1/rage and then they are unlocked once you can rage cycle. We have evidence that you can rage cycle as soon as lv17 if you go straight barb, so obviously the 1/rage were just to gate till you could cycle, then the increased cost or rage rounds to cycle is the limiting factor.
I play with a guy who ragecycles with the Cord of Stubborn Resolve. It took him quite a bit of work to save up for it in PFS, but it's been so worth it. It's hilarious seeing him re-rage three times per round to hack his way out of a Sleet Storm, Cloudkill and Glitterdust that got dropped on us simultaneously.
It doesn't feel terribly OP to me; it's just one more way for the PCs to face challenges and overcome them, which is what they're always supposed to eventually do. Nobody else is feeling like they got less chance to shine.
I do agree that it's ugly game design. I blame it on the times; at the writing of the CRB they basically wanted a "once per encounter" power but for some reason wanted to stick with "absolute" time; stuff you can measure in rounds and minutes, as opposed to "dramatic" time: encounters, scenes, game sessions.
From playing White Wolf, I've found that the concept of "Scene" as a time unit is really handy. Having the "Per Encounter" powers in 4th edition wasn't the craziest idea ever either. That's basically what Paizo wanted to do with Rage powers, but they didn't.
Nowadays you do occasionally run into once per combat/encounter powers. I think Judgement might be one of the earliest examples of that design technique.
Wow. That Cord is amazing. 15k isn't hard to save up for.
I probably never noticed it before because it takes up the belt slot, and for me that almost always gets reserved for stat belts.
But this one's definitely worth it. Invulnerable Rager here I come!
thejeff wrote:
I also find it aesthetically irritating - "Now I'm really mad! Now I'm not. Now I am again!" There are ways to fluff barbarian rage so that makes more sense, but then you lose the actual rage flavor, which I
... It is, but anyone reading the items would be able to figure out that it can be done pre-17.
Complicated? Have you ever looked at Character Creation in DnD and PF? It's meant to be complicated, heavy rules wise and looking for the best to optimize.
I think rage cycling is easy to understand once you read some items.
Of course they kept the name because of DnD 3.5, Paizo is not stupid to change the name of something so important, because it's after all a 3.75 DnD. The same reason why many things aren't changed much, because they need the backward compatibility to keep players/buyers engaged.
Off topic
Can you play a character without optimization? Yes. Will it be good? Probably not.
Every book that is released brings even more options, archetypes, feats and race options. While it's fun to have more options, it's also a burden to know everything to get the most out of your character.
The barbarian I spoke of is Urban. We've seen him switch rage types three times in the same combat. I joke that he has to switch different types of rage to eat his cereal and do his dishes.
And it hasn't destroyed the game.
Letric wrote: thejeff wrote:
I also find it aesthetically irritating - "Now I'm really mad! Now I'm not. Now I am again!" There are ways to fluff barbarian rage so that makes more sense, but then you lose the actual rage flavor, which I
It is, but anyone reading the items would be able to figure out that it can be done pre-17.
Complicated? Have you ever looked at Character Creation in DnD and PF? It's meant to be complicated, heavy rules wise and looking for the best to optimize.
I think rage cycling is easy to understand once you read some items.
Of course they kept the name because of DnD 3.5, Paizo is not stupid to change the name of something so important, because it's after all a 3.75 DnD. The same reason why many things aren't changed much, because they need the backward compatibility to keep players/buyers engaged.
Off topic
Can you play a character without optimization? Yes. Will it be good? Probably not.
Every book that is released brings even more options, archetypes, feats and race options. While it's fun to have more options, it's also a burden to know everything to get the most out of your character. It's easy to understand once you make the leap that you should be looking for it. Once you start looking for ways to rage-cycle, they're easy to find.
OTOH, even Tireless Rage wasn't intended to let you rage-cycle, since it comes from 3.x when it didn't let you rage-cycle and there was no reason to.
But as I said before: Quote: I think it's bad game design. An example of the kind of design that's common in 3.x & PF that I really don't like. "We'll put a limit on this, but if you're clever there are ways around them." Rewards for system mastery in the build game. " So you're right that it's pretty much the way character building in 3.x is supposed to be.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
