Rage Power On / Off

[blackbloodtroll]

Can you turn Rage Powers On/Off, without ending Rage?

Some of the Powers state you can use them, but not that you must, so I ask.

[Grick]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Can you turn Rage Powers On/Off, without ending Rage?

Some of the Powers state you can use them, but not that you must, so I ask.

Anything specific?

Are you asking if, for example, a barbarian with Internal Fortitude was raging and wanted to be sickened, if she could choose to not use the rage power?

[gnomersy]

If it says can or may then it is optional to use, otherwise unless it's something you choose to use as an action etc. its always on.

[blackbloodtroll]

Well, specifically, Reckless Abandon, but others that state you can are one's I am curious about.

What kind of action is it to turn it On/Off?

[Grick]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Well, specifically, Reckless Abandon, but others that state you can are one's I am curious about.

Switching Reckless Abandon off after your attacks seems like an unintended loophole. It scales like power attack, so it probably should work like power attack, once used it stays on until the start of your next turn (or until you end your rage). That's not in the rules anywhere though.

As written it seems that either you can change it at will or once you choose to use it, it stays active until the end of the rage. That should probably get clarified or fixed.

[blackbloodtroll]

Is there some sort of action to activate/deactivate it?

Could it be activated outside of one's turn, such as on a AoO?

[gnomersy]

I would say unless otherwise stated it's a free action and can only be altered on your turn. But in the case of Reckless Abandon RAW would be that you can turn it on and off whenever you are raging, but RAI is probably that it functions like Power Attack where you make the choice on your turn when you attack and it rolls through until you get back to your turn again.

[blackbloodtroll]

So, I could activate it, Full-Attack, then turn it off, and end my turn?

[gnomersy]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, I could activate it, Full-Attack, then turn it off, and end my turn?

Until/unless it gets errata, RAW is yes unless the DM ruled that you are allowed to choose once and then it applies for the entirety of your rage which would also be a valid interpretation of the rules for the power.

[Grick]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, I could activate it, Full-Attack, then turn it off, and end my turn?

Or, once you choose to use it, it stays on until the end of your rage.

The rules don't specify. Ask your GM.

[blackbloodtroll]

So, it could be way more, or way less, restrictive than Power Attack, but there is no way to tell?

[gnomersy]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, it could be way more, or way less, restrictive than Power Attack, but there is no way to tell?

If you want to push the RAW yes pretty much it will be a judgment call by each DM you play with, so you've got to ask yourself do you feel lucky?

Alternatively you could play it as a power attack style ability which is probably what the devs intended but didn't bother to write down.

[Nikolaus Athas]

Now this is something that I think needs to be addressed by people in a rational manner. If any ability (be it rage power or any classes ability) looks like it has some kind of loophole that grants an 'unfair' advantage over similar powers and which has not been explicitly stated to do so then one really should play it as close to the other ability as possible.
So in this case with Reckless abandon it does not say anywhere that it can be switched on or off during a turn as a free action. Its closest mechanic seems to be the same as power attack or in fact any of the combat style choices that a player can make and whose effect/penalty stays until their next round.

Let me tell you a little tale that some of you newer players may not be aware of:

Once upon a time there was a 48 page rule book game called Star Fleet Battles. The game simulated 'Star-Trek' based tactical ship to ship combat. As time went on new expansions were added that added new races and abilities to the mix. However because people wanted exacting legalese to ensure that all interactions between the various systems and rules were clearly mapped out (so that the RAW WAS the RAI) the rules eventually became a 1000 page plus monstrosity that pretty much became a very niche system (very much like say Squad Leader became). Every paragraph had a unique reference number and if any system affected another aspect of a rule you had references in the rule back to the relevant paragraphs. Note that the actual rule content had not changed by much but the bloat generated by the cross referencing and clarification made it necessary to carry a folder that would look totally in place on a lawyer's shelf. The complexity and interactions became so intertwined that eventually the designers had to release a new set of much simpler rules to try and get market share back.

This is the danger that any system faces when players attempt to squeeze RAW interpretations out of what really should be an RAI understanding. Do you really want to see a 1000 page plus CRB of which more than half reads like "See rule reference XYZ unless category A and B but not C is in effect in which case use Rule KLM as written"?

(Edated fur mah gud speling ...)

[blackbloodtroll]

I will likely present it to my DM to be run like Power Attack.

It is a reasonable compromise between the very restrictive, and the very nonrestrictive interpretations.