My DM / group mean that the flavourtext is a (big) part of the rules.
For example they "rule" that the flavour text of the barbarian "rules" that you can not rage without combat and also that you can not fight strategic (use flanking, etc.) in rage ... and I have to play the barbarian like a "archetype barbarian" because it is a barbarian. (So I have to take the Urban Barbarian "controlled rage" to use strategie in combat ... but still cannot use rage without a combat situation)
So here is my question to the community:
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is nowhere in the description, flavor text or otherwise, that states that you can only rage in combat.
EDIT: However, I do often use flavor text alongside the rules to explain why it works, and how it behaves. (How it behaves with other feats, abilities, etc.)
1.) No.
2.) Where in the flavor does it even say that Rage is combat only? Your GM is aware that rounds exist outside of combat, right?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flavor is what the game is all about, this is an RPG game. As a GM I cringe when players only seek out abilities for their mechanical benefits. If you are trying to lift a rock, and you can not, you can not simply anger yourself to make this happen unless you believe this rock actually has the potential to kill you it does not pose the same threat level as combat.
On the other hand, if you are in a social situation, and you are angered to the point of rage and want to intimidate I would allow that.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM I cringe when players only seek out abilities for their mechanical benefits.
How DARE those players choose classes because they wish to have mechanical benefits! What horrible, terrible non-roleplayers they are for wanting to use their unique class abilities!
SHAAAME!
If you are trying to lift a rock, and you can not, you can not simply anger yourself to make this happen unless you believe this rock actually has the potential to kill you it does not pose the same threat level as combat.
1.) Rage is not literal, mouth frothing rage unless you want it to be. The fun thing about RPGs is that you can play whatever role you wish. Not every Barbarian is a Rage addled moron. By pretending they are you are limiting EVERY Barbarian to being the exact same character essentially. What you are doing is STIFLING roleplaying so you can pretend you are enforcing it.
2.) You've never gotten frustrated to the point of anger because you can't lift something where you need it to go? If not, I have a bigass rolltop desk and a hardwood entertainment center you can help me move. We can broaden your experiences some.
2.) Where in the flavor does it even say that Rage is combat only? Your GM is aware that rounds exist outside of combat, right?
I marked the flavour text he "rules":
For some, there is only rage. In the ways of their people, in the fury of their passion, Savages, hired muscle, masters of vicious martial techniques, they are not soldiers or professional warriors—they are the battle possessed, creatures of slaughter and spirits of war. Known as barbarians, these warmongers know little of training, preparation, or the rules of warfare; They possess a sixth sense in regard to danger and the endurance to weather all that might entail. These brutal warriors might rise from all walks of life, both civilized and savage, though whole societies embracing such philosophies roam the wild places of the world. Within barbarians storms the primal spirit of battle, and woe to those who face their rage.
Why is your DM so restrictive with your actions?
I think, he think that my character / the barbarianclass is to strong. He says: "but than a barbarian is a better fighter (...) rage is RAGE, so there could not be controlling in rage (...) in D&D the barbarian did not know how much damage he take and can not end his rage *blablabla* (...) in D&D there was a red carpet when you rage (...)"
The "boiling point" was a situation in which I tried breaking a door, because we are going to die. Our wizard enlarged me, I spent I heropoint, and so on, but I could not use my rage ...
By the way:
Help with my Elf-Barbarian
Elf 6 (House Thuranni - shadow network)
Barbarian 4 (Invulnerable Rager + Urban Barbarian)
Dragonmark Heir 2
Int 16
Dex 16
Str 14
Cha 10
Wil 10
Kon 10
Feats: Power Attack, Favoured of the House, Dragon Mark
There are Rage Powers that improve Climb, Swim, Acrobatics, and Sunder unattended objects.
These powers are nearly useless if Rage is combat restricted.
Yes, I (!) can not use ragepowers for climbing ... without a combat situation.
Also, creating your own flavor, is a key part of having fun, and keeping things fun.
Yes, I thought an elf barbarioan with INT and DEX 16 should be able to use his brain in rage ...
As a GM I cringe when players only seek out abilities for their mechanical benefits.How DARE those players choose classes because they wish to have mechanical benefits! What horrible, terrible non-roleplayers they are for wanting to use their unique class abilities!
SHAAAME!
Thanks :-)
1.) None of that text implies "Rage is usable only in battle". At all.
2.) The Barbarian is a better Fighter. Because the Fighter is bad. He's not really much better IN combat though if at all.
3.) Your DM sounds like a prick. I suggest finding a new group.
4.) Alternatively, tell me the rest of your party make-up. I can help you be an obnoxious dickweasel by trying to make sure the GM "enforces the flavor" on everyone else in the party as well. Don't shut up about it until he either realizes he's being a dumbass or kicks you out.
5.) Slap your DM and scream in his face "THIS IS NOT D&D! NOBODY CARES WHAT THE RULES MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN D&D!" until he gets it.
6.) Seriously, finding a DM that's not such an adversarial prick is probably your best solution.
Your character isn't even that good. He's got mediocre physical stats, a decent Int and then like nothing in every other stat. I dunno about your Feats, they don't exist in Pathfinder. Maybe that's why your GM is getting confused about how this isn't D&D. He's not terrible, especially for an unoptimized game, and especially if he wanted to be more of a skill guy (which Urban Barbarian is pretty good for). He's just not very good.
I truly shudder to think how terrible the rest of your party must be if he thinks your Barbarian is OP though.
(...) I dunno about your Feats, they don't exist in Pathfinder. (...)
Take a look at the link I have posted: Help with elf barbarian ->
When I started the group need a melee/ranged-fighter and a rogue. So I create a barbarian (4 Lvl) with Dex and Int 16.
When we change from Golarion to Eberron and I get 2 Lvl Dragonmark Heir to get the kingmaker aspect running. (...)
Frankly, get a new DM. Maybe try reasoning with him first, but it seems you already have. If he won't listen to reason, and it seems he will not, then get a new DM. Or learn to like things his way. Or YOU be the DM and do it your way.
There are not many more options than that.
To more directly answer the question, what everyone else has said is true: Flavor is cool, RPGs have flavor that no other kind of game ever has and that flavor SHOULD be a guide in understanding the rules, but flavor is NOT the rules. The actual written rules are the rules. Nowhere is it written that barbarians can only use Rage in combat, and you have been shown that they have multiple abilities that have no combat application, proof that they can rage out of combat. Period.
If you want to see your DM fly into his own rage, next time you want to break a door, have another PC in the party start a fight with you. Heck, he doesn't even have to damage you, he could simply do combat maneuvers - each one of those is an "attack" with CMB and it requires you to be in combat rounds. The best maneuver might be Steal - each round he can steal a coin from you. Meanwhile, you ARE in combat, so go ahead and Rage, and then smash the door, then stop raging and have your ally stop stealing and give your stuff back. Problem solved.
Nowhere, NOWHERE is there any rule or fluff that says you can't do that. Is it stupid? Of course it is, but so is the fact that you have to do it just to use one of your class abilities. No other class must give up their class abilities for stupid "flavor" reasons, right?
As for flanking in combat, stupid animals do it all the time. I doubt your barbarian is as mindless, in his rage, as a wolf is all the time, but that wolf flanks and trips every chance it gets.
Really, if he won't change his mind, then you change your DM.
I still can't find the Favored In House Feat anywhere, but whatever. It can't be so overwhelming that it alone would overpower you unless, again, the rest of your party is horribad beyond all belief.
The flavor OP talks about is not actually the flavor, it is just a possible interpretation of the barbarian.
That said it seems more like they are houseruling it rather than claiming RAW, you can discuss it or ask to make a different character if it is not enjoyable to play a barbarian like that, the perception might be that the barbarian outclasses the fighter too easily (which I agree with to some extent) and they feel tempted to nerve the class.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can Wizards only cast spells in combat?
Can a Fighter only benefit from Weapon Training and Armor Training while in combat?
In fact, is there any "combat only" abilities?
No.
This is not WoW.
I still say bring a bag of Squirrels to punch.
See how he likes that flavor.
No it's not.
When you have a group insisting that your warrior be stupid, it cuts deeply into being able to enjoy your concept.
Especially when he's an Elf with 16 INT.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or stubbing your toe. I've seen people get pretty pissed off while hopping around on one foot while holding the other and cursing.
I still can't find the Favored In House Feat anywhere, but whatever.
Sorry, the "favored of the house" is a eberron feat: Link
It is (only) a Requirement of the prestiege class Dragonmark heir and it is not overpower ...It can't be so overwhelming that it alone would overpower you unless, again, the rest of your party is horribad beyond all belief.
I started on lvl 1 (the other two players were on lvl 3) and I was (with this character) the damage dealer of the group *g*
We have a "rapier-paladin" and a "long-bow fighter-wizard". Sometimes we have a "tarot-card bard", too.
When you have a group insisting that your warrior be stupid, it cuts deeply into being able to enjoy your concept.Especially when he's an Elf with 16 INT.
That is what I say to them, but nobody (realy) want´s to listen.
Perhaps I should search an other DM / group but I arranged (take the urban barbarian etc.), begann to read the rules clearly and started optimizing my build character (for the campaigne / group). Sometimes I think I am the only one which read the rules and understand them. But that is not the point.The question is:
They say, "Yes it is, because it is a big part of the system and you can not play with out it. [End of discussion]"
|
|
*
btw.: If you have some ideas for optimizing the character, I would like to know :-)
--> Help with Elf Barbarian
|
|
So, Rogues must be sneaky, and avoid Head-to-head combat?
The flavor text says that's what they do, so they must do it?
You have to alter your concept concept, and your flavor, to match the flavor of an ability, or class?
Cardboard cutouts, with no variation, because inventive character concepts and tactics slide out of the flavor, and are wrong.
Why is he not building his own PCs, and playing them himself?
Playing with himself sounds like what he wants to do.
Not sure if this helps any, but I have a .... Okay, lets call it a story.
The game I'm currently running has a new player who "inherited" a half orc ranger from the original player when he moved away. The half orc is capable, with only average rolls, really, of laying waste to most anything presented in a published adventure of his level. In the same game I have two more experienced players who either try and min-max their character for combat situations
As the GM, do I decide the ranger is too powerful because his player set him up too effectively? No. Instead I take a look at my copy of his character sheet
As the GM, do I decide the rogue can suddenly "Stealth" (really, REALLY hate using that as a verb...) at any and all times? No. Nor do I cave in to the players' request that their character stealth (More assorted cursings about misuse of the word stealth...) everywhere, all the time. Instead, I point out more instances where stealth is a viable option, as well as pointing out that he doesn't need it to 'backstab' any more, and shake my head sagaciously when he refuses to learn any more stealth skill based on its combat usefulness (or rather its lack thereof)
As the GM do I decide the skill spreading character is too powerful for being able to roll at any given skill at any time?.... Okay, well, maybe. I've warned him a couple times that needless dice rolling can slow the game down, but that's hardly an OP situation. The point here, though, is that as the GM, I get some control over difficulty numbers. Although having to do the math for them to prove that they can't be effective at doing it all really shouldn't be as necessary as I've found it to be, the character is his character, and my thoughts
And is the sorcerer too powerful for having one, end-it-all spell? Yes. Sorta. I have patience, and that will go away in a few levels when things even out a bit. That, and it's single target, so I can just hit him with a swarm, an undead, or numerous other things it won't help against. Not too much, though, because while a certain spell, ability, or whatnot should never be too relied on, it should not be completely denied every time, either. (re: give the undead a living controller for him to suffocate, and let the other players handle some minions for a while)
As a final note, more directly in line with the start of the thread, the flavor text on Uncanny dodge:
Uncanny Dodge (Ex): Starting at 4th level, a rogue . She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized. A rogue with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to AC if an opponent successfully uses the feint action (see Combat) against her.
If a rogue already has uncanny dodge from a different class, she automatically gains improved uncanny dodge (see below) instead.
It's roughly once per session that someone with this ability tries to use the enlarged section of text to do something not listed in the next section. For a few examples: attack the whatever that surprised the rogue. Drink a potion (that is currently in the rogue's backpack) before whatever can attack the group. And in a particularly memorable debate, catch a thrown serpent and fling it back at the shadowy figure that tossed it on them.
And remember, the whole purpose of the game is fun. Maybe not all groups enjoy arguing about the game as much as playing it like mine do, but that's life. And if nothing else, it's a great excuse to enjoy a few beers and some pizza with friends, and maybe get a few passable stories out of it in the process.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can honestly say that no barbarian I've played has been dim-witted and/or frothing at the mouth. My current half-orc barbarian has 10 INT, 12 WIS, 12 CHA and maximum ranks in Diplomacy. And his raging doesn't turn him into an idiot. But apparently that's " munchkinism".
I'd say it's "not playing a lifeless copy of a shallow stereotype."
That's an exceedingly narrow view to take towards an entire class AND a class feature.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And sorry if this all sounds terribly bitter, but having one of your favorite classes be reduced to something so narrow on the argument that anything outside Ahnold-style RAWRAWG is somehow not roleplaying* or otherwise subverting the game tends to put one off.
*Even regardless of the mechanical sacrifices made in order to stay true to the character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you mean Arnold as Conan the Barbarian, well, Conan was smart. Smarter in the novels than in the movie, but even in the movie he was smart, stealthy, and employed strategy and traps and subterfuge, even if he did meet his match at the subterfuge bit - I guess even Conan can't do everything. And, in the movie, I don't remember him raging at all, except very early during his training, before he learned more and came into his own. Grunting and even screaming in battle is not necessarily rage or even anger; it's just tightening up the muscles and getting the most out of your power. Maybe a couple bits of anger during the "To hell with Crom" fight at the end, but nowhere remotely near frothing at the mouth or even a sterotypical Dump-INT barbarian in Pathfinder.
Yeah, it's one of my favorite classes too, in part because I read and loved all the Conan books.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vikings didn't all have an Intelligence score lower than 10, though.
And really, they are the basis for the Rage / Berserk thing that the Barbarian has.
|
|
@DM_Blake: I'm talking more about the memetic stereotype of Arnold!Conan than what was actually in the film. You know, the one that speaks exclusively with the sounds he was making in that one pit fight.
Having your barbarians, no matter what their actual personality or fighting style may be, reduced to that never feels good. Hence the strong negative reaction to Nimon's post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait you mean my GM lied and my barbarian doesn't lose his class features if his Int is higher than 7 or if I wear more than a lion cloth?? Am I also allowed to talk in complete sentences or is actually banned?
In all seriousness always crazy mouth foaming barbarians are as bad as always evil orcs right Mikaze?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are trying to lift a rock, and you can not, you can not simply anger yourself to make this happen unless you believe this rock actually has the potential to kill you it does not pose the same threat level as combat.
I feel so frustrated at my useless attempts to lifting this rock. I see the face of my Orc father ridiculing all my attempts at ... anything really. With the rest of the tribe laughing at my plight.
The veil of red that I am so accustomed to when fighting begins to blur my vision. I only see the face of my disdainful father as I lift the rock to throw it at him.
I come back to my senses, my whole body shaking from the immense anger that flowed through it. I take a few precarious steps and put my hand on the rock to steady myself and get my bearings.
RAGE, +4 to STR. Rock lifted. End RAGE.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My DM / group mean that the flavourtext is a (big) part of the rules.
For example they "rule" that the flavour text of the barbarian "rules" that you can not rage without combat and also that you can not fight strategic (use flanking, etc.) in rage ... and I have to play the barbarian like a "archetype barbarian" because it is a barbarian. (So I have to take the Urban Barbarian "controlled rage" to use strategie in combat ... but still cannot use rage without a combat situation)
So here is my question to the community:
No, it is not part of the rules. Flavor is mutable. You can just be someone that gets mad quickly.
Since flavor text is part of the rules see how your GM feels about this.
Your family is destined for greatness in some way. Your birth could have been foretold in prophecy, or perhaps it occurred during an especially auspicious event, such as a solar eclipse. Regardless of your bloodline's origin, you have a great future ahead.
Now does that mean you are not allowed to at 1st level per the rules in your first combat?
Non-mouth frothing rage.
Verry nice, I love this film, but I have not seen/think of this as a (controlled) rage, before. I think there are many examples out there, like this: Cap switch
If flavor is important to this DM, then why is it restricted?
I don´t know, but it is a good question. I will ask him in round about 2 weeks. But as said I think he / the group is still "playing D&D" and could / want not understand, that a pathfinder barbarian could be different ...
RAGE, +4 to STR. Rock lifted. End RAGE.
Nice! *ROFL*
It remember me the "gummie bears" when Duke Sigmund Igthorn drinks a Gummiberry Juice, lifting a rock and the effects ends ...OK, perhaps I should be happy that I cannot use rage outside a combat situation for something like this.
Since flavor text is part of the rules see how your GM feels about this.(...)
We have "talked" about - after a 20-30 post thread in "our forum" - over 3 hours about this "rage-problem". I have told them so many things, but they cannot / want not to understand. As I said I have arranged with this problem and now play a urban barbarian with controlled rage, and I love it, because my AC is 2 points higher and when I get below 0 HP, I am not dead ;-)
|
|
The game is all about some flavour, but I don't think that "Flavourtext" should mess with mechanics like that.
This is an excellent point. The GM is NOT putting a lot of importance on flavor. He is forcing the flavor text in the mechanics of the system. And then you get :
1) a mechanically unbalanced system
2) zero flavor
Flavor is what the game is all about, this is an RPG game. As a GM I cringe when players only seek out abilities for their mechanical benefits. If you are trying to lift a rock, and you can not, you can not simply anger yourself to make this happen unless you believe this rock actually has the potential to kill you it does not pose the same threat level as combat.On the other hand, if you are in a social situation, and you are angered to the point of rage and want to intimidate I would allow that.
I've gotten mad at rocks before.