Does a Barbarian's Rage, prevents the Barbarian from dealing non-lethal damage?

[Secane]

This was brought up in a recent PFS game, where a barbarian player mention that since he is raging, he cannot choose to deal non-lethal damage. With the GM agreeing.
Their reasoning is that dealing non-lethal damage is something that requires patience and intelligence to pull off.

Is this correct???

My personal reasoning, says no, as nothing in rage or non-lethal damage, states that you are prevented from dealing non-lethal damage when raging.

Can anyone shed more like on this?

Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage wrote:

You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.

Rage (Ex) wrote:

A barbarian can call upon inner reserves of strength and ferocity, granting her additional combat prowess. Starting at 1st level, a barbarian can rage for a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + her Constitution modifier. At each level after 1st, she can rage for 2 additional rounds. Temporary increases to Constitution, such as those gained from rage and spells like bear's endurance, do not increase the total number of rounds that a barbarian can rage per day. A barbarian can enter rage as a free action. The total number of rounds of rage per day is renewed after resting for 8 hours, although these hours do not need to be consecutive.

While in rage, a barbarian gains a +4 morale bonus to her Strength and Constitution, as well as a +2 morale bonus on Will saves. In addition, she takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class. The increase to Constitution grants the barbarian 2 hit points per Hit Dice, but these disappear when the rage ends and are not lost first like temporary hit points. While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.

A barbarian can end her rage as a free action and is fatigued after rage for a number of rounds equal to 2 times the number of rounds spent in the rage. A barbarian cannot enter a new rage while fatigued or exhausted but can otherwise enter rage multiple times during a single encounter or combat. If a barbarian falls unconscious, her rage immediately ends, placing her in peril of death.

[Quandary]

uh... no. absolutely no restriction.
why? there is no patience or concentration involved.
no concentration check, and it involves the exact same action a normal attack does.
if you are using unimproved UAS or a sap there is no choice, it is just nonlethal.
if you have improved UAS, you have a choice, but there is no difference in concentration/action.
if you have a normal weapon, there is also no difference is concentration/action, you just take an attack penalty.
is there any reason that taking an attack penalty is barred in rage?
no, not in this case, and not in the case of power attack or fighting defensively.

now i'm sure you can understand the vague 'feeling' that might be motivating this perception,
based simply on the characture of the barbarian as a whole,
but that's just not something derivable from the rules in any way.

[Christopher Woldridge]

"or any ability that requires patience or concentration." Is vague enough that you could say the -4 you take to perform a non-lethal strike with a lethal weapon, or fight defensively with any weapon is due to concentration or the patience to wait for the right time to strike.

As a GM (both at home games and PFS) I would never allow a barbarian while in rage to fight defensively or deal non-lethal damage with a weapon that normally does lethal damage.

I believe that is why the rule is worded vaguely in the first place. It allows GM's the wiggle room as they see fit.

[Talos Valcoran]

RAW I see no problem with it. However I agree with cripsy3d that I wouldn't allow it for the reasons he gave.

[blackbloodtroll]

There is no RAW support for this stance.

You know what else the "patience or concentration" restriction does not prevent?

Sneak attack.

Fighting Defensively.

Total Defense.

Combat Expertise.

Whatever made up restriction not in the description of Rage that some DM tries to shove down your throat is houserules.

There is no place for houserules in PFS.

A Barbarian's Rage is not some blithering, mouth foaming, form of temporary mental retardation.

I, personally am tired of this crap.

Know your class features, and stop nerfing stuff because you feel like being a jerk.

[Christopher Woldridge]

Hostile much? Your reply has a touch of rage in it. Fits the thread. Just for the record I am not being a jerk or "nerfing" anything. I run a game and this is how I run it. The reasons I give fit into RAW just as well as yours. "patience or concentration" is open to the GM to figure out. I will not tell you how to run your table, please do not tell me how to run mine. The OP asked what people thought and I replied.

Rage can easily be seen as a "form of temporary mental retardation". You do not have the ability to make a Knowledge skill check (not even with a DC of 5) while in rage. Therefore, by RAW, while in rage you cannot tell the difference between a Goblin and a Halfling as it requires a DC 5 Knowledge local check.

[blackbloodtroll]

I am not telling you how to run your game.

I am, more less, expressing my own personal frustration with many rulings on this.

I noted this in the post.

The only personal attack, is the one you create yourself.

I am sorry if my unspoken words offended you.

[Quandary]

when discussing what is justified by the "RAW", by definition that means you are constrained to a CONSERVATIVE reading of the rules.
now in some rare cases, the rules just aren't functional as written, but if there IS a functional conservative reading of the rules, that is the one we should accept as the RAW functionality (and when the rules are just broken as written, how we then choose to play should not be conflated as the 'RAW' even if there isn't a valid 'RAW' functionality)

"patience and concentration" cannot just be extrapolated to mean whatever you want them to, they have specific meanings.
concentration has a specific meaning in this game. patience is a function of time spent.
none of these activities invoke concentration, or take any further action/time than normal attacks do.
the absolute minimum duration event needed to invoke them should be at least a '1 round' action
(like summon spells, not any full round action like full attack)
since anything less than that is not in game terms a continuous event over time which multiple other characters' turns
(doing non-patient/concentrating actions) would interrupt, i.e. indicative of patience or concentration.

while in a rage your INT is not modified at all, there is no limitation on your tactics, and you can fully tell the difference between your friends and foes.
while raging you can choose to forgo the rage bonuses using moment of prescience, you can choose different rage powers giving you bonuses to offence or defense on the fly, you can use rage powers to climb a tall cliff over many minutes of time, you can destroy the ground around you as a tactical plan to hamper your enemies subject to difficult terrain, you can follow the tracks of other creatures using scent and other senses, you can recognize effects like negative levels and respond adequately to remove them, you can recognize spells as such and decide to sunder them... those are all explicit just from rage powers.

there's certainly no problem with playing how you like in home games, but if the question and topic here is the RAW,
i.e. conservative reading of the rules text and which should be reproducible in PFS games, that just doesn't fly,
it's fine to share how you play in a home game, but that isn't sufficient justication to count as the RAW.

[blackbloodtroll]

Indeed.

Quandry has very accurately described the meaning of "patience and concentration", as it pertains to the rules.

Concentration = Concentration.

Patience = Requiring more than one round to complete.

Other meanings are houserules.

Houserules are fine for home games.

Houserules are not allowed in PFS.

[Christopher Woldridge]

So telling me that I do not know the rules and I am a jerk are not personal attacks? You were just venting. My bad, I must have read that wrong.

Your apology is accepted.

@Quandary you can indeed tell the difference between your friends and foes, unless you are a wild rager. But if two creatures walked on to the battle field you would have no way to tell what creature type they were as you cannot make knowledge checks.

RAW is what you are expected to use when you GM PFS. RAI is what you use when things are worded in a vague fashion, like rage. RAI differs from GM to GM. As a GM and a western martial artist I see both fighting defensively and trying to knock someone out without killing them, while using a battle axe, tasks that require patience and concentration. Until I see RAW that says otherwise I will run it that way at my table.

That said in over 30 years of running D&D I have never had a raging barbarian try to subdue someone or fight defensively at my table.

[Christopher Woldridge]

I disagree. That is the rule for a "Concentration Check". It requires concentration to tie a knot, solve a mathmatical equation, spell a word. A Concentration Check is what the wizard needs to make to cast a spell when the raging barbarian hits him.

[Bill Dunn]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Patience = Requiring more than one round to complete.

While I may agree that's a reasonable interpretation of what patience involves (with sufficient caveats to allow for things like rage-boosted climbing or swimming), that's pretty much an interpretation that not everyone will have. That leaves a lot of wiggle room for players and GMs to decide certain things aren't rage appropriate.

That said, I don't have a problem with barbarians making non-lethal attacks with lethal weapons or fighting defensively. After all, being unable to use Combat Expertise was left out of the PF version of rage. I do believe that a player could interpret rage in a way that he feels his character would never choose to fight defensively, use Combat Expertise, or inflict non-lethal damage (with a lethal weapon).

[blackbloodtroll]

Does riding a horse require "patience or concentration", by these, seemingly ever encompassing restrictions?

[ShadowcatX]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

There is no RAW support for this stance.

You know what else the "patience or concentration" restriction does not prevent?

Sneak attack.

Fighting Defensively.

Total Defense.

Combat Expertise.

Whatever made up restriction not in the description of Rage that some DM tries to shove down your throat is houserules.

There is no place for houserules in PFS.

A Barbarian's Rage is not some blithering, mouth foaming, form of temporary mental retardation.

I, personally am tired of this crap.

Know your class features, and stop nerfing stuff because you feel like being a jerk.

Huzzah!

[blackbloodtroll]

I must say, if I played with a DM who restricted Rage so much beyond what is written, I would simply go Urban Barbarian to avoid personal frustration.

By the way, I must repeat, as it seems necessary, I have not, and will not personally attack anyone.

Please refrain from such accusations.

[Kryzbyn]

I guess this would be a RAW vs. RAI or common sense arguement.
RAW you can still do all kinds of stuff while raging.
RAI/Common sense, it depends on how you envision rage working.
Is it unbridled hulk smash, or an intense focus uninfluenced by emotion.
If its the former, then he's gonna swing for all he's got. He ain;t holding back to inflict non-lethal.
If it's the latter, then of course he could restrain himself, and still keep his focus.

But, this must follow RAW no matter what is why I don't play PFS...

[Quandary]

Bill Dunn wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Patience = Requiring more than one round to complete.

While I may agree that's a reasonable interpretation of what patience involves (with sufficient caveats to allow for things like rage-boosted climbing or swimming), that's pretty much an interpretation that not everyone will have. That leaves a lot of wiggle room for players and GMs to decide certain things aren't rage appropriate.

But the point is, is there a functionality plausibly indicated by a conservative reading of the RAW? If there is, that is what we should take as the RAW. Are these other readings plausible CONSERVATIVE readings of RAW? If not, then they are not a valid contender as to a RAW functionality. I am not hesitant to say when I believe the RAW isn't ACCURATE, i.e. it has an editing/grammatical mistake, but nobody is making that claim here, so there's no reason to avoid acknowledging the RAW as the definitive RAW.

And really, the basic meaning of the word 'patience' does indicate that the period of time is relevant, whatever duration you think is the most justifiable threshold. When using non-lethal attacks or fighting defensively are using the exact same actions/time duration as other normal attacks, what basis is there to claim a difference in 'patience'?

Nothing in Rage says your only goal may be to kill the enemy, i.e. ruling out non-lethal. Taking an attack penalty may reduce your damage output, but so is dropping your greatsword and switching to UAS. Power Attack itself involves an attack penalty that works identical to Fighting Defensively except for the benefit it grants. There is literally so many rage powers that simply do not directly further violent aggression, so why should we read that limitation into Rage otherwise?

Again, when things like climbing or preparing difficult ground or ESPECIALLY tracking (if you're tracking, you're almost certainly not going to find the target within a round) allow pursuing goals without immediate result and are implicitly allowable by being rage powers, how can actions that take LESS time and have LESS long term focus possibly be interpreted as requiring too much patience? (all the above do fit into the normal actions you can complete on a round by round basis, even if you may need to repeat that round after round to achieve a goal, but each round the actions are valid and accomplish the outcome of the action itself, unlike using Disable Device on a difficult lock, etc)

[Mergy]

Blackbloodtroll is of course correct. There's no RAW justification for most of the penalties that people heap onto rage. I've had one GM tell me he didn't want my barbarian to fire a bow while raging.

GMs, please make sure to take into account what the rules actually say, and not what you want them to say. Especially do so if you are a PFS GM, who is expected to provide a similar organized play experience that players are having elsewhere.

[psi_overtake]

Quandary wrote:

And really, the basic meaning of the word 'patience' does indicate that the period of time is relevant

Not in the definitions I see...

EDIT: I'm dumb xD You're right, sorry!

Hey there, I love rules arguments, so I thought I'd step in here =)

Just to recap:

Rage (Ex) wrote:

While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.

Alrighty, so let's look at the parts up for interpretation - patience and concentration:

Dictionary.com wrote:

patience - bearing provocation, annoyance, misfortune, delay, hardship, pain, etc., with fortitude and calm and without complaint, anger, or the like.

So let's say a baddie punches the barbarian in the face, and he rages. If he responds with anger, or in a way that isn't calm, he's good. I'm sure that dealing damage to your opponent, even if it's non-lethal, can be done in an angry manner, so we're good there. I'd probably say that if he, say, strikes twice and misses because of the -4, he would become impatient with that method.

Dictionary.com wrote:

concentrate - to come or cause to come to a single purpose or aim.

Well that's unfortunate. By that ruling, the barbarian wouldn't be able to do much of anything then! Since that definition wouldn't make any sense, we'll look at another definition.

Dictionary.com wrote:

concentrate - think intensely (about).

To whack someone in the head with the shaft of your weapon, does that require intense thinking? Keeping precedence in mind, I'd say no. If you can perform tasks like riding a horse and tumbling deftly to avoid enemy attacks, I believe you can perform tasks like hitting someone with something other than the pointy end of your weapon.

Is there anything unclear or should be disputed about that?

[blackbloodtroll]

I just feel the whole down-syndrome Hulk bath-salt mad Rage thing is silly.

RAW allow for skillfully tumbling past foes(Acrobatics), but somehow there are some DMs that would disallow turning a dang doorknob.

[Quandary]

Knowledge(Architecture) check there, sorry...

[blackbloodtroll]

"Blergle, hergle, grrrrrmmph, Door? SMAAAAAAAAAAAASH!!!!!!"

Yup, that is the only option for bypassing doors for a Raging Barbarians, according to some DMs.

[thejeff]

No. It's a DC 0 Knowledge check to tell a door from a wall. You can't do that, so you must smash the wall.

[blackbloodtroll]

thejeff wrote:

No. It's a DC 0 Knowledge check to tell a door from a wall. You can't do that, so you must smash the wall.

You also must use your head, as you can't tell which weapon would be better suited.

[Mergy]

It's an intelligence check to remember why you're fighting in the first place. You wake up in a dark alley with the blood and entrails of your former allies surrounding you.

[Realmwalker]

Kryzbyn wrote:

I guess this would be a RAW vs. RAI or common sense arguement.

RAW you can still do all kinds of stuff while raging.
RAI/Common sense, it depends on how you envision rage working.
Is it unbridled hulk smash, or an intense focus uninfluenced by emotion.
If its the former, then he's gonna swing for all he's got. He ain;t holding back to inflict non-lethal.
If it's the latter, then of course he could restrain himself, and still keep his focus.

But, this must follow RAW no matter what is why I don't play PFS...

I will make a point using the "Hulk Smash" comment, in a majority of the Hulk Rage Rampages in the comics I would like to point out that The Hulk has rarely killed anyone. Property damage yes out right killing not so much.

I see no reason why an enraged Barbarian should be restricted to lethal attacks only. There is no real RAW case for it.

[Realmwalker]

Is the character playing a barbarian with the wild rager archetype? If not then allow the Barbarian to make non-lethal attacks as normal.

[Dr Grecko]

Realmwalker wrote:

Is the character playing a barbarian with the wild rager archetype? If not then allow the Barbarian to make non-lethal attacks as normal.

Even then, the confusion happens after you drop an opponent to zero. I would still allow it while not "confused"

[HangarFlying]

Don't forget people, it was a player that made such a decision about his own character. Why is everyone getting butt-hurt about a player limiting his own character's actions? It certainly doesn't break any rules for him to play it this way.

[Kryzbyn]

Hulk was totally holding back with Loki though, right?

[Quandary]

HangarFlying wrote:

Don't forget people, it was a player that made such a decision about his own character. Why is everyone getting butt-hurt about a player limiting his own character's actions? It certainly doesn't break any rules for him to play it this way.

I believe the stated purpose of this thread is to discuss the validity of a hypothetical rules limitation,

which is what people have been addressing, not denouncing how anybody may freely choose their Barbarian characters' actions.
Obviously nobody has suggested that you are prevented from attacking with lethal damage,
but the explicit question of the OP was on the validity of purported restrictions that some believe always apply when Raging...

Quote:

Their reasoning is that dealing non-lethal damage is something that requires patience and intelligence to pull off.

Is this correct???

[thejeff]

HangarFlying wrote:

Don't forget people, it was a player that made such a decision about his own character. Why is everyone getting butt-hurt about a player limiting his own character's actions? It certainly doesn't break any rules for him to play it this way.

OP wrote:

where a barbarian player mention that since he is raging, he cannot choose to deal non-lethal damage. With the GM agreeing.

It's not clear from the context. If that's the barbarian player saying, "My character's way of raging keeps him from making non-lethal attacks" and the GM saying, "Ok, if that's how you want to roleplay it", then there's nothing to argue about. It's a roleplaying issue.

If it's the barbarian player saying, "I'd love to make a non-lethal attack, but can't while I'm raging" and the GM agreeing "Right, raging prevents non-lethal attacks", then it's a rules issue.

[Realmwalker]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Hulk was totally holding back with Loki though, right?

Watch that scene closely, he slams Loki into the ground several times, stops checks out Loki then slams him a few more times, Loki is moaning in pain as the Hulk leaves the scene "Puny God..." Hulk did only enough damage to Loki to take him out of the fight.

[Morgen]

To the OP.

Intelligence has nothing to do with it. A 1 int dog could deal nonlethal damage if it wanted too. Now why it would want too...I don't know. Nipping at something to keep it away from it's food or whatever. Either way there is no limitations put onto dealing nonlethal damage.

Swinging to kill and swinging to incapacitate is merely a choice.

[HangarFlying]

I never said that there shouldn't be a rules discussion about it. I'm addressing the nerd-rage attacks on the GM, in which they apparently didn't consider the other side of the coin.

[psi_overtake]

HangarFlying wrote:

I'm addressing the nerd-rage attacks on the GM, in which they apparently didn't consider the other side of the coin.

Because the GM is drawing a conclusion based on the false premise that a barbarian cannot inflict non-lethal damage while raging. It would have been more correct to say "well, actually, you can still do lethal damage, but I'm okay if you want to role-play it so that you can't," rather than "yup."

[thejeff]

HangarFlying wrote:

I never said that there shouldn't be a rules discussion about it. I'm addressing the nerd-rage attacks on the GM, in which they apparently didn't consider the other side of the coin.

I think most people read the OP as I did. Claiming the GM and player agreed that the RAW wouldn't allow a raging barbarian to make non-lethal attacks.

OTOH, I haven't seen a lot of nerd-rage attacks on the original GM. Some on posters who have said they wouldn't allow it, even in PFS, but then we're back in the rules debate.

[Dr Grecko]

Perhaps this could be a compromise.. Make your decision before raging.. "Do I knock this guy out or kill him". You're more than capable of raging with a specific goal in mind to kill or not kill. Use moment of clarity if you suddenly change your mind.

Rage does not mean you forget how to fight, you can stop swinging and start grappling if you wish. You should be able to do lethal / non-lethal at your discretion. But the above may be a nice compromise to those that like their barbarians chaotic rage-dumb.

[Lincoln Hills]

When I play a barbarian, entering rage really is my way of saying, "I am no longer 'shooting to wound'." So I probably wouldn't ever make use of the option: but I agree that the rules-as-written do not specifically forbid it, and I can think of some non-traditional rage concepts that might allow it. In fact, as a GM I tend to encourage the taking of prisoners, so anything that restricts the use of nonlethal damage would be counter-productive for me.

[Quandary]

Dr Grecko wrote:

Perhaps this could be a compromise.. Make your decision before raging.. "Do I knock this guy out or kill him".

When one position is baldly unjustified and another is fully justified, a compromise is not the best solution.

"The world is flat!" vs. "The world is provably a (near) sphere." Shall we just compromise? No.
The justified solution in no way impedes any Rager from CHOOSING to use LETHAL damage.
Wild Ragers who become Confused cannot tell friend from foe, and don't have a reason to take a penalty to-hit to deal Non-Lethal dmg vs. these perceived enemies. But that is distinct from normal Rage.

[Driver 325 yards]

Yes, I just don't get those who constantly try to limit rage.

Why is Combat Expertise, Fighting Defensively, and Total Defense a no no when a barbarian can do Gaurded Stance?

Why is Sneak Attack a no no when a Barbarian can spell sunder, surprising (attack,accuracy) and witch hunter?

Why is "patience" so nebulously used against a Barbarian when a Barbarian could stop fighting and drink in the middle of a combat to take advantage of "Good For What Ails You" or stop to use Renewed Vigor?

Why are Barbarians assumed to not be able to use tactics (like nonlethal attacks) while fighting when they can choose when to Reckless Abandon, Auspicious Mark, Gaurded Stance, Rolling Dodge, Intimidating Glare, Earth Break, Unexpected Strike or Terrifying Howl?

Barbarians can Handle Mounts and fight tactically with mounts (furious mount line, mad dog barbarian).

A barbarian can choose to go in and out of rage to suit his tactical needs.

Heck, a barbarian could tight rope (acrobatics) or better yet tight rope on the back of a mount (ride) assuming his skill is great enough. People please.

The reason why you want to adopt the most conservative postion for RAW is so that a person can go and sit at any PFS table and really any table and play their character the way they envisioned without being assaulted with a GMs notions of what a barbarian should be.

[Quandary]

Because Rage.

And yeah, I think way too many people don't understand the crucial importance of 'conservative reading' when it comes to deciding what is directed by the RAW, and what exceeds that.

[Zhayne]

'Rage' is just a name. The player can flavor it any way he desires.

Nothing in the rules forbids a barbarian from doing nonlethal damage.

[Sazzle Verona II]

Obviously, a raging barbarian/sorcerer cannot cast spells. I only wish that controlled rage allowed an urban barbarian/sorcerer to cast spells.
But to return to the matter at hand, Sazzle is unlikely to want to inflict nonlethal damage while raging, but the option is there.

[blackbloodtroll]

Indeed.

Many see "Rage", the idea, and not "Rage", the class feature.

If the class feature is not explicitly restricting an action, it is best to take a conservative approach to what else you would restrict, under RAW.

[Calybos1]

Just because a barbarian is raging doesn't mean he has no choice in what types of attacks he can make. Would a GM force a raging barbarian to always Power Attack, for example? Would he force a raging barbarian with a bow to drop it and charge with his greatsword instead? Drink a Heroism potion to get the bonuses? Steal the rogue's sword if he's unarmed, just to ensure that he doesn't accidentally inflict nonlethal damage?

That works only if you interpret rage as meaning "utterly, blindly devoted to doing as much physical melee damage as possible with the most effective and deadly means available to you." And I don't think it's described that way in the rules.

Plus, the level of judgment and calculation the barbarian would need to go through to ensure maximum melee lethality (do I split my attacks between enemies here? do I take the AoO or use Step Up? do I drink an Enlarge potion?) ITSELF suggests that rage doesn't shut down the brain.

[Unklbuck]

I play a tanking Barbarian in PFS games. All of his rage powers are defensively oriented and Combat Expertise is the next feat he is taking. I envision his rages as more as highly intense episodes of "They shall not pass!!!" or "You aren't getting to hurt my friends!!"