Nope. That's kind of the whole point.
EDIT: Unless you use Moment of Clarity.
By the RAW, no, but I'd allow it.
The whole idea of being superstitious is your innate distrust of ALL magic. The closing off of allied spells is the price you pay for the benefit.
Superstition the Rage Power is not the same as superstition the mental state. Nothing in its description says you have an 'innate distrust of all magic'. If it was what you say, the Barbarian would have to drop his magic weapon, take off his magic armor, his rings, amulet ...
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I think the question was, "Is it legal to omit one rage benefit that you have taken (and are entitled to) when first entering a rage, or must every rage include all rage benefits that your character has taken?" Superstitious just being a specific case where a player might want to.
Am I right, RtrnofdMax?
Put that way, I'd personally be inclined to allow the barb to omit the power, but thye would have to do so for the entire rage - if they wanted to activate an omitted power, they would have to stop raging and restart with the power active. No starting/stopping/restarting in the middle willy-nilly.
Edit: fixed dumb spelling error
It's basic English grammar.
When something says "When you Rage, you can... When you Rage, you may... This Power is used as an X action when Raging..."
those all invoke a discrete choice up to the player/character, distinct from Raging.
When something says "When you Rage, this happens",
it's not a choice of yours to make, other than whether to Rage or not.
|
I think the question was, "Is it legal to omit one rage benefit that you have taken (and are entitled to) when first entering a rage, or must every rage include all rage benefits that your character has taken?" Superstitious just being a specific case where a player might want to.
Am I right, RtrnofdMax?
Nope. I'm not the original poster, but I can't see how he could have meant it that way.
There are a ton of rage powers that are activated when you choose to use them, possibly even more than the "always on" variety like Superstition. I would take this question as being about this one rage power, which is definitely always on, and can't be turned off while raging.
I think the question was, "Is it legal to omit one rage benefit that you have taken (and are entitled to) when first entering a rage, or must every rage include all rage benefits that your character has taken?" Superstitious just being a specific case where a player might want to.
Am I right, RtrnofdMax?
Put that way, I'd personally be inclined to allow the barb to omit the power, but thye would have to do so for the entire rage - if they wanted to activate an omitted power, they would have to stop raging and restart with the power active. No starting/stopping/restarting in the middle willy-nilly.
Edit: fixed dumb spelling error
I concur.
|
|
Ya, that is how I meant it.
Scenario 1:
Raging barbarians are cresting the hill. You almost cannot see the ground for all their fur-bound feet. This will be a long fight; I hope we can last.
In this scenario, I would opt for receiving party healing as I would feel confident that not many spells would be flung my way. Should their uber shaman present himself, I may regret that decision, but I chose not to take the benefit when I entered the Rage.
Scenario 2:
The windows of the Cathedral are blasted out from the inside by the concussive force of four wizards that just blinked in. As they surround you and start drawing faint glowing runes in the air, you can only hope that the focus of your rage can help you weather their arcane onslaught
Obviously, I would want a save bonus here.
Yeah ... it is technically against the RAW, but I'd see no reason to disallow it. It's just a matter of putting your mental shields up or not.
|
|
Yeah ... it is technically against the RAW, but I'd see no reason to disallow it. It's just a matter of putting your mental shields up or not.
Except that the whole point of barbarian rage is that you go into such a frenzy that you're not thinking clearly. The mental concentration necessary to decide whether or not to put up the mental shields would seem to be too much for a raging barbarian.
So I agree with the RAW. But again, it's not an unreasonable house rule.
Design Manager
|
I worry about how that might impact balance over-all as well though. If Superstition is off, are you still gaining the benefits of Spellbreaker, Disruptive, Witchhunter, etc.? All of those abilities assume that you have Superstition, are in fact contiingent upon you having Superstition. If you're choosing not to activate the pre-req, can you use contingent abilities ?
Yeah ... it is technically against the RAW, but I'd see no reason to disallow it. It's just a matter of putting your mental shields up or not.Except that the whole point of barbarian rage is that you go into such a frenzy that you're not thinking clearly. The mental concentration necessary to decide whether or not to put up the mental shields would seem to be too much for a raging barbarian.
So I agree with the RAW. But again, it's not an unreasonable house rule.
Barbarians take no INT penalty.
They can attack whomever, however they please. They do not suddenly lose all tactical sense.They can retreat.
They can stop and drink potions, or just stop and wait for a teammate to take some action.
Raging does not make you a frothing retard. Furthermore, you can reflavor the Rage into something else that doesn't require getting angry.
But it does work contrary to your preference on Superstition.
But it does work contrary to your preference on Superstition.
Which I have already stated twice, thank you.
Just stayin' on topic... :-)
I see you giving fluff justifications for your violations of RAW,
rather than acknowledging there can be plenty of fluff rationale for the RAW functionality.
Barring evidence to the contrary, I'd say the designers were aware of what they were writing,
and had a specific fluff correlation in mind for that functionality.
|
|
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.
I'd put focusing on whether or not they want their "mental shields up" in the concentration category.
Like I said, I agree with the RAW, because I see the reasoning behind it. But I also think it's a reasonable house rule if someone wanted it.
Barbarians take no INT penalty.
They can attack whomever, however they please. They do not suddenly lose all tactical sense.
They can retreat.
They can stop and drink potions, or just stop and wait for a teammate to take some action.Raging does not make you a frothing retard. Furthermore, you can reflavor the Rage into something else that doesn't require getting angry.
They may not lose all tactical sense but they lose quite a bit of their normal faculties, including the ability to use any skill based off that unpenalized INT. So there's more going on than just picking up some combat bonuses - the barbarian's not in his normal frame of mind.
I think by picking the superstition rage power, the player should acknowledge that's how he wants his barbarian's rage to behave, that's what he wants the raging barbarian's state of mind to include. If he wanted to not be encumbered by its drawbacks, he shouldn't have taken it in the first place. I think that's the intent of the rule as it appears in the book and, frankly, I'd be disinclined to allow the character to selectively turn it on or off as a house rule.
Just stayin' on topic... :-)
I see you giving fluff justifications for your violations of RAW,
rather than acknowledging there can be plenty of fluff rationale for the RAW functionality.
Barring evidence to the contrary, I'd say the designers were aware of what they were writing,
and had a specific fluff correlation in mind for that functionality.
I'm sure they did.
However, fluff is not binding in any case, so it doesn't matter.
They may not lose all tactical sense but they lose quite a bit of their normal faculties, including the ability to use any skill based off that unpenalized INT. So there's more going on than just picking up some combat bonuses - the barbarian's not in his normal frame of mind.
There's a thick line between 'not in his normal frame of mind' and 'frothing moron who can't do anything but attack whatever's in front of him and only says BARUGGABUGGAKILLKILL'.
There's a thick line between 'not in his normal frame of mind' and 'frothing moron who can't do anything but attack whatever's in front of him and only says BARUGGABUGGAKILLKILL'.
Fortunately, nobody's saying that is how a barbarian must behave. Rather, I've seen people saying his mental state is impaired compared to his normal state and that choosing to put up or leave down mental defenses doesn't seem to fit the rage mojo.
Maybe to you, not to everybody.
What about UB? Their Rage still prevents spellcasting and abilities which require patience/concentration and still automatically triggers Superstition's bonus vs. Spells that allow Saves. What Rules Question remains here?
Will this devolve into one of those debates about some who believe Rage is some form of mental retardation, in spite of RAW?
I think it already did.
I stand in the camp of you can't avoid the drawbacks of Superstition under any circumstances, you have the good and the bad both for all it's worth. For me this also includes an Urban Barbarian, because the specifics of Superstition counteract the general state of rage, or controlled rage in this case.
I think raw the answer is clearly no . House rule anything you want to have a fun game.
The RAW is pretty clear (as far as I can tell) and I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't. (Correct me here if I'm wrong.) Rather I think the argument is that, in a certain context, it makes sense to ignore the RAW and probably wouldn't be over powered in that case.
Precisely. I can't for the life of me imagining being able to do this breaking anything. I can't even fathom why that restriction is even there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The RAW is pretty clear (as far as I can tell) and I don't think anyone is arguing that it isn't. (Correct me here if I'm wrong.) Rather I think the argument is that, in a certain context, it makes sense to ignore the RAW and probably wouldn't be over powered in that case.Precisely. I can't for the life of me imagining being able to do this breaking anything. I can't even fathom why that restriction is even there.
So your barbarian has, 24/7, a significant morale bonus to all his saves vs. spells, SLA and (Su) abilities. When he rages, he makes the CHOICE to give up those benefits--just during this rage!--so that he can be healed.
The reason that restriction is there is that you're superstitious and dislike magic, but also as a balancing point. You're getting a SIGNIFICANT boost to saves against magic at the cost of not being able to willingly accept buff spells (or cures) in combat.
Since this is a thread in the RULES forum, I can only in good conscience advice the OP follows the rules of the game.
Note it says spells, not Su.
Exactly! It's already a restriction that is trivially bypassed. Anyone trying to heal in combat with cure spells is either healing someone already fallen (rage is ended, Superstition not an issue) or woefully poor at basic tactics.
The reason that restriction is there is that you're superstitious and dislike magic,
This is pure fluff and is non-binding. Again, if you 'dislike magic', you're going to divest yourself of all your magic items. Does the power says it does that?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is pure fluff and is non-binding. Again, if you 'dislike magic', you're going to divest yourself of all your magic items. Does the power says it does that?
Nope. It just says the barbarian needs to save against all spells while raging. No exceptions. The RAW is clear, and if you don't like that houserule it as desired.
This is pure fluff and is non-binding. Again, if you 'dislike magic', you're going to divest yourself of all your magic items. Does the power says it does that?Nope. It just says the barbarian needs to save against all spells while raging. No exceptions. The RAW is clear, and if you don't like that houserule it as desired.
Which I've said three times now.
Get your Righteous Vigor spell cast on you before you rage and you should be just fine.... I was at one point inclined to think that Optimistic Gambler could be a "work around" for Superstition but my current understanding of that trait is that the whole "effect" of Rage would persist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which I've said three times now.This is pure fluff and is non-binding. Again, if you 'dislike magic', you're going to divest yourself of all your magic items. Does the power says it does that?Nope. It just says the barbarian needs to save against all spells while raging. No exceptions. The RAW is clear, and if you don't like that houserule it as desired.
Then why do you keep saying otherwise in the RULES forum.
This is pure fluff and is non-binding. Again, if you 'dislike magic', you're going to divest yourself of all your magic items. Does the power says it does that?
The reason that restriction is there is that you're superstitious and dislike magic,
Way to ignore the rest of my post.
This is pure fluff and is non-binding. Again, if you 'dislike magic', you're going to divest yourself of all your magic items. Does the power says it does that?Nope. It just says the barbarian needs to save against all spells while raging. No exceptions. The RAW is clear, and if you don't like that houserule it as desired.
Neat! Finally ran across one of the other people using my avatar.
*Checks off on bucketlist*