|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find rage cycling unaesthetic. The intent behind "once per rage" powers was clearly not that they be used every round, regardless of how powerful barbarians may or may not be, comparatively.
As for the level 17 rage-without-fatigue: I'm not convinced the intent was to enable rage cycling to use OPR-powers. I think it was to make it easy to just casually spend a round of rage when it strikes your fancy, not keeping rage going in rounds where you don't have much to do. For example, round 1, rage and kill some things. Round 2, switch rage off, move around a bit, do some non-killing stuff. Round 3, rage on again and kill more stuff.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find rage cycling unaesthetic. The intent behind "once per rage" powers was clearly not that they be used every round, regardless of how powerful barbarians may or may not be, comparatively.
As for the level 17 rage-without-fatigue: I'm not convinced the intent was to enable rage cycling to use OPR-powers. I think it was to make it easy to just casually spend a round of rage when it strikes your fancy, not keeping rage going in rounds where you don't have much to do. For example, round 1, rage and kill some things. Round 2, switch rage off, move around a bit, do some non-killing stuff. Round 3, rage on again and kill more stuff.
I find that funny.
Barbarian: "I'm level 17! I can rage cycle now!"
Wizard: "I'm level 17, I can cast Wish and change the way the universe works..."
Cleric: "Me too!" <casts Miracle>
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find rage cycling unaesthetic. The intent behind "once per rage" powers was clearly not that they be used every round, regardless of how powerful barbarians may or may not be, comparatively.
As for the level 17 rage-without-fatigue: I'm not convinced the intent was to enable rage cycling to use OPR-powers. I think it was to make it easy to just casually spend a round of rage when it strikes your fancy, not keeping rage going in rounds where you don't have much to do. For example, round 1, rage and kill some things. Round 2, switch rage off, move around a bit, do some non-killing stuff. Round 3, rage on again and kill more stuff.
I find that funny.
Barbarian: "I'm level 17! I can rage cycle now!"
Wizard: "I'm level 17, I can cast Wish and change the way the universe works..."
Cleric: "Me too!" <casts Miracle>
Sorcerer: Look what I can do! *annihilates the entirety of Magnimar with one spell*
What is rage cycling?Rage cycling is when you find a way to negate the fatigue which stops you from normally entering rage, thus allowing you to Rage, use a 1/Rage power, unrage, and then re-rage to again allow the use of that power, making it less 1/rage and more 1/round.
Interesting. How does that affect the temporay HP granted by rage? Does it reset each time?
Of course it should be nerfed barbarians aren't casters.
Interesting. How does that affect the temporay HP granted by rage? Does it reset each time?
1) Rage doesn't grant Temporary HPs, which is a term for a specific rules mechanic that actually negates damage.
The HPs you gain from it's temporary CON boost never negate damage, you always must deal with that damage when you stop Raging, so 'resetting' Rage provides no advantage in that case.2) HPs from a temporary CON boost don't do you much good if you are only Raging on your turn and not during enemy's turns.
You know, i was going to post a joke about how these threads make me rage, and i don't fatigue.
But then i realized there was no witty way to put that, so i wrote this instead.
I'm with Gauss on this one. The RAI is not clear and the answer has never been addressed by the developers that I'm aware of.
If I were running a game for a bunch of optimizers who just wanted to murder-hobo everything that was thrown into their way, I'd drop allow rage cycling along with a whole schlew of other things that I would say are normally against my better judgement. Granted, I would also apply those same rules to monsters and do my best to challenge the player characters at every turn of their proverbial coliseum lineup.
Personally however, I prefer a cooperative game which focuses just as much on the story as the combat and so do my current players. This means that as a DM, I close down lots of things that I consider to be "loopholes" at the higher end of the optimization spectrum - rage cycling included. I also strictly limit interpretations of magic and avoid letting 9th level spells come into play. The end result is that I don't have to increase the power of monsters much and thus more character concepts are viable.
not RAI does mean the devs would not allow X at the table. Nor does it mean they never mean thought of combing X+Y+Z.
RAI=does the ability do what it was intended to do
so if X+Y+Z are used correctly, and they just happen to create a condition people don't like it is still RAI. I am not saying this condition is good for the game. I am just saying that RAI strictly applies to how the rules work, not whether or not the rules as combined are good for the game.
We just don't have a neat 3 letter acronym to describe whether or not the devs would allow X+Y+Z, if they had thought of it before the players did.
With that aside I think rage cycling is not a problem mechanically or thematically. I see rage as focused effort, not as anger despite the name.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey...hey guys...you know Blood Money is still a spell, right? Why not let the Barb have something nice while the Wizard can cast free Wish spells.
Besides, how many of those powers are going to be used more than 2 or three times a rage? Eater of Magic? It's a safety blanket for a Barb's already titanic saves. I doubt you'll be rerolling that often. Spell Sunder? I consider this more of an out of combat spell unless someone has a VERY important spell that needs to be broken, as face smash time is far more important than magic smash time for most people. Strength Surge? This one I could give you, but even then it's only great for a CMB smash moment, and Barbarians should be able to do this more than once a Rage.
All in all, a lot of people see it as 'gaming' the system, so why not reflavor it as something you like? I always considered it refocusing in battle, taking a second to breathe before getting back into that combat zen that allows you to be the best non magical class in the game.
|
You know what really saddens me about martial classes? Most of them have some nerf, listed
Magus*:Can't use main class feature with a 2h weapon in 2 hands, which is the main martial damage way.
Fighter:1 good save, few skills, bad class skills, and too many trap/sucky feats makes it hard for them to work anywhere but combat.
Paladin:Code of Conduct and all of the ridiculous 50+ page threads about if they should fall/how they should react/etc.
Ranger:Only is particularly good against a small list of enemies. This applies to Paladins as well, but so much less due to most BBEG's being evil.
Rogue:3/4 BAB with no in-class attack bonuses.
Monk:Like rogue, but with less skills and out-of-combat utility, and pseudo-full BAB that contradicts flavor and has a built-in penalty to attacks.
*note that the one with the smallest of all nerfs is the one with 3/4 arcane casting.
Now look at the barbarian. It hasn't got any huge power nerf, but people say that it should not use one of its ability gained through any other source. Rage Cycle is one of the best martial abilities there is, and though it doesn't cripple barbarians by far, it would reduce versatility a lot.
Rage cycling is clearly not intended.
Having one martial character do all the damage is no fun for anyone.
Limits on abilities are not put there simply to be worked around, they are there to limit the number of times you can do something.
Your perception on the power level of character classes and your hatred of caster classes does not change that this is cheese and should not be allowed. (just as many of the ridiculous combinations you will use to show how OP casters are are cheese).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rage Cycling is okay. Especially since it comes with an innate cost (You either spend 2 rounds of Rage every turn, or you stop raging during your enemies turn and become extremely vulnerable to their attacks).
"But Wizards are still better" really doesn't help much when discussing class balance.
For example: If I give a martial class, say fighter a new ability called "super strong". What this ability does is increase damage by 1000 points. Even with this ability fighter is still weaker than wizard, because all he can do is just one hit every monster he encounters, while wizard can SoS/SoD multiple monsters a time and create world,command reality, etc.So by "But wizards are still better!" giving fighter a passive 1000 point damage boost is perfectly balanced and not op.
I think comparing to a wizard shouldn't be the only thing we consider on this matter.
What if we made all martial attacks never miss, and always instantly kill any foe no matter what?
"Well, wizard can make simulacron and teleport and Maze so Wizard is still better-- seems legit to me"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If one of my players started Rage Cycling I'd first tell him or her to stop it 'cause it's obvious cheese.
In PFS you might be stuck because it seems to be allowed per RAW. But that's hey, organized play is full of stuff like that.
Would you prefer he play a caster and do a lot worse things?
Btw cheese is subjective so it is not always obvious. This is not even all that powerful.
Rage cycling is clearly not intended.
Having one martial character do all the damage is no fun for anyone.
Limits on abilities are not put there simply to be worked around, they are there to limit the number of times you can do something.
Your perception on the power level of character classes and your hatred of caster classes does not change that this is cheese and should not be allowed. (just as many of the ridiculous combinations you will use to show how OP casters are are cheese).
1. How is he doing all the damage?
2. Barbarians have enough rage round to rage for every round of combat without rage cycling eventually unless the GM throws in extra combat just to wear him down, and in that case his damage is still decent when not raging.
Limits on anything is a general rule which are surpassed by specific rules.
As an example, there are ways to get past the number of times a cleric uses his special abilities.
And I am still waiting for some to tell me why rage cycling is wrong/bad, other than some version of "I don't like it".
|
|
Rage cycling is clearly not intended.
Having one martial character do all the damage is no fun for anyone.
Limits on abilities are not put there simply to be worked around, they are there to limit the number of times you can do something.
Your perception on the power level of character classes and your hatred of caster classes does not change that this is cheese and should not be allowed. (just as many of the ridiculous combinations you will use to show how OP casters are are cheese).
Just because it's 'not intended' doesn't mean it's cheesy or broken. Sometimes things change from the core rulebook. Again, Cords of Rage Cycling prove that the idea of it is okay with the Devs.
And who says those limits aren't to be worked around? Isn't that what feats are for? Are you going to hinder creativity because it's not 'core' material? Pre 17 Rage Cycling comes at a cost, be it dipping, items, or anything else, it's still coming at a cost. So why not let them enjoy it, aside from the usage numbers that I gave above.
Also Rage Cycling rarely even increases damage, it increases options, which is always nice. If someone's willing to pay for their advantage (as is logical for anyone else in the game to do anything), why take it away besides "It wasn't specifically written into the class." Ban it because you don't like it, but it's not cheesy, it's intelligent playing.
Chengar Qordath, an alternative implication, and one that they have actually stated from time to time, is that they prefer to leave such decisions up to the GM.
Heck, it's time of existence may be one reason they are choosing not to deal with it. Look what happened with Crane Wing and that was out for a couple years.
Just because an option exists that does not mean a GM is forced to allow it. Frankly, there are many ways to abuse the system and Paizo does very little to close most options that some people consider abusive.
In any case, this option is firmly in the 'depends on the game' territory.
You overlooked my argument that the Devs have also added more and more ways to rage-cycle over time. If it was derived purely from the CRB you might have a case for inertia holding them back, but they keep introducing new options for rage-cycling in new products.
I think this is a good opportunity for a 3PP to step in.
I agree with thejeff in terms of the feel of the mechanics.
I want a smoother and sliding scale. Something usable at say, earlier levels onwards, but easier to do the more and more points (levels) you possess.
For example (and I'm just drafting, here. I'm not trying to refine anything so much as present a concept or a doodle and accept that the numbers will be bad):
At level 4, you gain access to a Rage Pool. Your Rage Pool is based on your total number of rage points. Flavor text, la la la. Possession of a rage pool allows you to use your rage points in a different way. By spending 2 rage points in addition to the points spent that turn to maintain rage, you may use a once-per-rage power a second time during rage. However, by doing so you are fatigued for an additional number of rounds based on the additional points spent.
At 8th level, you may use your pool to use a once-per-rage power a third time during rage. However, by doing so you are fatigued for an additional number of rounds based on the additional points spent.
At 12th level, your rage burns so hotly that you may use your rage to turn your blood into liquid caffeine. You may spend 4 points to burn off your fatigue at the end of a rage.
...in either case, if there was a 3PP out there who publishes something like this, let me know and I will purchase it. I'd love to have this flexibility built into the class early-on, and in a way that is clearly and more cleanly stated.
(...except I still want to call it the Espresso Pool.)
Paladins get lesser restoration as a 1st level spell (and other casters as 2nd level). You can start "rage cycling" at 3rd level (earlier with a wand).
So I fail to see how it's broken, unintended, cheesy, overpowered, needing nerf, etc. - it's just allowing you to do for yourself something you could always do "with a little help from your friends."
Like if fighters got an ability at 17th level that gave them +20 to their next attack, would it be OP to allow them to get it early if they deliberately build for it? Seeing as how any first level wiz/sorc can do that multiple times per day?
Using multiple free actions in a round is stretching action economy thereby cheesy.
Free action to use rage power, full attack, free action to turn off rage, free action to turn rage back on. . .
Look, if they wanted it to be 1/round while in rage they wouldn't put "usable once per rage"-- they clearly wanted those more powerful effects to be more limited, not for you to simply juggle the order of your free actions to use them each round.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Using multiple free actions in a round is stretching action economy thereby cheesy.
Archers are cheesy now? A 6th level archer ranger with haste cast on her will use at least 4 free actions per round.
Paladins get lesser restoration as a 1st level spell (and other casters as 2nd level). You can start "rage cycling" at 3rd level (earlier with a wand).
So I fail to see how it's broken, unintended, cheesy, overpowered, needing nerf, etc. - it's just allowing you to do for yourself something you could always do "with a little help from your friends."
Like if fighters got an ability at 17th level that gave them +20 to their next attack, would it be OP to allow them to get it early if they deliberately build for it? Seeing as how any first level wiz/sorc can do that multiple times per day?
Some of us just object to the feel of the mechanics and the way the design comes across.
Re: the wand. Although some classes gain these abilities earlier on, there's the action economy to consider, too. Lesser Restoration for example, takes three rounds to cast. Actions are the most valuable commodity in the game, or nearly so. That places this ability at a rather severe cost.
It doesn't make it any less valuable of data when creating a benchmark, though...we just need to consider how the ability is gained, and with what limitations, in addition to it being received at a certain level.
In the end, this discussion is similar to some of the old (and current) monk ones. That is: while we could rely on a certain magic item to "fix" a class, no one really wants to.
That is the case here. We've probably three different camps:
- Those who see it as not cheese
- Those who see it as cheese
- Those who'd like smoother mechanics
...and likely some overlap between the three.
Using multiple free actions in a round is stretching action economy thereby cheesy.
Free action to use rage power, full attack, free action to turn off rage, free action to turn rage back on. . .
Look, if they wanted it to be 1/round while in rage they wouldn't put "usable once per rage"-- they clearly wanted those more powerful effects to be more limited, not for you to simply juggle the order of your free actions to use them each round.
Actually if they rage and full attack, it is only 1 free action. In the next round they can rage again, but that is not multiple free actions in one round, and therefore not stretching action economy. With that said it is HOW you try to stretch action economy, not that fact that it may or may not be done that matter.
And if they intended for a hard limit to be in place for the powers there would be a "per day" limit. They know about it, but it is still here, so it seems they dont think it is an issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You guys must be using a different definition of "cheesy" than me.
Oh wait...
re: Free actions: Who's able to do as you describe for free? I thought all the rage cycling depended on at least dropping out of rage for a round (letting each of your opponents get a turn before you're able to get the pilot re-lit and start raging again).
And further, if you've got the spell slots and/or metamagic rods you can use multiple quicken spells in a round. That's rough but is it cheesy? You're still expending resources.
@Stompy Rex I get what you're saying but at the end of the day aren't all abilities just a variation on "now I can do the same thing, but faster."
1st level: "Me and the party Cleric can each spend 3 full-round actions to kill an enemy." 17th level: "I can spend one full-round action to kill an enemy."
or
1st level: "I can spend 12 days to walk to Magnimar." 9th level: "I can spend one standard action to teleport to Magnimar."
and so forth.
You guys must be using a different definition of "cheesy" than me.
Oh wait...
re: Free actions: Who's able to do as you describe for free? I thought all the rage cycling depended on at least dropping out of rage for a round (letting each of your opponents get a turn before you're able to get the pilot re-lit and start raging again).
And further, if you've got the spell slots and/or metamagic rods you can use multiple quicken spells in a round. That's rough but is it cheesy? You're still expending resources.
You cannot. Quicken makes the spell a swift action, not a free action. No matter how much resources you have you can never cast more than 1 quickened and 1 standard spell per round.
And the way rage cycling was described above I can take my attack/use my rage ability, end my rage, then start a "new" rage immediately thereafter to be ready for next round?
If you do as you describe and actually start rage, take attacks, then end rage its actually worse-- since you are effectively "negating" the -2 to armor class that rage grants by not being in rage during opponents attacks (though I suppose you don't have the bonus con for those attacks either)
You cannot. Quicken makes the spell a swift action, not a free action. No matter how much resources you have you can never cast more than 1 quickened and 1 standard spell per round.
This is obviously where I'm showing my rules-ignorance. But I still don't see who's rage cycling as a free action, or what advantage you gain by doing it multiple times per round, even if you can do so. I'm pretty sure that existing rage powers are balanced with the idea that people can find ways around the 1/rage limitation, just like existing spells are balanced around the idea that someone may Quicken them, or Silent/Still them, existing dungeons are balanced around the idea that someone may have flight or Spider Climb, etc.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rage cycling is clearly not intended.
Having one martial character do all the damage is no fun for anyone.
"All the damage"? What 1/rage powers are being exploited to do a lot more damage? The best ones to rage cycle are Spell Sunder (no added damage), Strength Surge (boosts CMB, not damage), Eater of Magic (defensive ability) and possibly Flesh Wound (defensive ability). Please, tell me what rage powers the barbarian is cycling to "do all the damage."
Using multiple free actions in a round is stretching action economy thereby cheesy.
Free action to use rage power, full attack, free action to turn off rage, free action to turn rage back on. . .
Well, turning off the rage really shouldn't even BE a free action anyway, it should be a non-action. That is the rule that's dumb. It is literally impossible to use a single round of rage unless you either a) have no more rounds left that day or b) end it at the end of your turn you activated it...in which case it wasn't actually a "round" of rage -- a round would mean it lasts until your initiative count comes up again.
|
|
Ever hear of a Rage Prophet? It's a prestige class that's basically an Oracle Barbarian. They released the prestige class in the APG, so it's super accessible. The most obvious build option for a Rage Prophet is to take the lame curse simply because it gives you immunity to fatigue easily without having to buy an item as early as level 6 (if you want to build it that way). They practically advertise rage cycling via that combination by just having the prestige class. I'm really not convinced the devs have a problem with rage cycling. I mean, come on guys, it's built into the barbarian at level 17. And even if you wanted to leverage the lame curse to get rage cycling early (in fact a superior version than what is available at 17 barb because furious finish does not fatigue you), the oracle level is a non-trivial hit to BAB and HP. It's not free.
If you guys have a problem with it and think its cheesy, that's totally cool. Please ban it in your games. There are plenty of people out there who are indifferent or like the ability to rage cycle. Don't spoil it for them, ok?
I don't get what the obsession with eliminating interesting build options is about.
I think ragecycling is totally ok because without it most 1/rage powers are much too weak.
Lesser elemental totem*: 1round/rage you can deal +1d6 elemental damage. I'm sure it will break the game if I use that more than one turn. If you have 2 fights per day, that's 2d6 elemental damage per day for a class ability. And it stays the same till level 16.
But even if I think the normal way of rage-cycling is ok, I prefer the concept of the form of rage-cycling the scarred rager can do:
He halves the number of rounds he is fatigued after raging. If you only rage for 1 round (end the rage before you end you turn) you are only fatigued until just before your next turn starts. That way you could rage every round during your turn and be fatigued off-turn.
I can even picture it ingame: The barbarian gets angry, focuses this rage into hitting stuff and then needs to take a deep, tired breath before doing so again, on his next turn.
Pro: You can rage-cycle as long as you have rage rounds left from level 2 on without needing items, spells or what not. The AC penalty from fatigued is the same as the one from raging so your AC remains the same as it would be while raging. It's easier to picture ingame.
You can still choose to use normal, multiple round, rage and still are only fatigued half as long.
Con: You can't use rage or ragepowers off turn, which means some powers will not work. Your CMD is lower.
*just one example from the top of my head.
|
|
Con: You can't use rage or ragepowers off turn, which means some powers will not work. Your CMD is lower.
You lose HP if you drop rage at the end of the round, too. This is typically a non-trivial loss.
For what it's worth, the way we played it, starting rage cost 1 round, and maintaining it cost 1 round. This meant that if you ended it at the start of your turn, then immediately started raging, it would cost 2 rounds. So rage cyclers would have to drop rage at the end of their turn, and lose all of the benefits of raging in between turns in order to avoid burning through all of it at an impractical rate.
Con: You can't use rage or ragepowers off turn, which means some powers will not work. Your CMD is lower.
You lose HP if you drop rage at the end of the round, too. This is typically a non-trivial loss.
As those are not real hp in the end that sacrifice is one I could see making. Even more so as I can stop cycling and do normal rage when my hp run low.
To your houserule: You could even read RAW the way that it costs 2 rounds to rage-cycle. As ending a rage is a free action you can't do it out of turn. When your turn begins you have to pay a round of rage. Then you end it, no cost. But to restart it you have to again spend a round of rage.
I really enjoy the people saying that rage cycling is not intended.As I said upthread, it's either an unintended consequence or a hidden feature put in for the clever (or those who read the forums:).
Either way, I think it's bad design. If that's how you want it to work, write it into the rules explicitly.
That's what I find cheesy about it. Not whether or not it's overpowered.
There are many things in this game that are not explicitly stated. Game designers do it sometimes to reward system mastery.
It encourages players to look for loopholes in the rules and abuse them
It encourages players to look for creative options in the rules and use them
I know not everyone accepts JJ's opinion as relevant but to those stating that rage cycling is clearly not intended:
Yup; if you're immune to fatigue, you don't get fatigued after a rage.
And yes, if you're immune to fatigue, that means you can enter rage and drop out of it multiple times... but each time you enter a rage you use up one of your rage uses for the day. If you entered a rage 5 times in a round, you'd burn through 5 uses of rage in that single round.
So according to JJ it is even possible to rage cycle multiple times per round.
|
|
That doesn't prove it was intended; it can also be JJ soberly noting that these are in fact the RAW implications of the rule, regardless of the intention.
I think the "once per rage" clearly specifies the intention that you're not using it every round. That's separate from the question of whether it'd be balanced; maybe barbarians can use a nudge. But I find it ugly to force "once per rage" into "once per rage round I cunningly spend". Legal, but ugly.
Even should we accept it's "ugly", this thread is specifically about it being OP and whether it should be nerfed. And to that I can only give a strong NO! as answer. Even if I never really used it up to now.
You overlooked my argument that the Devs have also added more and more ways to rage-cycle over time. If it was derived purely from the CRB you might have a case for inertia holding them back, but they keep introducing new options for rage-cycling in new products.Chengar Qordath, an alternative implication, and one that they have actually stated from time to time, is that they prefer to leave such decisions up to the GM.
Heck, it's time of existence may be one reason they are choosing not to deal with it. Look what happened with Crane Wing and that was out for a couple years.
Just because an option exists that does not mean a GM is forced to allow it. Frankly, there are many ways to abuse the system and Paizo does very little to close most options that some people consider abusive.
In any case, this option is firmly in the 'depends on the game' territory.
Show me one single item that states it is intended to allow Rage Cycling. The Devs create items to deal with fatigue does not automatically mean they were intended to be combined with Barbarians and create Rage Cycling.
How about the items that Paizo creates which creates other potential abuses? Do they intend to create all these abuses or do they shrug and say, people will abuse the game regardless of what we do and we are not going to spend our time trying to prevent abuses, that is for the GM to do?
Adding new ways to prevent fatigue does NOT equal them adding ways to rage-cycle. It is them adding ways to prevent fatigue and if some player chooses to abuse that by combining it with Rage then that is up to the GM to deal with.
Again, in any case, this is a power issue dependent upon the table you are at. With a Min-Maxed group, sure, allow Rage Cycling. But if the group is not prepared to deal with it then do not allow it.