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.
Except it is WELL KNOWN that preventing Fatigue will allow rage cycling.
And your arguement that "The thing does not specifically say ragecycle so it not intended to rage cycle" is a poor arguement because there is no mechanic called Rage Cycling. Rage Cycling is a name given to a tactic. Just like like there is no mechanic called "Kiting" but of your an archer on horseback you can kite the crap out of enemies.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Show me one single item that states it is intended to allow Rage Cycling.
I also don't see any text saying Belts of Giant Strength are intended to raise damage and accuracy... So I guess every melee character ever is abusing the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Except it is WELL KNOWN that preventing Fatigue will allow rage cycling.
And your arguement that "The thing does not...
Did you see me make an argument ANYWHERE that stated it was not intended? No? I didn't think so. I said we do not know what the Devs intended. Some people are making the assertion that because anti-fatigue items not only exist but have increased in numbers then the Devs must be intending them to be used for Rage Cycling.
Another poster said it was clearly intended as such and I am asking for either Dev comment or item statement that it is intended as such. That is a far cry from me saying it was *not* intended.
I don't know the Devs intent, neither do you or anyone else. They have not made it plain. That such items exists does not mean they intend this sort of combination but they may simply be choosing to do nothing about it for any number of reasons.
In short, any assertion pro or con as to the intent to allow Rage Cycling is guesswork at best.
Show me one single item that states it is intended to allow Rage Cycling.I also don't see any text saying Belts of Giant Strength are intended to raise damage and accuracy... So I guess every melee character ever is abusing the rules.
Please do not take my comments out of context. I was specifically stating that in relation to people saying that the RAI on using items to Rage Cycle is clear.
And if they REALLY didn't want Rage Cycling to be easy, they would not have given the oracle's curse ability to still count other class levels when it comes to determining curse abilities and would not have created the lame curse. I mean, only a moron would not realize that a 1 LEVEL DIP into oracle for lame curse means Barb can get fatigue immunity MUCH quicker...
Honestly, there has been very poor defenses to stopping "Rage Cycling" otehr than "I don't like it."
|
If rage cycling was intended, why only implicitly enabling it? Why aren't there any items that let you use a OPR power more than once per rage? The Druid's Vestments let you wildshape an additional time; it's not like this would be unprecedented.
I agree that devs don't seem to be shutting it down, so maybe they're quietly going along with it. But it still looks like a loophole to me.
All this talk about it not being "intended" is kinda misplaced, I think. A lot of the whole point of this game is that there are a lot of moving parts and emergent properties and interactions that are not easily predictable. I've never met them personally but I'm pretty sure the designers are not so lunkheaded that they "missed" the fact that immunity to fatigue is good for a barbarian, and balanced 1/rage powers accordingly.
As Streamofthesky has noted, this really only affects 3-4 powers anyway, half of which can only be used after level 10, and 3 of which require a specific build (Superstition) which has its own drawbacks.
Sarcasmancer, while I would not call the designers "lunkheaded" there have been some major missteps on occasion (a feat that addresses a penalty that does not exist for example). So assuming that they were aware of this and balanced it accordingly is pure supposition.
If anything the Devs have shown on a number of occasions that they are not always aware of the interactions of the system. With a system this large and complex that is not surprising.
@Gauss
That is when you have Dabbler coming in going " Well if combine Feat X with Spell Y with Z Cirsumstance, assuming A, B, and C intepretations, then by RAW you will get Hfglkjefblfkglherkjgbfzigvzslkg" or something similiar. Something as stupid obvious as a barbarian and fatigue immunity is NOT something they don't catch. THEY KNOW FULL WHAT THEY ARE DOING. So Just drop the whole "Oh!!! Its NOT INTENDED!!! THERE IS NOTHING THAT SAYS RAGECYCLE!!! YOUR BADWRONGFUn!!!!" because it is a weak arguement...
K177Y C47, clearly, you keep reading something I am not writing. At no point in this entire thread have I written that it was not intended. I have numerous times stated that the "pro intent" crowd knows no more than the "con intent" crowd regarding the Devs intent on this matter.
How about this "stupid obvious"? There is no penalty for a prone crossbow shooter shooting a crossbow. And yet, a (now errata'd) feat was created to eliminate this non-existent penalty.
Assumptions about what is obvious is just that, an assumption. Just because X+Y = Z does not mean X was intended to by added to Y to get Z. RAW? Sure, but this isnt the Rules forum.
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."
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.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. . .
I wouldn't say all the damage but you could use Powerful Blow as swift action on 1 attack per round. That's +6 at 20th level. Then there Furious Finish which you can use if to max out vital strike damage though it say nothing about improved or greater. If you are immune to fatigue then you cycle that one too.
Rage cycling isn't over powered because you it cost you something to do it. Like giving up fast movement and taking 1 level of Oracle. Going Martial Artist monk for 5 levels.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just making rage a swift/immediate action instead of a free action to turn on/off would "fix" the issues of rage cycling multiple times a turn, if that is against the RAI. Personally, I agree that simple changing the 1/rage to X rage rounds per use will address the majority of balance concerns.
Gotta agree with Gherrick.
Don't know why they even bothered with, "Once per rage." What a ridiculous limitation.
Just make all rage powers useable any number of times per rage, but the significant ones (Strength Surge, for example) cost an extra round of rage to "activate."
|
|
Making it an immediate action would actually be a much worse idea because it would enable lots of shenanigans, like raging immediately after someone casts haste on you, etc. Ironically, your suggested fix to address the rage cycling "issue" would be likely be most abused by superstitious barbarians that don't plan on rage cycling.
Changing 1/rage powers to be X rounds of rage/use would also make it very expensive to have multiple once per rage powers. That's kind of a problem, I think.
Please remember, there are three main ways to rage cycle (that I know of).
1. Start Rage at beginning of turn, end at end of turn.
Benefits: This costs one round of rage per round (spent when turning on rage). Your AC only goes down during your turn.
Cons: You lose the con bonus between your turns (which means you lose quite a bit HP and are subsequently easier to kill and take a hit to fortitude saves). You also lose access to any rage powers that would be important to keep up at all times, like Damage Reduction.
2. End Rage at beginning of turn, then start Raging immediately after.
Benefits: You keep rage up at all times, meaning you have access to all of your rage powers all the time and the extra con (HP increase, fortitude save increase, etc).
Cons: This costs two rounds of rage each turn. 1 round for being in rage at the start of your turn, and then another round for starting it up again. This gets very expensive.
3. Start and Drop rage multiple times per turn.
Cons: There are not a lot of rage powers that are constructive to use this way, and you will run out of rage rounds super super quickly.
Outside of Rage Cycling method #1, it's not a cheap thing to do.
Seriously, nobody has really said explicitly pointed the problematic build that rage cycling enables. All people have said is "oh, it's not RAI", "it feels weird", or "the rage cycling barbarian in my groups steals the spotlight!" But these statements are not pointing to any explicit issues that we can actually have a good discussion about. This does not make for a compelling argument, and its just irritating and worrisome for the people who do use it.
Why is this broken? Why does it need a change?
Please just house rule it and spare the rest of us pain.
EDIT: Sorry, I skimmed over the point about Spell Sunder and Strength Surge.
Spell Sunder (Su): Once per rage, the barbarian can attempt to sunder an ongoing spell effect by succeeding at a combat maneuver check. For any effect other than one on a creature, the barbarian must make her combat maneuver check against a CMD of 15 plus the effect's caster level. To sunder an effect on a creature, the barbarian must succeed at a normal sunder combat maneuver against the creature's CMD + 5, ignoring any miss chance caused by a spell or spell-like ability. If successful, the barbarian suppresses the effect for 1 round, or 2 rounds if she exceeded the CMD by 5 to 9. If she exceeds the CMD by 10 or more, the effect is dispelled. A barbarian must have the witch hunter rage power and be at least 6th level before selecting this rage power.
I don't see the big deal about the barbarian getting to use a dispel magic at melee rage once per turn, or spend large amounts of rage to do it in an iterative.
Note that there's also nothing to suggest that you can use it to counter spell. That, and the stipulation that you can only use it to dispel ongoing effects means that is much more narrow in application than dispel magic. Even if you could use it as an AOO, you can only use Spell Sunder that way if you are using method #2 to rage cycle (which doubles the rate at which rage is consumed).
If doing it multiple times is a problem, yeah, cool, totally house rule it to only be able to start rage once per turn and that would keep it from getting out of hand.
Also, something that we throw around PFS is "just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should." If someone is abusing something like this, perhaps it points to an attitude problem. If this gets banned/nerfed/errata'd/whathaveyou, likely they'll do something else instead.
I still don't think rage cycling is a problem.
|
|
There are a number of things that make you immune to fatigue. The oracle Lame curse is one of them. Taking a dip into oracle at level 9 (for Barb 8/Oracle 1) is one way to do this. 5 Levels of Martial Artist monk does it, too. As does the cord of stubborn resolve.
At barbarian 17, rage no longer fatigues you, which is different than being immune to rage. You can rage cycle this way, but you cannot use rage cycling to repeatedly do Furious Finish like you can if you have fatigue immunity.
Becoming immune to fatigue ranges in difficulty (personally, I think the belt slot is kind of rough). But even if you can get rage cycling set up, you have to take rage powers that utilize rage cycling, otherwise there is no benefit at all. Those rage powers are often not as great as others.
Changing 1/rage powers to be X rounds of rage/use would also make it very expensive to have multiple once per rage powers. That's kind of a problem, I think.
How would it cost any more than it currently does with Rage cycling shenanigans?
The only difference is it would no longer require said shenanigans.|
|
Well let's look at the Spell Sundering and Strength Surge combo.
Say for instance those changed to each cost one round of rage every time they were used. You'd spend 3 rounds of rage using both. One round for starting rage or continuing it, one round for using Strength Surge, and then one round for using Spell Sundering.
That's 3 times more expensive than the one round of rage you need to spend using them now.
What you're really saying then, is that there should be no non-magical classes at all.I can't believe the guy who gets so mad he can grow wings is the standard for non-magical classes.I'd much rather have that than "the guy who does the same thing at level 20 that he did at level 1 but with more swings/arrows" be the standard for non magical characters.
Define "magic". Not every class needs Vancian casting, but every class needs a supernatural "power source" beyond level 6 or so. Whether that's "Shadow Powers" for Rogues, or "Totemic Powers" for Barbarians, or what have you. Fighters would probably have to Prestige out into variants of holy warrior, arcane warrior, etc.
Most of the balance problems result from the fact that past the mid-levels everyone is superhuman — Everyone HAS to be superhuman — but martials are still constrained by pretenses of realism while casters are under no such restrictions. And then they have to compensate by loading up on magic items that do the same job as spells, or relying on allied spells, so what's the point of making them mundane in the first place?
If you want the PCs to have superpowers (and spellcasting definitely is one), make them all superhuman. If you want a low-fantasy campaign where everything's more constrained to realistic limits, play E6.
As I stated early in the thread, Rage Cycling, if intended was to be a level 17 ability for Barbarians. New splatbooks allowing them to rage cycle earlier than level 17 is a clear example of power creep and takes the barbarian to a different balance position than is intended by the core rulebook. Since Paizo has said that they want to maintain the balance of the core rulebook, to be consistent they should nerf or remove the option for barbarians to rage cycle earlier than level 17. Otherwise, their entire balance/limitation to what was in the core rulebook rings hollow as a justification for other recent balance decisions.
You can not introduce new options into the game and keep the balance the same. You can balance options against the CRB options, but when those options from various books are combined power creep takes place. It is no secret that many things after the core book are better than what the CRB offers. The Zen Archer is seen as superior to the core monk by most players, as an example.
edit: This rage cycling is also not a substantial power increase. If it is nobody has bother to demonstrate it yet despite being asked to.
If rage cycling was intended, why only implicitly enabling it? Why aren't there any items that let you use a OPR power more than once per rage? The Druid's Vestments let you wildshape an additional time; it's not like this would be unprecedented.
I agree that devs don't seem to be shutting it down, so maybe they're quietly going along with it. But it still looks like a loophole to me.
Maybe they wanted others to make things possible besides rage cycling.
Just making rage a swift/immediate action instead of a free action to turn on/off would "fix" the issues of rage cycling multiple times a turn, if that is against the RAI. Personally, I agree that simple changing the 1/rage to X rage rounds per use will address the majority of balance concerns.
Nobody has brought up any reason for them to change it. If they can demonstrate how it deeply impacts game play they might look at it, but otherwise it is up to that GM to impose his own houserules.
Just making rage a swift/immediate action instead of a free action to turn on/off would "fix" the issues of rage cycling multiple times a turn, if that is against the RAI. Personally, I agree that simple changing the 1/rage to X rage rounds per use will address the majority of balance concerns.
There are a number of ways to look at this, to be sure. By basing it on a cost, this becomes something that could be used at the beginning of a barbarian's career, without the need for items, cross-classing, or other tricks. It could also provide a smooth backbone which could be built upon, and provide more options, not fewer, for the barbarian.
It does not need to be limiting. That is probably just a knee-jerk reaction. :)
Well let's look at the Spell Sundering and Strength Surge combo.
Say for instance those changed to each cost one round of rage every time they were used. You'd spend 3 rounds of rage using both. One round for starting rage or continuing it, one round for using Strength Surge, and then one round for using Spell Sundering.
That's 3 times more expensive than the one round of rage you need to spend using them now.
Yet, the barbarian still gets plenty of rage due to how many extra rounds you get per level. I don't mind martials being able to dispel effects, but having them do it better than casters kind of strikes me as strange.
Also, with barbarians like this, why would anyone want to play any other mundane martial class? Though I'd rather give nice things to rogues, fighters, and monks than necessarily take away barbarian toys.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you're really saying then, is that there should be no non-magical classes at all.I can't believe the guy who gets so mad he can grow wings is the standard for non-magical classes.I'd much rather have that than "the guy who does the same thing at level 20 that he did at level 1 but with more swings/arrows" be the standard for non magical characters.
Show me a class at level 5+ without magical gear who can survive as well as his Christmas Tree equal, and I'll show you a game that's throwing out the CR system as well as any challenge that can't be solved by 'sword it to death' for the sake of making that character relevant.
High level martials from stories WERE magical in some ways. Hercules was half god, Achilles was nearly invincible and super strong, and Cu Chulainn had some godly shenanigans in his birth. So unless you're saying a Fighter can't go above 5th level without having special circumstances in their backstory, yes I'm saying there's no room for non magical characters in a high fantasy game in which nearly everything after a certain level BLEEDS magic.
Just making rage a swift/immediate action instead of a free action to turn on/off would "fix" the issues of rage cycling multiple times a turn, if that is against the RAI. Personally, I agree that simple changing the 1/rage to X rage rounds per use will address the majority of balance concerns.
Doesn't necessarily work-- this change has the unintended consequence of making most of the rage powers in question which require swift actions unusable in the first round of a rage.
I think a better solution is sating in the Rage entry that "A Barbarian may never begin another rage until X (probably 1 or 2) rounds have passed since ending his previous rage".
That way there is a break in time for the rage, and a reason to rage for more than 1 round at a time.
And no, the way it is written now, if you accept not having the CON during not your turn (and getting +2 AC) there is no penalty for rage cycling-- you can start, act, then stop rage as many times per day as you have rounds of rage (doing it multiple times in the same round does cost extra).
Just making rage a swift/immediate action instead of a free action to turn on/off would "fix" the issues of rage cycling multiple times a turn, if that is against the RAI. Personally, I agree that simple changing the 1/rage to X rage rounds per use will address the majority of balance concerns.There are a number of ways to look at this, to be sure. By basing it on a cost, this becomes something that could be used at the beginning of a barbarian's career, without the need for items, cross-classing, or other tricks. It could also provide a smooth backbone which could be built upon, and provide more options, not fewer, for the barbarian.
It does not need to be limiting. That is probably just a knee-jerk reaction. :)
That's essentially my problem with it. It's not that it's overpowered or anything, but that it's a horribly clunky all or nothing approach to the ability.
I think in the end, I'd be interested in a barbarian alternative published with these rules.
I've got my fingers crossed, though I don't think it will happen. I do have them crossed, though.
I'm with you on the "feels awkward" boat. I'd rather smoother mechanics and ones that offered more options over time, and started offering them earlier (though with a trade-off). I imagine...there may be some folks at Paizo who'd agree, though I don't expect them to speak up, and I wouldn't want to presume something like that, either.
...I wouldn't be above bribing them with a delicious, chocolate pie though.
Absolutely delicious, and I would totally promise it had Dutch chocolate, heavy cream, and a home-made topping.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you actually want Barbarians to be able to use their abilities more than once per rage, just change the rules to let them be able to do so. Maybe on a per level basis or something.
The whole "You can do that if you're clever enough to see the rules loopholes (whether they're intentional or not), or if you copied it from someone else" thing just doesn't work for me.
This isn't a "Rage cycling is overpowered" argument. Or a "Barbarians need rage cycling to compete" argument. It's "If you want characters to be able to do something, just give them the ability, don't make them hack around the rules" argument.
Favorited this and it just wasn't enough. So overwhelmingly THIS.
Rage Cycling allows the barbarian to be a viable class. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
The problem is not that the barbarian has such option, it's that fighters, monks and especially rogues lack comparable options.
Why does the standard always have to be the caster classes? The whole point is that they are overpowered! The last thing we should be doing is looking at them as the standard. Why do we say "rage cycling makes barbarians viable" rather than the far more sensible "rage cycling makes barbarians overpowered too, since it raises them to (or even near) the already overpowered level of the casting classes?"
Just disallowing the full-progression (tier 1, if you like) caster classes is a way, way easier method of restoring game balance than going through all the acrobatics and legerdemain of trying to make all the martials live up to their standard.
EDIT: Obviously, I know Paizo is not about to go banning the Witch, Wizard, Sorcerer, Summoner, Druid etc. But we can certainly do it in our home games.
Rage Cycling allows the barbarian to be a viable class. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
The problem is not that the barbarian has such option, it's that fighters, monks and especially rogues lack comparable options.Why does the standard always have to be the caster classes? The whole point is that they are overpowered! The last thing we should be doing is looking at them as the standard. Why do we say "rage cycling makes barbarians viable" rather than the far more sensible "rage cycling makes barbarians overpowered too, since it raises them to (or even near) the already overpowered level of the casting classes?"
Just disallowing the full-progression (tier 1, if you like) caster classes is a way, way easier method of restoring game balance than going through all the acrobatics and legerdemain of trying to make all the martials live up to their standard.
EDIT: Obviously, I know Paizo is not about to go banning the Witch, Wizard, Sorcerer, Summoner, Druid etc. But we can certainly do it in our home games.
Its not a fun option though. Its been done, and it didn't make the game any more fun for any of my players who didn't want to play casters and did make the game less fun for my player who wanted to play a caster. When that player died around level 12, I let him reroll as a wizard because I realized the game wasn't any better off for simply banning the class.
Its not a fun option though. Its been done, and it didn't make the game any more fun for any of my players who didn't want to play casters and did make the game less fun for my player who wanted to play a caster. When that player died around level 12, I let him reroll as a wizard because I realized the game wasn't any better off for simply banning the class.
That's certainly a valid rebuttal. But my question would be, why did you ban those classes in the first place? Because presumably, whatever that problem was should have been alleviated by banning them. If the martial class players, for instance, felt eclipsed by the casters and then you banned the casters, the martial players should have been freed of this disgruntlement, thus resulting in a better game. But that didn't happen and I'm wondering why.
That's certainly a valid rebuttal. But my question would be, why did you ban those classes in the first place? Because presumably, whatever that problem was should have been alleviated by banning them. If the martial class players, for instance, felt eclipsed by the casters and then you banned the casters, the martial players should have been freed of this disgruntlement, thus resulting in a better game. But that didn't happen and I'm wondering why.
Its not a fun option though. Its been done, and it didn't make the game any more fun for any of my players who didn't want to play casters and did make the game less fun for my player who wanted to play a caster. When that player died around level 12, I let him reroll as a wizard because I realized the game wasn't any better off for simply banning the class.
I have never had casters eclipse martials since 3.X started. I banned casters in that game because it was Arthurian themed and I wanted more Knight-type characters for story reasons.
|
|
it's a bit of a strawman to ask me to compare between two extremes, one character with no magic and one loaded up to "christmas tree" levels. There ARE spectrums in between after all. You know what the WBL for level 5 character is... that's hardly christmas tree level.
It's also not fully relevant, we're talking about the character classes... gear is whole nother ball game.
Well I pulled level 5 out of a hat. We could say level 10 where the Christmas Tree is a lot more obvious, or 15, or 20, and it only grows. All I'm saying is that magic is interwoven into the fabric of this game, you can't ask for a completely mundane character in this setting without them being completely eclipsed.
All I'm saying is do Fighters/Rogues/Monks need a "Whoops, my dad is also a god" feat to be able to put up the kind of options that any caster can. Let a Fighter/Rogue/Monk do something amazing without needing something in their history to validate it, like the Barbarian. His dad could be a farmer and his mom could be a stuffed panda, and you've still got a kid who can cleave magic.
I wouldn't say all the damage but you could use Powerful Blow as swift action on 1 attack per round. That's +6 at 20th level. Then there Furious Finish which you can use if to max out vital strike damage though it say nothing about improved or greater. If you are immune to fatigue then you cycle that one too.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."
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.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. . .
+6 damage at 20th level is pretty inconsequential, and using the swift actions means not being able to use awesome immediate action defenses instead. Furious Finish + Vital Strike pales in comparison to a full attack -- and Barbarian DOES get pounce, so yes assuming full attacks most rounds is a fair thing to do. In any case, the OP was complaining about "abuse" of 1/rage powers specifically, even if your examples were impressive (which they're not).
As far as Dev intent goes, while I have never gamed with them personally, I get the impression they don't play in the hyper-optimized games that seem to be the standard here on the Internet. I think they leave options like this in the game so people can choose what style of game they prefer.
I see no problem with barbarians getting early rage cycling. It comes with a cost, be it feats, gear, or multiclassing.
I don't understand the argument that it should be nerfed since the tier 1 classes are OP and we don't want it matching their power. If you want to ban it in your game that's your perogative. The Devs have made it very clear that they don't intend to balance full casters. With that said, that's the world we live in. Nerfing the barbarian doesn't fix that problem. Nerfing that option reduces one of the few martials good abilities, while ignoring the bigger problem.
If you don't like it, go right ahead and ban it, but nerfining it officially overpenalizes those of us that play with GM's who assume that errata'd material must have been OP without the knowledge that casters are even better.
As far as Dev intent goes, while I have never gamed with them personally, I get the impression they don't play in the hyper-optimized games that seem to be the standard here on the Internet. I think they leave options like this in the game so people can choose what style of game they prefer.
This is the feeling that I've gotten as well.