Trying to suggest Rage doesn't imply anger is asinine.They could have called it "Class Ability B". Having a fluffy name does not require every barbarian to be a mindless berserker.
They don't have to be, no. If you had simply read the sentence before the one you quoted, then you would know that had already been stated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I guess all Ninjas run around in pajamas and all Samurai MUST run around with katanas right...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So violent appetite then? Aegrisomnia explicitly stated you could change the flavor. Trying to suggest Rage doesn't imply anger is asinine.
The thing is, I don't think you really need to even change the fluff to justify it.
"His spell dissipates as the towering human smashes through Geralf's last defensively woven spell. For a brief second the overwhelming murderous intent seems to vanish from the savages eyes, and as quickly as it was gone, it came back stronger then ever as the barbarian turned his sights unto Geralf. That was the last thing Geralf ever saw"
clearly rage, clearly rage cycling, and didn't need to feel immersion breaking.
btw. I agree the name rage suggests anger, but who cares... sneak attack implies striking from shadows, and yet most sneak attacks occur in broad daylight, sometimes with a giant hammer, for non-lethal damage.
Nobody here is objecting to barbarians being able to spell sunder and so forth; just questioning whether a GM should allow them to use a loophole to do it every round when that's not RAI.
I'd probably invent a house rule that these powers cost X rounds of rage every time you use them.
Ah, but can they ragecycle and still shoot their gun 5 times?
On a more serious note: I would houserule that tireless rage also says: "The barbarian can use rage powers that are normally usable only once per rage any number of times per rage but only once per round."
That doesn't really have any mechanical impact but it removes the cheesyness of "I stop my rage and start raging again" every round.
StreamOfTheSky, the three rage powers you mention are exactly the one's that illustrate my point. Rage cycle with Eater of Magic against a spell/spell-like/supernatural ability to give you 1 saving throw re-roll per round?? That's ridiculous - name any other class/feat/spell/item that gives you even close to that.
Well since you asked,
Witch: Fortune + Cackle.
Well, as I point out in another post, one's frame of reference is important. I don't have much experience riding animals, so being told somebody was riding a donkey probably wouldn't throw me for a loop; I have no idea whether such a thing would be possible or not. Rage, on the other hand, rage and "fight or flight", are things we've all experienced and, with few possible exceptions (based on intense disciplined training like a barbarian is not going to have), it's not something that's easily controlled. I have enough experience with that for the barbarian mechanic to break the suspension of disbelief; if I knew enough about riding animals, that might cause problems, too, FWIW... but that would be a separate discussion.
I really don't think you can compare rage, to the flight of fight response. Were talking about a class that gets itself so worked up that it can grow wings/claws/teeth, doubles their normal strength, etc.
I feel like dropping and starting rage every round is simliar to the Moment of Clarity rage power. There's already a built in mechanism of a feature that gives an immersion typed reason for the barbarian to "refocus". Of course this is so that they can cast spells, but if rage cycling is so immersion breaking for you, would you also deny them using this rage power?
The ability is called Rage. That doesn't suggest anger to you?Let's not be too disingenuous: the fluff text makes it pretty clear that rate = angry. They use the words fury, passion, berserker, etc. Now, there's nothing wrong with changing the fluff to make something that isn't distasteful... but claiming it's not distasteful as written is something else. If the argument is that rage is like a professional fighter's focus, I take issue with that based on the description of what a barbarian is.
Now, if you want to start applying your own flavors to stuff, go for it... If any class needs it to make any sense, it's probably the barbarian. Make him into some kind of tribal witch doctor with magic or a trained combatant with intense focus or something... in the first case, uses/day of "rage" powers would be in order, as would a usual caster mechanic; for a focused combatant, unlimited uses/day and toning down of some of the goofier rage powers would probably make sense.
Just my two cents.
That is the barbarian flavor. Don't confuse it with a class ability
Rage text-->"A barbarian can call upon inner reserves of strength and ferocity, granting her additional combat prowess."
Neither of those requires anger.
A suggestion is not a requirement, and if the issue is flavor those that don't like it can just change the flavor instead of complaining about mechanics.
The fact that someone can become angry or not angry at will would not make rage any more reasonable with or without rage cyclingAnd if you get so worked up that it makes you fatigued it makes even less sense to be able to control it. Immersion should be out the window well before rage cycling comes into play if someone has a problem with rage cycling.
Nobody is raising anything against Rage Cycling that hasn't been posted in dozens of threads here on the boards before. Paizo is certainly aware of people using Rage Cycling including in PFS. Paizo clearly has heard the debate about this issue, they know it happens, and they have continued to release more fatigue-negation options knowing that Barbarians are the prime beneficiary (both for Rage cycling and allowing to enter Rage when hit with another Fatigue effect). They even release a Barbarian Archetype that allows one specific form of Rage Cycling from LEVEL 2. If they had a problem with this, they would have clearly done something about it, or at least not continued the trend as they have.
I find the flavor argument a bit disingenuous, just because it's clear that most opponent's actual issue is NOT "OK, the RAW is clear but it just grates on my nerves" which we could say about any of hundreds of narrow cases of RAW. Their issue stems from "this RAW doesn't work like how I think the rules should work. some rules are legit and some aren't". Which is about mechanics, and their imposition of meta-rules which determine what the RAW can and cannot due.
StreamOfTheSky, the three rage powers you mention are exactly the one's that illustrate my point. Rage cycle with Eater of Magic against a spell/spell-like/supernatural ability to give you 1 saving throw re-roll per round?? That's ridiculous - name any other class/feat/spell/item that gives you even close to that.Well since you asked,
Witch: Fortune + Cackle.
There's also Divine Interference feat. It saves anyone in the party from a critical hit by forcing a reroll on the enemy. Just stock up on cheap 1st level pearls of power to power the feat with.
Dual-Cursed Oracle right from level 1 can give allies a save reroll 1/day each with Misfortune revelation, on top of the more obvious use of forcing enemies to reroll one of their d20's once per day each.
Clarication: Divine Interference doesn't JUST apply vs. Crits, it applies vs. any attack roll...
Although using it on a Threatened Crit is probably the best usage, as you could negate the Crit in one roll (2nd roll either not Critting or not hitting at all) or on the Crit Confirm roll (which uses same modifiers as attack that Threatened, thus should use the same penalty that Divine Interference applied to the first re-roll, = Spell Level sacrified).
Really nice for Rangers/Paladins who don't usually get THAT much mileage out of 1st level spells at high levels.
Clarication: Divine Interference doesn't JUST apply vs. Crits, it applies vs. any attack roll...
Although using it on a Threatened Crit is probably the best usage, as you could negate the Crit in one roll (2nd roll either not Critting or not hitting at all) or on the Crit Confirm roll (which uses same modifiers as attack that Threatened, thus should use the same penalty that Divine Interference applied to the first re-roll, = Spell Level sacrified).
Yeah, I know. I was just trying to keep my description simple, and negating crits *is* the best and smartest use for Divine Interference, especially since you can only use it on a given enemy once per day. A foe is unlikely to crit more than once in a fight, but if you go using the feat the first chance you get...you'll probably regret it.
EDIT: And the attack penalty is totally an after-thought compared to the reroll aspect, so burning higher level spells just for an extra -1 or -2 to the reroll is just not worth it.
Also good if you know they can Cleave off that attack, or they can Stunning Fist off it, Grab off it, etc.
I am confused. What is rage cycling? I never heard of this, how does it work?
There are certain abilities which a barbarian can perform only once per rage. Normally this means that a barbarian wishing to use this multiple times in a day must cancel his rage and wait for fatigue to wear off before restarting it.
There are certain ways to get immunity to fatigue.
IF you get immunity to fatigue you can end your rage and restart it in the same turn. This way you get the benefit of ending your rage without actually ending your rage.