And you don't have to use the perform skill for inspire courage.
Make it simple - go urban barbarian and dawnflower dervish. Both stack, you can use charisma skills, and you can get dex out of your rage.
|
It was legal in 3.5 and Pathfinder removed restrictions on rage.
Barbarian/Bard:
The “bardarian” has two choices in a battle: use a mix of party-aiding spells and attacks, or rage and use inspirational music to urge the rest of the party on as he attacks. Only the bardic music abilities that actually require a Perform check (such as countersong and fascinate) are off limits during a rage. Neither barbarians nor bards wear heavy armor, so gear selection is straightforward.
While raging, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except for Balance, Escape Artist, Intimidate, and Ride), the Concentration skill, or any abilities that require patience or concentration, nor can he cast spells or activate magic items that require a command word, a spell trigger (such as a wand), or spell completion (such as a scroll) to function. He can use any feat he has except Combat Expertise, item creation feats, and metamagic feats.
Yes. Bardic performance does not require patience or concentration.
Requiring Patience falls into GM FIAT, which is hardly reliable, and concentration is a game term (that has multiple uses, I believe), something which I'm sure doesn't mean the game term when it's coupled with a generic term. That's about as table varied as it gets. Even if the only base Bardic Performances that actually require Performances are Countersong and Distraction, that doesn't mean that utilizing a performance doesn't require patience or concentration at its core (especially since, to start off, it takes a Standard Action to start, and then a Free Action each turn to maintain it). Unless you have a specific rules line to suggest that, many would disagree, and that's where the table variation will be most critical.
Linking 3.5 doesn't do anything; even if it's backwards-compatible with Pathfinder, there are many rules that have been changed from 3.5 to Pathfinder that aren't reflected in 3.5, and vice-versa, meaning using backwards compatibility to determine rules validity is, in itself, invalid.
|
|
Rules have changed, yes.
But if pathfinder has removed many other restrictions on what you can do in rage, it is highly unlikely that the intent is to add a restriction about bardic music unless the additional restriction is specifically stated.
You may still run into table variation but I think without a clear reversal of the 3.5 precedent allowing bardic music, RAI is pretty clear.
Note: you'll also see people saying that barbarians can't use Combat Expertise despite the fact that that text was specifically removed from the rage description, strongly implying that you now can use Combat Expertise.
Even if the only base Bardic Performances that actually require Performances are Countersong and Distraction, that doesn't mean that utilizing a performance doesn't require patience or concentration at its core (especially since, to start off, it takes a Standard Action to start, and then a Free Action each turn to maintain it).
Would you think it's a reasonable interpretation to say that barbarians can't use any standard actions that aren't attacks? While it does require actions to maintain a performance, it also can't be disrupted (by effects that normally disrupt concentration).
Rules have changed, yes.
But if pathfinder has removed many other restrictions on what you can do in rage, it is highly unlikely that the intent is to add a restriction about bardic music unless the additional restriction is specifically stated.
You may still run into table variation but I think without a clear reversal of the 3.5 precedent allowing bardic music, RAI is pretty clear.
Note: you'll also see people saying that barbarians can't use Combat Expertise despite the fact that that text was specifically removed from the rage description, strongly implying that you now can use Combat Expertise.
Even if the only base Bardic Performances that actually require Performances are Countersong and Distraction, that doesn't mean that utilizing a performance doesn't require patience or concentration at its core (especially since, to start off, it takes a Standard Action to start, and then a Free Action each turn to maintain it).Would you think it's a reasonable interpretation to say that barbarians can't use any standard actions that aren't attacks? While it does require actions to maintain a performance, it also can't be disrupted (by effects that normally disrupt concentration).
Personally, I would not, and that's depending on the standard action. Drinking a potion would not, but looking through your bags for an item does require patience or concentration (because you have to rummage through your bags to find a specific item you're looking for). The reason Combat Expertise was not allowed originally was because it was a form of concentration with your attacks, which was demonstrated in the bonuses/penalties the feat granted. Pathfinder didn't find that sort of intent to fit with their rules, so it was changed.
But there are some GMs that would restrict based off of that. And since their interpretation is different from mine, that leads to table variation, especially when it's not explicitly stated whether a Bardic Performance to start/maintain, requires patience and concentration (nor does it specify whether the word 'concentration' refers to the game term or not, and since it's paired with a generic term, there's still possibility).
In my personal opinion, I'd say something that requires you to spend actions each round to maintain its effects (just like you would spend a Standard Action each round to concentrate on a spell that you cast, whose duration is of concentration, i.e. Wall of Fire), regardless of their action, would constitute concentration in some manner.
Lastly, referring to the Skald, there is a specific exception to their Inspired Rage performance that exempts the Skald from being limited by skill-types, or activities that require patience or concentration, providing compelling evidence to my case (if Bardic Performances could normally be allowed, there would be no reason to have to exempt the Skald from the limitations).
|
|
The reason Combat Expertise was not allowed originally was because it was a form of concentration with your attacks, which was demonstrated in the bonuses/penalties the feat granted. Pathfinder didn't find that sort of intent to fit with their rules, so it was changed.
Yes, Pathfinder found that the restrictions against Combat Expertise, activating command word items, etc. did not fit their intent. So why would it fit their intent to add a restriction on bardic music that did not exist in 3.5? ncreased restriction appears to run counter to the intent of rage in PF.
In my personal opinion, I'd say something that requires you to spend actions each round to maintain its effects (just like you would spend a Standard Action each round to concentrate on a spell that you cast, whose duration is of concentration, i.e. Wall of Fire), regardless of their action, would constitute concentration in some manner.
You start attacking on turn 1. If you want to continue doing damage on turn 2, you have to spend actions to attack. The only difference between this and bardic performance is that the latter takes less effort to maintain than to start.
Lastly, referring to the Skald, there is a specific exception to their Inspired Rage performance that exempts the Skald from being limited by skill-types, or activities that require patience or concentration, providing compelling evidence to my case (if Bardic Performances could normally be allowed, there would be no reason to have to exempt the Skald from the limitations).
The skald is weak evidence at best. Spellcasting and knowledge skills would be more than enough to justify removing those restrictions. There is even an archetype with a counterspelling ability that requires the skald to be able to use Spellcraft and spellcasting during raging song. There is no reason to believe bardic music was involved in that decision.
The reason Combat Expertise was not allowed originally was because it was a form of concentration with your attacks, which was demonstrated in the bonuses/penalties the feat granted. Pathfinder didn't find that sort of intent to fit with their rules, so it was changed.Yes, Pathfinder found that the restrictions against Combat Expertise, activating command word items, etc. did not fit their intent. So why would it fit their intent to add a restriction on bardic music that did not exist in 3.5? ncreased restriction appears to run counter to the intent of rage in PF.
In my personal opinion, I'd say something that requires you to spend actions each round to maintain its effects (just like you would spend a Standard Action each round to concentrate on a spell that you cast, whose duration is of concentration, i.e. Wall of Fire), regardless of their action, would constitute concentration in some manner.You start attacking on turn 1. If you want to continue doing damage on turn 2, you have to spend actions to attack. The only difference between this and bardic performance is that the latter takes less effort to maintain than to start.
Lastly, referring to the Skald, there is a specific exception to their Inspired Rage performance that exempts the Skald from being limited by skill-types, or activities that require patience or concentration, providing compelling evidence to my case (if Bardic Performances could normally be allowed, there would be no reason to have to exempt the Skald from the limitations).The skald is weak evidence at best. Spellcasting and knowledge skills would be more than enough to justify removing those restrictions. There is even an archetype with a counterspelling ability that requires the skald to be able to use Spellcraft and spellcasting during...
You're misunderstanding the point I'm making. Each round, you're making separate attacks, all as part of a single Standard (or Full-Round) Action. Once an attack (or even action) is resolved, the activity is done, end of story. That's not the case when it comes to Bardic Performance.
Each round, you must spend a Free Action to maintain it from the previous round it was active (meaning it continues on from the previous round, it doesn't become separate performances in comparison to your analogy of attacks), otherwise it dissipates. It's a buff that requires some sort of concentration to keep active, otherwise it just doesn't work.
Rage doesn't allow any activity that requires patience or concentration. By your reasoning, casters under the effects of Rage can still cast spells, they just can't do Concentration checks, and it's quite obvious that's not intended.
If I have to spend a Free Action each round to maintain a Performance, how is that, thematically speaking, any different from having to spend a Standard Action each round to maintain a Spell?
Read the description of what a free action is.
There is a huge difference between concentrating on a spell and a free action to maintain a performance, and just as big a difference between a standard action and a free action.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Each round, you must spend a Free Action to maintain it from the previous round it was active (meaning it continues on from the previous round, it doesn't become separate performances in comparison to your analogy of attacks), otherwise it dissipates. It's a buff that requires some sort of concentration to keep active, otherwise it just doesn't work.
It requires maintenance. That's not the same thing as requiring concentration.
If you're flying, you have to move a certain distance or make a fly check every round in order to stay in the air. If you fail your hover check you fall, not because flying takes concentration (do we want to argue barbarians can't fly in rage?) but because you are no longer physically controlling your flight.
If you stop taking the free action to perform then you are no longer moving your limbs and/or mouth parts in a way to produce a physical performance. The performance doesn't "dissipate," it ends because you stop performing.
Rage doesn't allow any activity that requires patience or concentration. By your reasoning, casters under the effects of Rage can still cast spells, they just can't do Concentration checks, and it's quite obvious that's not intended.
Casting a spell requires concentration even if you aren't making a concentration check - the check indicates a threat to your concentration. From the section on concentration checks: "To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell."
If I have to spend a Free Action each round to maintain a Performance, how is that, thematically speaking, any different from having to spend a Standard Action each round to maintain a Spell?
Thematically, while spending a standard action on a spell you are exerting so much mental energy on controlling an ongoing magical effect that you cannot perform any other significant action. While spending a free action to maintain a performance you are trading one-liners along with your punches (comedy) or using some sort of spinning fighting style (dance) or loudly shouting about the power of friendship (oratory) or something else that's inspiring but doesn't really take much effort aside from moving your mouth parts.
Mechanically, if someone hits you while you're maintaining the spell, you might lose the effect. If someone hits you while you're performing, nothing happens.
You can also cast spells while using bardic performance, indicating an ability to concentrate on the magic while performing. It is both mechanically impossible and thematically implausible to concentrate on two things at the same time, thus bardic music does not thematically or mechanically require concentration.
I sing absentmindedly. I know dancers who dance absentmindedly. I sometimes sing, and I know people who dance, in order to help ourselves concentrate on something other than singing or dancing. I used to sing while doing my calculus homework (inspire competence!).
Read the description of what a free action is.
There is a huge difference between concentrating on a spell and a free action to maintain a performance, and just as big a difference between a standard action and a free action.
Strawman argument that has no relevance. By your silly logic, I can still cast Quickened Spells while Raging. Which is obviously not intended, especially since by RAW, I can take a Swift Action whenever I can take a Free Action, and apparently I can take a Free Action to maintain a class feature, but I cannot take a Standard Action to maintain a spell.
It doesn't matter what action type it takes; if it requires an action, any action at all, to maintain an effect over the course of consecutive rounds, it still requires you to constantly make efforts (AKA concentrate on the activity) in order for the effect to remain in place.
If Rage disallows activities that require patience or concentration (such as maintaining something over the course of rounds), then those activities cannot be done until the Rage ends. If the restriction was to only work for spells, it'd be worded as such. It is not. Therefore, there are other activities that are restricted besides spells.
saying something that does not require concentration requires concentration is silly.
pointing out that a free action requires no effort or concentration is valid.
pointing out that it is the same action type, level of effort and level of patience and concentration as is needed to maintain rage should not be neccesary, but apparently is.
Also your last statement suggests people are making an argument that they are not. No one said only spells require patience and concentration only that maintain a bardic does not.
|
|
pointing out that it is the same action type, level of effort and level of patience and concentration as is needed to maintain rage should not be neccesary, but apparently is.
Rage doesn't take an action to maintain - if you're dazed and can't take actions your performance ends but your rage doesn't.
However, you have to spend an action to maintain a grapple.
Does that mean that grappling requires concentration and can't be done while raging?
Fair point weirdo I stand corrected. Rage does not require actions to maintain, only to drop out of it (free action).
I like your grappling point too.
saying something that does not require concentration requires concentration is silly.
pointing out that a free action requires no effort or concentration is valid.
pointing out that it is the same action type, level of effort and level of patience and concentration as is needed to maintain rage should not be neccesary, but apparently is.
Also your last statement suggests people are making an argument that they are not. No one said only spells require patience and concentration only that maintain a bardic does not.
PRD says it only takes a minimal amount of time and effort to do; it can still require some form of concentration.
But at this point, I can't properly express my sentiments on the matter, so to that, I say we've reached an impasse. Suggesting that the Rage clause should be treated no different than determining Death Effects, however, is suspect to say the least.
saying something that does not require concentration requires concentration is silly.
pointing out that a free action requires no effort or concentration is valid.
pointing out that it is the same action type, level of effort and level of patience and concentration as is needed to maintain rage should not be neccesary, but apparently is.
Also your last statement suggests people are making an argument that they are not. No one said only spells require patience and concentration only that maintain a bardic does not.
PRD says it only takes a minimal amount of time and effort to do; it can still require some form of concentration.
But at this point, I can't properly express my sentiments on the matter, so to that, I say we've reached an impasse. Suggesting that the Rage clause should be treated no different than determining Death Effects, however, is suspect to say the least.
Which I didn't do.
Continuing:
A bardic performance cannot be disrupted, but it ends immediately if the bard is killed, paralyzed, stunned, knocked unconscious, or otherwise prevented from taking a free action to maintain it each round.
Nothing about rage does any of that. You can still take a free action to maintain it, you are not killed, paralyzed, stunned, knocked unconscious or otherwise prevented from taking that free action.
I will agree that there are some specific performances you cannot do.
For example distraction requires a perform skill check -- you can't do that while raging. Countersong requires a perform skill check, again you can't do that while raging.
Since you can rage while not in combat you could use fascinate though.
Suggestion is a spell like ability and since you can foil the concentration for those I could definitely see an argument that you couldn't use it. Same with mass suggestion and frightening tune
However inspire courage (and the rest of the performances) is supernatural and we know from dragon totem wings (a supernatural ability) that you can use a standard action to use a supernatural ability while raging. So it is still on the table, especially since it doesn't require any sort of skill check to start.
That covers simply starting though, maintaining shouldn't be any problem since it's a free action that does not require concentration and cannot be disrupted.
The reason Combat Expertise was not allowed originally was because it was a form of concentration with your attacks, which was demonstrated in the bonuses/penalties the feat granted. Pathfinder didn't find that sort of intent to fit with their rules, so it was changed.Yes, Pathfinder found that the restrictions against Combat Expertise, activating command word items, etc. did not fit their intent. So why would it fit their intent to add a restriction on bardic music that did not exist in 3.5? ncreased restriction appears to run counter to the intent of rage in PF.
I would point out that Paizo has looked at copied over rules text from 3.5 and come to different conclusions about how those rules worked in the past, such as the whole metaphorical hands debacle.
|
|
I know it's possible that they could make an official ruling against raging performance but I don't think it's likely. The 3.5 precedent isn't about proof, it's about evidence. Evidence is about adding together a number of observations to determine what is likely true.
1) Raging performance worked in 3.5. Since there have been changes between 3.5 and PF this is only weak evidence, but it is at least slightly more likely that something not explicitly changed in PF works the same. Paizo at least tries to make an effort to be clear and consistent in their rules.
2) Rage in general has less restrictions in PF than in 3.5. As a result it is unlikely that raging performance is more restricted in PF than 3.5.
3) Bardic performance was also more restricted in 3.5 than in PF. You couldn't cast spells or activate items while maintaining a performance and some effects such as fascinate explicitly required concentration. PF removed all that. Since performance appears to require less effort and concentration in PF than in 3.5, it is unlikely that it has stopped working in rage.
What is our counter-evidence?
1) The skald does not have the same restrictions on raging song that exist for rage. This is weak evidence since the difference could be justified by spellcasting alone.
It is possible that performance takes "some form of concentration" but a statement of doubt is not actually evidence. It is possible that I could die tomorrow but I have no evidence that I will - so it's not likely. We likewise have no thematic or mechanical reason to believe that performance takes any more concentration than speaking, or using wild shape, or maintaining a grapple, or any of a number of other activities that are well accepted to be allowed during rage. So our conclusion should be based on our other observations, which are in line with a less restrictive approach.
Given these observations I believe it is much more likely that any official word would be "yes, you can perform while raging" than "actually, we removed a ton of restrictions on what you can do while raging or performing, and we know that there's a long enough history of rage-performing bardarians that they got their own cute name, but we don't want that to work anymore."
It's also possible they could go the taking 10 route and say that it is intentionally vague to invite table variation, though I think that's less likely than a clear thumbs-up given that it's less of a situational issue than taking 10, and would cause problems for PFS builds.