|
2. any ability that requires patience3. any ability that requires concentration
The things in Item 1 are not abilities, they are skills. Only the things listed in Items 2 and 3 are abilities, and they lack specific definition.
Uh, the language on this is INTENTIONLY vague. Table variation is to be expected.
Jessex has a point. Many things, including dealing non lethal damage, could be considered as precluded by the wording. You are NOT going to be able to pedantically RAW your way out of this, not without simultaneously essentially eliminating those clauses.
Now, I personally think that Jessex is going too far in his interpretation and that non lethal damage SHOULD be allowed but I recognize that he has a point. Those words above ARE part of the restrictions on rage.
|
Except that most combat training involves massive drilling to specifically eliminate the need for thinking about how you are moving your body. You just think "I am going to do this" and your body and muscle memory do the rest.
So one way to think about this is that the -4 is because you are slowing down to think about how you are doing the non lethal, and the blade of mercy is that you have drilled so much that you no longer have to think about it, you just do it.
But even so, that "thinking about what you are doing" isn't "concentration" or we have to apply that same logic to other similar situations. For example, using an exotic weapon has the same penalty and remedies. Are you saying that if the barbarian's sword is broken, and he grabs a falcata they found earlier, he can't use it in rage?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to attack the person instead of the argument, but honestly, Jessex, are you just arguing this position for the thrill of being contrary, or would you actually follow this kind of restriction as a GM, where any time a raging character would try to use an option that requires them to make a choice between alternative courses of action, they can't because that would take concentration? I can't imagine anyone playing a raging character at your table, if so.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh and I shall now point out after having reread the bloodrager descriptions that it clearly states the Bloodrager can concentrate to cast spells from the bloodrager list.. Just to further mess with this debate.. lolAnd that is an explicit exception.
As to the rest, A -4 penalty to hit is something. What is it? Until that is dealt with I will say it is at least the character concentrating on doing something. You can thank BBT's bullying for that.
No, we can thank your weird iinterpretations of what the game rules say, as you are not doing any citations for doing lethal with a non-lethal weapon, or non-lethal with a lethal weapon, as requiring anything approaching concentration.
The character cited has a feat to allow them to do non-lethal damage with a lethal weapon as a choice, not a concentration.
Would you require a Barbarian or Bloodrager with the Whip Mastery feat to only be able to do nonlethal with a whip when raging, even though the feat allows them, to choose which kind of damage to do?
How about someone with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, nonlethal only if they are under the effects of a Rage spell?
How about the Weapon Versatility feat? Does it take concentration to alter the type of damage your weapon does, per the feat?
How about any of the many weapons which can, without a feat, just on the weapon itself, do different types of damage? Dagger, as an example, can be used to do either slashing or piercing damage, at the user's choice. Does that require concentration? And, if it does, which damage type do you make it default to?
Please, be careful of the law of unintended consequences, as it can come up behind you and bite you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How was anything I said "bullying" again?
That, just seems like a personal attack, in an effort to dismiss my comments.
EDIT: Actually, you seem to do that, even in response to others disagreeing with you. Just "b-b-b-but BBT is a doody head bully!", even when you are responding to someone else entirely.
|
|
I like to think of a raging barbarian as similar to the hulk in full-on battle mode.
While nobody would expect the Hulk to stop and pick a lock or attempt to decipher an old writing, it certainly fits to make the hulk go full defense for one or two rounds - maybe there is something he really fears or maybe he just has to block a beam that may not kill him (it's the friggin' HULK, after all), but still hurts.
Also: A raging barbarian does not lose his complete dex-bonus, so while he gets reckless he still cares about not getting hit. He does not turn into a mindless construct or a ruthless killing machine.
Oh and I shall now point out after having reread the bloodrager descriptions that it clearly states the Bloodrager can concentrate to cast spells from the bloodrager list.. Just to further mess with this debate.. lolAnd that is an explicit exception.
As to the rest, A -4 penalty to hit is something. What is it? Until that is dealt with I will say it is at least the character concentrating on doing something. You can thank BBT's bullying for that.
No, we can thank your weird iinterpretations of what the game rules say, as you are not doing any citations for doing lethal with a non-lethal weapon, or non-lethal with a lethal weapon, as requiring anything approaching concentration.
The character cited has a feat to allow them to do non-lethal damage with a lethal weapon as a choice, not a concentration.
Would you require a Barbarian or Bloodrager with the Whip Mastery feat to only be able to do nonlethal with a whip when raging, even though the feat allows them, to choose which kind of damage to do?
How about someone with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, nonlethal only if they are under the effects of a Rage spell?
How about the Weapon Versatility feat? Does it take concentration to alter the type of damage your weapon does, per the feat?
How about any of the many weapons which can, without a feat, just on the weapon itself, do different types of damage? Dagger, as an example, can be used to do either slashing or piercing damage, at the user's choice. Does that require concentration? And, if it does, which damage type do you make it default to?
Please, be careful of the law of unintended consequences, as it can come up behind you and bite you.
Heck power attack causes a penalty when using it. Guess barbarians can't attack harder since there is some concentration involved.
I'm pretty sure that drinking potion is not permitted while raging. It's one of the premise of witch was ideated the "moment of clarity" rage power.
Dealing nonlethal damage? eh, I'd personally say you can if you use a nonlethal weapon, if you use a lethal weapon, using it in an inappropriate way it's too much burden.
Yes i think that ragings makes you stupid. Sunder the object that clearly did you harm? basic, you definetly can. Hitting them with the blunt end? No, right now you are in rage and your second thought is "kill him", right after "stay alive".
People arguing rage always try to convey rage as just a + stats like it's the same as weapon focus. Is it not, so learn to deal with it.
@FLite Being a jerk is a separate issue. Using the rules to be a jerk is not the rules fault. Just get out of the rage if you need him alive.
|
Never seen someone rule you can't use potions while raging before. I've seen plenty of debate on if a Superstitious Barbarian must roll saves on their potions while raging (probably yes), but never about not being able to use potions at all. Rage is not Mindless Hulk Smash Mode where you're a potential liability to your allies, that would be the much more extreme Frenzy of 3.5 Frenzied Berserker fame - while in Rage, you can still keep goals in mind and do tactical assessments of the situation, and that might include "this guy needs to stay alive" and "drink this vial of liquid = live to smash another day".
So how about this - would you permit a Barbarian to intentionally move into flanking while raging? Because I don't see how that requires any less capability for planning and thought than doing nonlethal damage.
fwiw, I view the -4 from nonlethal damage not so much as being a requirement for massive concentration, as you're using the weapon in a way which it was not intended and hence is a bit clumsier.
|
|
Hmmm, it seems a lot of this debate really comes down to people's definitions of Rage - whether they fall on the "Rage = HULK SMASH!" side of things where the Barbarian is of barely animal intelligence and unable to do anything but mindlessly kill, or whether it's more of a sort of massive surge of adrenaline or blackout anger, but not effectively a lobotomy.
My personal interpretation would be the latter - more like a furious Viking raging onto shore, screaming and holding their giant axe aloft as the adrenaline numbs the pain of their wounds. I really think the Hulk interpretation falls more along the lines of the Frenzied Berserker rather than a base Barbarian.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm, it seems a lot of this debate really comes down to people's definitions of Rage - whether they fall on the "Rage = HULK SMASH!" side of things where the Barbarian is of barely animal intelligence and unable to do anything but mindlessly kill, or whether it's more of a sort of massive surge of adrenaline or blackout anger, but not effectively a lobotomy.
My personal interpretation would be the latter - more like a furious Viking raging onto shore, screaming and holding their giant axe aloft as the adrenaline numbs the pain of their wounds. I really think the Hulk interpretation falls more along the lines of the Frenzied Berserker rather than a base Barbarian.
Totally agreed. And supported by RAW. Intelligence and wisdom do NOT decrease while raging. You just can't concentrate or show any patience, but anything you can do quickly, you can do just as intelligently as usual.
I've never seen it ruled that barbarians can't drink a potion in battle. I did it plenty, and had to make a save every time for being superstitious, with my barbarian that made it to level 14 in PFS. And I agree that readying an action is something a raging barbarian/bloodrager shouldn't be able to do - that requires patience, which is explicitly called out.
But using a weapon slightly differently than normal, especially if you've got a trait that says you're trained for that weird usage? Not a problem.
Barbarians can absolutely drink Potions.
There are even archetypes and Rage Powers around it.
It's no more difficult than drinking a bottle of rum.
SSSSHHHH.....we don't want to lose our alcohol privileges.
For the sake of neutrality (or is it sit on the fence, or perhaps for safety) I'm not going to align myself with any particular viewpoint or opinion for the moment.
But does anyone else notice the following elephant in the room?
To 'Rage' is to draw on some inner strength, to rise in ferocity and intimidatory intent against an opponent - in a way that tests their concentration and patience.
To attack in a non-lethal manner requires an intent of 'holding back', refraining from carrying out a harsher, more damaging, even lethal injury.
The two intentions are in opposition. Surely there would be a mental conflict (serious frustration?) for the character trying to fulfill such differing intentions. They certainly do not flow from the same inner source.
The question is... should the rage overcome the need to be lenient in damage delivery, or should the 'softly-softly' approach supersede the internal beast?
Allowing both simultaneously could well be illogical and require some justification.
To attack in a non-lethal manner requires an intent of 'holding back', refraining from carrying out a harsher, more damaging, even lethal injury.
Not exactly.
You can still put full power into the attack, even combine it with power attack, but you are aiming for different areas. Knocking the breath out of someone rather than slice them in half.
You aren't so much holding back as redirecting.
In game terms, there is no reduction in the amount of damage done, it is just a different type of damage.
The argument is even weaker for Bloodrager where there is nothing other than the name that involves emotion. Bloodrage is calling on a magical bloodline power, not an adrenaline rush. Without a magical bloodline, you can't Bloodrage.
I'd also like to add Precise Shot to the list of things we now need to know if they can be done in a rage. I mean if taking the time to reduce one penalty is too much we should prolly check on other things like lining up a ranged attack to not hit our buddy. That is concentration and Patience.
Or we could figure it's training.
The worst thing I can see happening here is another T10 supposed to be ambiguous ruling that will make it hard to figure out what you can do from one DM to the next.
I'd also like to add Precise Shot to the list of things we now need to know if they can be done in a rage. I mean if taking the time to reduce one penalty is too much we should prolly check on other things like lining up a ranged attack to not hit our buddy. That is concentration and Patience.
Or we could figure it's training.
The worst thing I can see happening here is another T10 supposed to be ambiguous ruling that will make it hard to figure out what you can do from one DM to the next.
In fact, who's to say a Barbarian can even use a bow in raging? It definitely takes concentration and patience to line up your shots, moreso than "hitting them with the blunt end" for nonlethal damage, so following that line of logic it makes sense to remove a raging Barbarian's ability to shoot as well.
It takes some degree of concentration to pick a target and attack it.
Therefor you may not participate in combat while Bloodraging.
This conversation is silly.
Of course you can hit stuff while Bloodraging.
If you wanna do non-lethal, good for you, go ahead.
If we are gonna split hairs, then we should just rule that Bloodraging basically neutralizes your character completely.
Is that sensible?
Autonomic functions like breathing and having your heart beat don't require concentration.
Walking does.
So does attacking.
Take it with a grain of salt, and hope your GM isn't an idiot.
Got to say I'm with BBT on this one.
People get wierd hangups when they try to mix rules with real world experience. I've seen that regularly on these forums, the thing is the game is very far removed from the real world and that's A OK.
Barbarians can absolutely drink Potions.
There are even archetypes and Rage Powers around it.
It's no more difficult than drinking a bottle of rum.
This is when I tell you that the archetypes makes a point in specifiying that you can, and thus gives no basis to deduct anything on the "standard" rules.
Let's remember that barbarian Rage is not just someone being angry.
|
|
Barbarians can absolutely drink Potions.
There are even archetypes and Rage Powers around it.
It's no more difficult than drinking a bottle of rum.
This is when I tell you that the archetypes makes a point in specifying that you can, and thus gives no basis to deduct anything on the "standard" rules.
Let's remember that barbarian Rage is not just someone being angry.
Absolutely false.
Basic Barbarian(or Primalist Bloodrager) can use Rage Powers, such as Good for What Ails You, and Liquid Courage, to drink, and they make no notes as being an exception to Rage restrictions. This is true of the Drunken Brute, and Drunken Rager Barbarian archetypes.
|
|
No, but as someone who personally deals with severe ptsd blackout anger issues, resulting in violence against those close to me, a clearly rage filled state of self preservation and released agression... I've never tried to kill anyone, even when I had no f*ing clue what I was doing, and didn't remember it afterwards. Just because you're well beyond words and calming down, doesn't mean you'll kill it dead just because it's there. I usually have a knife on me, and have never reached for it or any other nearby weapon while in a personal rage.
I can see plenty of merit for a barbarian who has a basic weapon, like a baseball bat with nails in one side, choosing even in his blindest of angers to use the blunted side of the bat against their chest, not the nailed side against their temple.
*edit*
This includes a man I still to this day wish I'd killed, whom I spared three times in one night as people begged me to get off him. A man who gave my wife severe memory issues for months. I had control. Not much, but enough to know when enough was enough.
Barbarian Rage, and Bloodrager Bloodrage are not comparable to ptsd blackout anger episodes.
As one who suffers similar blackout rage episodes in the past, I would be outright offended if they were compared, and noted as similar.
Such episodes are terrifying, as you would know, and you can't quite remember the period of time, during the episode. This is at least true for me.
|
|
No, but as someone who personally deals with severe ptsd blackout anger issues, resulting in violence against those close to me, a clearly rage filled state of self preservation and released agression... I've never tried to kill anyone, even when I had no f*ing clue what I was doing, and didn't remember it afterwards. Just because you're well beyond words and calming down, doesn't mean you'll kill it dead just because it's there. I usually have a knife on me, and have never reached for it or any other nearby weapon while in a personal rage.
I can see plenty of merit for a barbarian who has a basic weapon, like a baseball bat with nails in one side, choosing even in his blindest of angers to use the blunted side of the bat against their chest, not the nailed side against their temple.
*edit*
This includes a man I still to this day wish I'd killed, whom I spared three times in one night as people begged me to get off him. A man who gave my wife severe memory issues for months. I had control. Not much, but enough to know when enough was enough.Barbarian Rage, and Bloodrager Bloodrage are not comparable to ptsd blackout anger episodes.
As one who suffers similar blackout rage episodes in the past, I would be outright offended if they were compared, and noted as similar.
Such episodes are terrifying, as you would know, and you can't quite remember the period of time, during the episode. This is at least true for me.
Probably the only thing that would come close in pathfinder is the wild rager archtype. And even then it is more a "cinematic" rage. (And probably mechanically closer to someone who has non-ptsd induced anger management issues.)
I will point out that they apparently forget languages, unless they started with them.
If raging reduces intelligence, why don't the rules show this?
Concentration is required for any activity that isn't performed automatically, so breathing and having your heart beat are OK. Digestion works, but ingestion is out. No walking or talking either.
So... RAW ragers basically sit there till it wears off, right?
Barbarians can absolutely drink Potions.
There are even archetypes and Rage Powers around it.
It's no more difficult than drinking a bottle of rum.
This is when I tell you that the archetypes makes a point in specifying that you can, and thus gives no basis to deduct anything on the "standard" rules.
Let's remember that barbarian Rage is not just someone being angry.
Absolutely false.
Basic Barbarian(or Primalist Bloodrager) can use Rage Powers, such as Good for What Ails You, and Liquid Courage, to drink, and they make no notes as being an exception to Rage restrictions. This is true of the Drunken Brute, and Drunken Rager Barbarian archetypes.
Right, I missed those. I guess I'll have to flag it as a house rule then.
|
|
See, that's fine, to houserule.
In PFS, you don't houserule, and you certainly don't get to change how the mechanics work to fit your personal view of a class feature.
Sneak Attack?
You don't have to be sneaky at all. In fact, some of the most successful builds are not built around stealth, or anything resembling it.
|
|
This thread is of some interest to me specifically because it will break one of my characters based on the concept if it does not work - a guy that got kicked out of Paladin school because he couldn't control his temper, but still tries to do the general right thing. He is a Blade of Mercy UnBarb. He is a mean drunk, and will get black-out furious when friends or innocents are in danger... but he does not intentionally kill intelligent beings, even when furious, he has learned enough self control to handle himself (nonlethal crits and goblins have happened, admittedly).
|
|
Don't worry. Your concept is fine.
Is it for PFS?
If so, and someone tries to impose houserule restrictions, you can kindly let them know that know they cannot, and should not do so. If they refuse, you can excuse yourself from the table. Talk to them in a civil manner after the game, and if they still refuse, you can contact your local VO.
If not, then it is a simple manner of working something out with your DM.
For those who see rage as Hulk Smash and oppose nonlethal Barbs on that basis, is with pointing out that at one point Marvel child genius Amadeus Cho observed that the Hulk had never killed anybody in all his rampaging, attributing this to subconscious influence from Banner, and that MCU Hulk actually has a solid handle on directing his rage.
Considering that it has never stopped them from posting on forum debates, I see no reason rage should stop a barbarian from not killing someone.