I didn't see any Campaign Clarification on the Scarred Rager so I'm pretty sure that you can use it to rage cycle, (i.e. end your rage on your turn become fatigued for one round and then on your initiative count re-enter rage).
Anyone tried this out in PFS? I noticed that there's actually a level 13 char who played through the campaign as a scarred rager...
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
RAW it works, and PFS is primarily driven by RAW, so I would say it works. Typically, for things like this in PFS, they end up getting banned rather than being adjusted for PFS. And since it is allowed the abilities work as written, although maybe not as intended.
For anyone that wants to see a discussion of the ability, here's a relevant thread (although old).
I agree with Walter's assessment, but would like to point out that rage-cycling like this means you don't gain the benefits of your rage when it's not your turn, which affects things like attacks of opportunity, and can limit the usefulness of certain rage powers.
I'm aware of this limitation. And it sort of keeps this form of rage cycling in check.
It means you can't reuse the uber broken things like surprise attack and also can't benefit from the Bonus to Wil saves, or a host of defensive rage powers like Superstition or Beast Totem.In turn you don't take the Penalty to AC either which is nice but you take an AC penalty from fatigued.
'Lame' curse Oracle/Barbarians already get rage cycling perfectly legally in PFS as early as level 6, without having to wait a round or make a save for the fatigue immunity, so I don't see why the strictly weaker Scarred Rager rage cycling wouldn't be legal.
-j
|
|
That is not my understanding.
Have you seen it stated somewhere?
Let me turn that around on you: have you ever seen it stated anywhere that you can still suffer from something you are "immune" to?
You're the one putting forth the idea that "immunity" is somehow less that immunity, so I'm pretty sure the burden of proof lies on your side here...
You could argue an antipaladin.
I know a Dm that limits your free actions to not allow you to end your rage on your turn.
Hmm guess that's kind of against the spirit of the rules but any GMs right...that does open up room for considerable table variation. And I don't want to build characters which can be shafted by GM whims.
I mean I totally understand any GM who would disallow moving into and out of rage multiple times per round but saying that even once is not legit is sorta lame...which reminds me of oracles...
|
You could argue an antipaladin.That is not my understanding.
Have you seen it stated somewhere?
Let me turn that around on you: have you ever seen it stated anywhere that you can still suffer from something you are "immune" to?
You're the one putting forth the idea that "immunity" is somehow less that immunity, so I'm pretty sure the burden of proof lies on your side here...
There are a couple others, where you are immune to the effects but still have the condition. One's in Occult Adventures, though I can't recall which one it is, and another is that illusion spell where you don't suffer the effects of fatigue, but are still considered fatigued. There may be other similar situations.
The statement "even if you would not normally be", to me, implies that immunity is being overcome. If it was intended that immunity still applies, then why include this statement at all?
|
You could argue an antipaladin.That is not my understanding.
Have you seen it stated somewhere?
Let me turn that around on you: have you ever seen it stated anywhere that you can still suffer from something you are "immune" to?
You're the one putting forth the idea that "immunity" is somehow less that immunity, so I'm pretty sure the burden of proof lies on your side here...
There are a couple others, where you are immune to the effects but still have the condition. One's in Occult Adventures, though I can't recall which one it is, and another is that illusion spell where you don't suffer the effects of fatigue, but are still considered fatigued. There may be other similar situations.
The statement "even if you would not normally be", to me, implies that immunity is being overcome. If it was intended that immunity still applies, then why include this statement at all?
"If you do, your rage immediately ends, and you are fatigued (even if you would not normally be)."
Look at this from a grammar point of view, that sentence is written to say that even if ending your Rage would normally not fatigue you it would still. It does not say, even if you are immune to fatigue become fatigue. It is clearly written to be talking about the Rage class feature interactions. You then get into situations like Cord of Stubborn Resolve. Which one has precedent then? If I would become fatigued instead I take non-lethal.
Immunity is immunity.
|
|
So if you are a typical Scarred Rager and use Furious Finish after raging for one round; are you fatigued for two rounds (because that is is how long you you would be normally fatigued), or are you fatigued for one round (because that is the new normal).
Just looking for what others take is? I'm trying to use the most balanced and reasonable interpretation of the rules for PFS because we need to be self-governing (as a local rules lawyer, the luxury/crutch of pawning the decision on to the GM is not available.)
|
|
Without weighing in either way on this particular ability, I'll also point out there are plenty of things that overcome immunities.
The first that comes to mind is there are multiple ways to bypass the undead immunity to mind-effecting spells.
Immunity -never- means Immunity. It just means immune until something ignores the immunity.
When these books are written, the authors and editors don't always think of all the combinations (even the ones that seem obvious to others.) Also, they choose wording that seems obvious to them, but doesn't always seem obvious to others.
Which is why we have all the 'Read-as-Written' vs 'Read-as-Intended' arguments.
And to overcome that feats and abilities tend to specifically call out that it works even though they are normally immune. It is written using different wording.
Threnodic SpellA threnodic spell affects undead creatures (even mindless undead) as if they weren't immune to mind-affecting effects, but has no effect on living creatures.
|
|
Because the Barb's level 17 ability that lets them end rage without becoming fatigued. This feat makes them end rage and still become fatigued. This feat probably wasn't designed to bypass immunity OR to bypass the ioun stone that makes you sickened when you would be fatigued OR the belt of stubborn resolve designed to allow rage-cycling.
|
Furious Finish could absolutely benefit from clarification.
FWIW I agree with Nefreet's interpretation, that "even if you would not otherwise be" overrides immunity to fatigue. It may be different language than Threnodic Spell, but that's not the only instance of immunity-override. Will of the dead is another example.
|
|
so does it override the Cord of Stubborn Resolve and the ioun stone too?
I would say so. I'd like to be wrong about this by the way.
Another example of bypassing or overriding immunity from the Kineticist class:
Draining infusion ignores any damage reduction, resistances, and immunities the creature might possess.
If you are immune to a thing you would not be affected by it. Furious Finish says that you are fatigued even if you would not otherwise be. This seems to me to be a clear enough case of bypassing or overriding immunity, and the wording used does not care about the source of the immunity.
Again, I would like to be wrong, but there seems to be precedent enough for immunity not always being immunity :/
|
|
Draining infusion ignores any damage reduction, resistances, and immunities the creature might possess.
Yet again you give an example that specifically calls out Immunity being overcome. So every example that has been put forward so far calls it out, since Furious Finish does not do so, that most logical ruling is that is does not bypass immunity.
so does it override the Cord of Stubborn Resolve and the ioun stone too?I would say so. I'd like to be wrong about this by the way.
Why would it overcome Cord or Ioun stone? Do you have some sort of evidence that says feats and abilities supersede items for layered effects? This is my point that without a layering mechanic that is clearly defined (like in Magic for example) you are making speculation.
Well that took on a life of it's own...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Draining infusion ignores any damage reduction, resistances, and immunities the creature might possess.Yet again you give an example that specifically calls out Immunity being overcome. So every example that has been put forward so far calls it out, since Furious Finish does not do so, that most logical ruling is that is does not bypass immunity.
Why would it overcome Cord or Ioun stone? Do you have some sort of evidence that says feats and abilities supersede items for layered effects? This is my point that without a layering mechanic that is clearly defined (like in Magic for example) you are making speculation.so does it override the Cord of Stubborn Resolve and the ioun stone too?I would say so. I'd like to be wrong about this by the way.
All we can reasonably do is interpret the words used.
So:
"even if you otherwise would not be" = override clause OR not
If it is an override clause, then furious finish results in fatigue even if you are otherwise immune to fatigue.
If it is not an override clause, what is it?
It seems that the contradictory viewpoint expressed in this thread is that "even if you otherwise would not be" is not an override clause except perhaps when dealing with certain inbuilt Barbarian class features, and that any override clause extant requires particular wording saying something along the lines of "this overrides that immunity". But there is no defined and standardised "immunity negation" term in the game.
My case is that "even if you otherwise would not be" = an override clause.
However, I would certainly prefer that (assuming this was the intent) the wording of Furious Finish said "you are fatigued... even if you are immune to fatigue" or "immunity to fatigue does not prevent you being fatigued after using Furious Finish; you are fatigued for 2 rounds for every round you were raging prior to using Furious Finish". Seems like that's a lot more words though.
This wouldn't be the first time that inconsistent wording has been used by different contributors to the game's content.
|
|
it's an override clause to the barbs being able to end rage and not gain fatigue at lv17. Those barbs aren't immune to fatigue, they just aren't when ending rage. This one makes them fatigued for ending rage.
So it's saying that your fatigued for ending your rage, even if you normally wouldn't be fatigued for ending rage. NOT that your fatigued after ending rage regardless of any fatigue negators you have.
|
|
And we feel that yours is adding in a lot of words that aren't present.
Cord, when you would become fatigued take 1d6 nonlethal instead.
ioun stone, when you would become fatigued become sickened.
immunity, you cannot be fatigued.
How are all of these supposed to stop working because a feat says you're fatigued for coming out of rage?
I think it's highly unlikely that it's supposed to shut all these off.
|
|
I rely entirely on the wording of the feat:
Benefit: While raging, when you use the Vital Strike feat, you can choose not to roll your damage dice and instead deal damage equal to the maximum roll possible on those damage dice. If you do, your rage immediately ends, and you are fatigued (even if you would not normally be).
You are fatigued (even if you would not normally be).
This reads as a comprehensive override. Not a limited override. It doesn't say, for example: "you are fatigued (even if you have tireless rage)". Nor does it say "you are fatigued, even if you would not normally be, unless you are immune to fatigue or can convert it to a different condition, except if the source of your immunity is tireless rage."
I think that the first alternative would be reasonable enough, but that isn't what is written. I think that the second alternative is a bit silly.
Taking the wording of the feat to mean what it would ordinarily mean in English, and without adding or subtracting any wording, there is a comprehensive override.
|
|
I rely entirely on the wording of the feat:
Benefit: While raging, when you use the Vital Strike feat, you can choose not to roll your damage dice and instead deal damage equal to the maximum roll possible on those damage dice. If you do, your rage immediately ends, and you are fatigued (even if you would not normally be).You are fatigued (even if you would not normally be).
This reads as a comprehensive override. Not a limited override. It doesn't say, for example: "you are fatigued (even if you have tireless rage)". Nor does it say "you are fatigued, even if you would not normally be, unless you are immune to fatigue or can convert it to a different condition, except if the source of your immunity is tireless rage."
I think that the first alternative would be reasonable enough, but that isn't what is written. I think that the second alternative is a bit silly.
Taking the wording of the feat to mean what it would ordinarily mean in English, and without adding or subtracting any wording, there is a comprehensive override.
English is a complex language and you are treating all those commas and parenthesis as periods. Sentence structure is also important in English. That sentence to Furious Finish is written so that the become fatigued even if you normally would not references the rage ending only, not other interactions outside of that feat and the rage class ability. It does not say, even if other effects prevent fatigue or anything like that which would then imply it negated magic items and class features.
So once again, if every example of includes the wording that includes overriding immunity, and this one does not, then the logical reading is that it does not override fatigue immunity.
So once again, if every example of includes the wording that includes overriding immunity, and this one does not, then the logical reading is that it does not override fatigue immunity.
Wow! What a sentence!
|
|
with fatigue immunity as a barb I still should become fatigued after raging, But I am immune to fatigue.
using this feat, I still should become fatigued after raging, but I am still immune to fatigue.
As a lv17 barb I should not become fatigued after raging, and I am immune to fatigue.
Using this feat, I now become fatigued after raging, but I am still immune to fatigue.
|
|
I did a little searching of the Rules forum on the Furious Finish question. Whilst there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer, it does appear that my interpretation is a minority position.
I'm actually happy about this. I'm not completely convinced, but in any event I plan on taking Furious Finish on my Hunter/Barbarian so I'll be glad if I avoid table variation and enjoy the more favourable ruling :)
|
|
Tolerance (Ex): At 2nd level, a scarred rager who fails a save against an effect that causes her to become nauseated, sickened, fatigued, or exhausted can make a second save to negate the effect on the start of her next turn. Only one additional save is allowed. If the effect does not allow a saving throw, its duration is halved instead (minimum of 1 round)....
— How long is a round? Six seconds, right? When did the round in question begin? At the end of the Scarred Rager's turn, when his final action was to drop out of rage. If the duration of his fatigue is "minimum of 1 round", when is that time up? At the end of his next turn.
(I suppose a player could claim that his winded character is patiently waiting out 0.3-second increments around initiative order through the next round in order to re-engage the split-instant his fatigued condition expires. I'd remind him that readying takes a standard-action, which means actually taking your turn. "If you'd like to delay until you're fresh-as-a-daisy, I'll let you start at the top of the third round.")
|
Tolerance (Ex): At 2nd level, a scarred rager who fails a save against an effect that causes her to become nauseated, sickened, fatigued, or exhausted can make a second save to negate the effect on the start of her next turn. Only one additional save is allowed. If the effect does not allow a saving throw, its duration is halved instead (minimum of 1 round)....— How long is a round? Six seconds, right? When did the round in question begin? At the end of the Scarred Rager's turn, when his final action was to drop out of rage. If the duration of his fatigue is "minimum of 1 round", when is that time up? At the end of his next turn.
(I suppose a player could claim that his winded character is patiently waiting out 0.3-second increments around initiative order through the next round in order to re-engage the split-instant his fatigued condition expires. I'd remind him that readying takes a standard-action, which means actually taking your turn. "If you'd like to delay until you're fresh-as-a-daisy, I'll let you start at the top of the third round.")
That's not how rounds work in pathfinder.
Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.