Hi everyone,
I found something annoying with Barbarian Rage. Rage stops "as soon as you can't perceive an enemy".
Which raises question with invisible enemies (or enemies you think are around). Can you "perceive" them if they are Undetected, for example? Also, say, there is an enemy but he hides himself or just go around a corner, you immediately leave rage?
And if, say, the building crumbles. Raging would be both a nice thing to do if you have Fast Movement and something hyper logical, as there is clearly a blood rush justifying raging. But your rage would immediately stops.
And then, there are all the cases where there is no real danger but raging would help you, like if you need to climb or swim and have Raging Athlete.
I really find this rule to be far too limiting...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, as said above, it doesn't have to do with seeing the foe. It is about knowing that they are somewhere near by and one of your senses can tell you this.
Keep in mind that this doesn't stop a barbarian from being angry, it just means that they aren't gaining the mechanical benefits of rage because they have nothing to direct that rage at.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, getting very very angry because you want to climb that wall better is a bit gamey.
If there's something you want to tear apart sitting on top of it, that's a different story!
|
I would allow rage with an undetected, but not unnoticed creature. Undetected means you perceive (imprecisely) that they are there, but don't know their exact location. Unnoticed would mean you cannot perceive that they are there.
I agree, a barbarian's rage would only end if there are no enemies or if all enemies have the unnoticed condition.
Keep in mind that this doesn't stop a barbarian from being angry, it just means that they aren't gaining the mechanical benefits of rage because they have nothing to direct that rage at.
Raging is not being angry. Raging is an action, the Barbarian is supposed to control his rage. So he should be able to rage even without enemies.
Also, raging doesn't force you to attack an enemy. So, you can rage, and then run away thanks to the extra speed given by Fast Movement. There's nothing about attacking in Rage.Ultimately, enemy is a personal concept. You can attack another character, so another character can be your enemy. As such, you could perfectly say: I rage because of Bob the Champion in my party, and then run away from the crumbling building. Mecanically, it's good.
For me, the Barbarian should be able to rage whenever he wants, and Rage should only drop if he's unconscious or after 1 minute. This rule about perceiving an enemy is not really applicable.
Rage definition:
violent, uncontrollable anger.
"You tap into your inner fury and begin raging."
It looks like it's quite personal and nothing to do with someone.
So, if there an enemy inside the building, the Barbarian can rage to run away with extra movement. If there is no enemy inside the building, the Barbarian can't rage to run away. You'll agree that it's exactly the same situation, there's just one guy somewhere to allow you to keep your rage.
And it doesn't change the fact that you can choose anyone as your enemy as rage doesn't force you to attack him. So, choosing one of your party members or even a bystander should work (even if it's completely crazy).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Allow a super annyoing bard to join your party, problem solved. ;)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that if you are going to use the Rage Barbarian class action and you are trying to use it for something other than going into combat and killing all enemies you know about, you are trying to do something that was not intended by the game designers.
Personally, using rage for anything other than combat seems like you are meta-gaming. Barbarians rage to kill enemies. All benefits from raging should be applied to further that end.
If you tried to use Rage to gain its benefits to climb a wall or run away or anything that is not combat related, then I would wonder - what kind of barbarian are you?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Allow a super annyoing bard to join your party, problem solved. ;)
I love this. The idea of a Barbarian deciding to temporarily turn on his party or view the most annoying member as a personal enemy to gain the mechanical advantages and then just privately forgives them later makes me chuckle.
"I'll totally make so and so pay as soon as I get to the top of this cliff!.....Eh.... actually he's not THAT bad of a guy"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it isn't completely unreasonable to consider a Hazard to be an enemy. If you are in a burning building hazard, that may be able to qualify as an Enemy for the purposes of being able to rage.
Just climbing a wall to climb a wall, that might be harder. Climbing a wall to get to the person they know is threatening their little sister at the top, that might be able to qualify even though they don't see them right in front of them.
The wall is a hazard they have to pass (not just because it is there, but because it is the only way to get where they have to be to defeat their enemy) that might make it a hazard that does damage to them if/when they fall.
Can it be gamed that way? Perhaps, but the GM can also then make it clear that if they game it too much, they can engage some potential dangers of relying on it too much.
Let's say you have Raging Athlete.
If you are in a friendly wall climbing contest, I'd say it's ridiculous to rage to climb a wall. And I would say it's also ridiculous to rage during the wrestling contest, despite the fact you have an opponent.
Now, if you are in a cathedral on fire and the only exit is a window 6ft. high, it's perfectly legitimate for me to put all your resources into the task.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that this doesn't stop a barbarian from being angry, it just means that they aren't gaining the mechanical benefits of rage because they have nothing to direct that rage at.Raging is not being angry. Raging is an action, the Barbarian is supposed to control his rage. So he should be able to rage even without enemies.
Also, raging doesn't force you to attack an enemy. So, you can rage, and then run away thanks to the extra speed given by Fast Movement. There's nothing about attacking in Rage.
Ultimately, enemy is a personal concept. You can attack another character, so another character can be your enemy. As such, you could perfectly say: I rage because of Bob the Champion in my party, and then run away from the crumbling building. Mecanically, it's good.For me, the Barbarian should be able to rage whenever he wants, and Rage should only drop if he's unconscious or after 1 minute. This rule about perceiving an enemy is not really applicable.
You cannot drop rage... so no, while going into a rage may be something a barbarian has control over. It is mechanically and thematically not a fully controlled element.
And yes, that was my entire point. No foes around, then the barbarian may be angry but not raging. There is a difference.
And no, that is a munchkiny misinterpretation of the rules and you well know it. I get that you might not like the thematics of rage in pathfinder; but someone saying they like fruit is not equivalent to permission for them to be placed in stocks and pelted with tomatoes.
Not liking someone doesn't make them an enemy, and if they are... then well that is the end of that party unless the GM approves of your "i view them as an enemy whenever it would be mechanically appropriate and never act on it ever" bullhonkey.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yes, that was my entire point. No foes around, then the barbarian may be angry but not raging. There is a difference.
And no, that is a munchkiny misinterpretation of the rules and you well know it. I get that you might not like the thematics of rage in pathfinder; but someone saying they like fruit is not equivalent to permission for them to be placed in stocks and pelted with tomatoes.
Not liking someone doesn't make them an enemy, and if they are... then well that is the end of that party unless the GM approves of your "i view them as an enemy whenever it would be mechanically appropriate and never act on it ever" bullhonkey.
He has a point though.
At the moment and per RAW I can use rage to beat up random drunkards once the tavern brawl has started, but I can not use rage for extra damage while desperately battering down the locked door to the burning building that contains my screaming little sister? Come on...
That's it. I think it should be rephrased into danger. Like you can't keep your rage as soon as there's no more danger. It would exclude friendly wrestling competitions and include dire situations where the task is not to beat someone up.
That's it. I think it should be rephrased into danger. Like you can't keep your rage as soon as there's no more danger. It would exclude friendly wrestling competitions and include dire situations where the task is not to beat someone up.
This doesn’t hold up thematically either. Rage allows you to channel your inner fury and unleash it in combat. Rage and fury both mean wild or violent anger that cannot be controlled. It’s like hulking out. Danger doesn’t draw your violent uncontrollable anger - an enemy does.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if Ubertron example doesn't draw your violent uncontrollable anger, I'd say nothing could.
Also Rage is not about Fury, unless you're a Fury Barbarian. It can be spirit possession, for example. Rage is a thematic name grouping many different kind of in game effects.
Also Rage is not about Fury, unless you're a Fury Barbarian.
Yes it absolutely is about fury.
You tap into your inner fury and being raging. You gain a number of temporary hit points equal to your level plus your Constitution modifier. This frenzy lasts for 1 minute, until there are no more enemies you can perceive, or until you fall unconscious, whichever comes first. You can’t voluntarily stop raging: while you are raging:
• You deal 2 additional damage with melee weapons and unarmed attacks. This additional damage is halved if your weapon or unarmed attack is agile.
• You take a -1 penalty to AC.
• You can’t use actions with the concentrate trait unless they also have the rage trait. You can seek while raging.After you stop raging, you lose any remaining temporary Hit Points from Rage, and you can’t Rage again for 1 minute.
There is nothing at all consistent with it being triggered by you being in danger, or being used to flee. In fact I see very little benefit from Rage if you’re running away.
In Ubertrons example where someone is holding your sister and you’re going after them - your rage is at the person who has the sister not at the wall that you need to climb to get there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Noone is holding your sister in Ubertron example.
"Whether you are emotionally sensitive to the spirits around you; worship ancestors or apparitions; or are haunted by the specter of an ancestor, relative, friend, or foe, your rage takes the form of a spiritual possession."
So, no, not about fury.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Noone is holding your sister in Ubertron example.
"Whether you are emotionally sensitive to the spirits around you; worship ancestors or apparitions; or are haunted by the specter of an ancestor, relative, friend, or foe, your rage takes the form of a spiritual possession."
So, no, not about fury.
I don't think being possessed makes a good argument for being in control.
Noone is holding your sister in Ubertron example.
Are you actually reading these things?
while desperately battering down the locked door to the burning building that contains my screaming little sister?
it’s the bolded bit.
"Whether you are emotionally sensitive to the spirits around you; worship ancestors or apparitions; or are haunted by the specter of an ancestor, relative, friend, or foe, your rage takes the form of a spiritual possession."
So, no, not about fury.
“Unleash your inner fury“ is taken directly from the first sentence of the description for the Rage action. It is text that you yourself posted earlier. You’re quoting from the Spirit Instinct, which explains an origin for your rage but does not replace the description of the rage action which clearly defines what rage is and how it works. I’m sorry it’s not as robustly permissive as you’d like, but it was never meant to be thus.
while desperately battering down the locked door to the burning building that contains my screaming little sister?it’s the bolded bit.
So I'll repeat myself: noone is holding your sister in Ubertron example.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I'll repeat myself: noone is holding your sister in Ubertron example.
while desperately battering down the locked door to the burning building that contains my screaming little sister?it’s the bolded bit.
Someone put her behind the locked door. She is being held captive behind it. This was Ubertron’s variation on Loreguards example of someone holding your little sister at the top of a wall.
If in your argument for your rule interpretation you will dismiss any portion of both the CRB text or the examples given by other posters to clarify - even ones that support your view - then what are you gaining from asking the rules question in the first place? You’ve already made up your mind
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I'll repeat myself: noone is holding your sister in Ubertron example.
while desperately battering down the locked door to the burning building that contains my screaming little sister?it’s the bolded bit.Someone put her behind the locked door. She is being held captive behind it. This was Ubertron’s variation on Loreguards example of someone holding your little sister at the top of a wall.
If in your argument for your rule interpretation you will dismiss any portion of both the CRB text or the examples given by other posters to clarify - even ones that support your view - then what are you gaining from asking the rules question in the first place? You’ve already made up your mind
It's no variation of Loreguards example as the building's on fire, so nothing to do with anyone holding your sister. Your sister's in a building on fire, the door's locked, you want to destroy it, you want to rage.
Also, I'm not asking questions (well, the only questions I've asked have been answered, and as you can see, not by following the rules precisely). I'm opening a conversation on a subject that is interesting.And finaly, your answer is not in the rules. You can't rage to save your sister even if she's been held captive per the rules. So stop thinking you are applying the rules as they should be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone put her behind the locked door. She is being held captive behind it.
She is locked in, and the building is burning. That is all I stated. No enemy in sight or immediate reach.
Either the guy who did it is long gone (would not make sense for him to immolate himself, would it?) or she may even have locked the door herself, dropped a candle while playing with her puppets, panicked and forgot where she put the key.
And the mighty Barbarian who's inner rage lets him even fight dragons can not just freak out and bash down the door in time, because - you know - rules.
If I were to GM this situation I would probably consider this example an acceptable exception to the rule, no more no less.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's no variation of Loreguards example as the building's on fire, so nothing to do with anyone holding your sister. Your sister's in a building on fire, the door's locked, you want to destroy it, you want to rage. Period.
Yeah those Middle Ages doors, with their notorious propensity toward locking themselves.
What parts of the text are allowable by you to continue having this conversation, since you’re parsing out individual words from sentences and ignoring any prior context.
The description of “inner fury” proves your point that it is a personal impetus for your rage, but the word fury has been rejected from the sentence because it doesn’t suit your narrative.
If we’re to continue to converse about the rules, we need to know all the things you will accept and reject.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is mechanically and thematically not a fully controlled element.
Not sure this really holds up. You're right, you can't pick when Rage ends, but in all other respects it's... pretty damn controlled. You activate it willingly, so it's not something that overtakes you. You're not compelled to attack anyone or otherwise have any altered behavior while under it. You're not really impeded in any way, outside being too focused to otherwise perform Concentrate actions.
Calling that uncontrolled is wildly inconsistent with what the ability actually does.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if the Barbarian themselves were there own worst enemy?
On a serious note though, I do find it interesting that they state enemy and not enemy creature. As in illusions or other perceived threat that were not creatures could be the target of rage.
I also do find it interesting that they dictate how long rage lasts/when it would end but they don't give any conditions for starting the rage action besides you aren't fatigued or already raging. Are we assuming if you start to Rage without an enemy around it immediately ends before you even take a single action?
I personally would allow a Barbarian to rage as long as their was something in his way/impeding him from his goal that he wanted to destroy, kill, or break.
In the burning building scenario that locked door is the enemy. It is indirectly putting your ally or companion in danger.
In a friendly wrestling match, if you choose to start Raging you would not be able to stop raging/attacking until that opponent was incapacitated which is not within the normal bounds of a friendly match.
Climbing a cliff scenario unless you can hear or perceive an enemy attacking/doing something bad from the bottom I would not allow you to Rage climb to the top.
I also would not allow Rage fleeing from battle....I mean ...really?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So y'all are saying Barbarians should travel with companions who have maxed out Bluff? Or Illusion powers?
Or maybe they should carry a pet they hate?
Hmm...
And if they want to end their Rage (to take an action not permitted while raging), they can declare their enemies to be friends. Yay!
Which is all to say, reasonableness > RAW (as per RAW in the CRB!).
And finaly, your answer is not in the rules. You can't rage to save your sister even if she's been held captive per the rules. So stop thinking you are applying the rules as they should be.
I provided no such answer, I only responded to the argument about the girl in the burning room after you brought it up as evidence that you can use the rage because of the violent anger at your sister being in a burning building. By what rationale can it prove your point several posts ago but no longer?
All this shows is that your arguments stands on the shifting sands of someone who wants to be right. You apply the “inner fury” sentence one way when it helps you and another when it doesn’t. You apply the burning room one way when it helps you and another when it doesn’t.
You can’t target your rage at a party member and use it to run away. You can’t use it to climb a wall. You can use it in combat primarily, but there are instances where a case can be made to allow use against a hazard. How hard is that?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone put her behind the locked door. She is being held captive behind it.She is locked in, and the building is burning. That is all I stated. No enemy in sight or immediate reach.
Either the guy who did it is long gone (would not make sense for him to immolate himself, would it?) or she may even have locked the door herself, dropped a candle while playing with her puppets, panicked and forgot where she put the key.
And the mighty Barbarian who's inner rage lets him even fight dragons can not just freak out and bash down the door in time, because - you know - rules.
If I were to GM this situation I would probably consider this example an acceptable exception to the rule, no more no less.
There is nothing stopping the Barbarian from potentially bashing down the door in time. What is being argued is: "Can the Barbarian benefit from Raging while doing the bashing?" So it really comes down to how liberal you interpret the term "enemy"? (since the CRB has no formal definition to guide us)
Enemy definition:
"a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent."
Based on the definition the enemy is another person - however, in our fantasy setting, "another" can mean monster (i.e. Bestiary entry) - which extends to a great deal more than "people" - including Animated Objects. Is it too much of a stretch to include non-Animated Objects (Walls, Doors, Statues, Furniture, etc. - things with a Hardness value and/or can take Item Damage)? It seems reasonable that the Barbarian feels hatred for the door that is keeping him from rescuing his sister.
If you can convince the GM that the locked door is your enemy by role play, I think the GM should allow you to rage against it and receive all the benefits therein.
If allowed, would you only need to break the door (i.e. sufficient Item Damage to exceed its Broken Threshold) or would you need to reduce its Hit Points to 0 before you would no longer consider it your enemy? Another area for role play - it is broken enough for me to get through - so is it no longer my enemy? vs. even though it is broken now and I can get through and rescue my sister, I am still Raging so I will keep bashing away at this door until it is nothing more than a pile of fire kindling (and hopefully another party member rescues my sister instead of Raging me).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As to your last point nothing in Rage says the only actions you can take have to keep damaging an enemy until dead even if otherwise incapacitated.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am still Raging so I will keep bashing away at this door until it is nothing more than a pile of fire kindling (and hopefully another party member rescues my sister instead of Raging me).
That's not at all how rage works.
It looks like there's some kind of consensus.
- Perception of the enemy causes issue to everyone. If the enemy goes invisible and hides, noone will force the barbarian to drop his rage. It's in line with the fact that Search action gains the rage trait.
- Many consider that enemy has to be taken in a broad meaning, and that you can rage to climb a wall to save your sister.
It raises a few questions:
- If the barbarian thinks there may be a hidden enemy in the room, would you allow him to rage to activate Acute Scent and search for it?
- If the barbarian is wrestling with a friend, would you allow him to rage? It's a friend, an opponent at best, but hardly an enemy.
- If the building is collapsing, would you allow the barbarian to rage? After all, the building actively tries to kill him, it's a good reason to consider it an enemy.
It raises a few questions:
- If the barbarian thinks there may be a hidden enemy in the room, would you allow him to rage to activate Acute Scent and search for it?
- If the barbarian is wrestling with a friend, would you allow him to rage? It's a friend, an opponent at best, but hardly an enemy.
- If the building is collapsing, would you allow the barbarian to rage? After all, the building actively tries to kill him, it's a good reason to consider it an enemy.
- If the barbarian knows there is a foe there yes, if the barbarian doesn't know there is a foe there rage just wouldn't trigger in the first place (or rather it would trigger and immediately end, but I would never be that dickish to a player).
- No I would not allow a rage to trigger in a friendly wrestling match, that is against the whole concept of rage (even with the acceptance of the burning building type rage).
- The building is putting the barbarian in danger, it is by no means actively trying to kill the barbarian and no I would not. Undirected fury is generally not useful and I believe it thematically cheapens rage to have it work whenever you want it to.
It is mechanically and thematically not a fully controlled element.Not sure this really holds up. You're right, you can't pick when Rage ends, but in all other respects it's... pretty damn controlled. You activate it willingly, so it's not something that overtakes you. You're not compelled to attack anyone or otherwise have any altered behavior while under it. You're not really impeded in any way, outside being too focused to otherwise perform Concentrate actions.
Calling that uncontrolled is wildly inconsistent with what the ability actually does.
I said that it was not a fully controlled element, please don't put words in my mouth and say I said it was uncontrolled.
It is more of a door/barrier, once you open it you cannot close it until specific conditions are fulfilled.
This means it isn't a "hey lets get real angry quick to climb this wall where there is no person on the other side and I don't even know if a threat will be coming up" isn't a valid use.
As for the fire example, I have met heaps of people who are capable fighters and impressively singleminded when it comes to dealing with something they can personally combat. But when something more environmental/situational happens they are less assertive and useful.
This isn't to say that I as a GM wouldn't allow a barbarian to rage to smash down a door in the way of getting to someone they care about. But if it is raging to smash down a door because they want to get into a room that will lead them to a key to get to a magical item that they will sell for a weapon to fight the shapeshifting fiend... no.
Again, as presented in PF2e rage is not a fully controlled element of your character and your character is not able to bring out its benefits in all scenarios RAW and RAI.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, as presented in PF2e rage is not a fully controlled element of your character and your character is not able to bring out its benefits in all scenarios RAW and RAI.
We can't speak of RAW, as RAW your rage drops all the time even in the middle of combat as soon as you can no more see and hear the enemy. So if the enemy goes invisible and hides, your rage drops, if the enemy teleports behind a wall, your rage drops, if the enemy turns the corner and stop making noise, your rage drops, if you are Deafened and blink your rage drops.
RAI, I have the feeling that the line about "perceiving an enemy" has been added to give more control to his rage to the barbarian not to limit him. Without it, you would not be able to stop raging at the end of a fight, leading to ridiculous situations where your barbarian is raging all alone for a few rounds even if there's no more enemy left. So, when adding this line, the developpers were not necessarily thinking that the barbarian should leave rage because the enemy was suddenly no more visible, but to give the barbarian a way to drop rage before the 1 minute mark in situations where its rage is no more usefull.
As a side note, in PF1, barbarians were raging to climb walls and perform any task based on strength and people were not complaining about it being an issue.
Rage is an ability you can control in that you can start it exactly whenever you want. I have personally more problem with the fact that it can drop immediately without notice than with the fact that you can activate it when you want even in non stressfull situations. After all, in case of a friendly wrestling fight, if the player wants his character to mutilate his opponent, you have nothing to say as a DM. The emotions and actions of the character are not yours to decide.
So, to answer my own questions, I would not force the player out of rage if there are no more enemies to fight. I would allow him to drop rage if there are no more enemies to fight, but he'll have the right to continue raging if he wants (until the 1 minute mark). And if the barbarian starts raging in inappropriate situations, I'll just make the world react to his obvious crisis of anger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It raises a few questions:
- If the barbarian thinks there may be a hidden enemy in the room, would you allow him to rage to activate Acute Scent and search for it?
If the enemy is unnoticed and the barbarian/player is acting on paranoia, spidy senses or for meta gaming reasons, then no. If the enemy is merely hidden or undetected, but otherwise known to be there, then yes.
- If the barbarian is wrestling with a friend, would you allow him to rage? It's a friend, an opponent at best, but hardly an enemy.
Rather no but case by case decision based on the actual situation. For example you might want to allow the barbarian to rage if his instinct is giant, he has been challenged to a "friendly" feat of strength (doesn't have to be by a friend though) and the situation is fitting.
Again, any exception should be based on role-playing elements. So if the party monk is constantly challenging the barbarian who can climb the city walls faster this is probably metagaming and the rage should not be allowed. However if for example an NPC monk is challenging the barbarian in order to advance the plot, e.g. "If you can climb this dangerous cliffs faster than I do you are worthy and I will grant you the information about the dragon's weakspot that you so desperately seek!", then allowing the barbarian to rage should seriously be considered.
- If the building is collapsing, would you allow the barbarian to rage? After all, the building actively tries to kill him, it's a good reason to consider it an enemy.
As already explained above I would rather allow a barbarian to rage in any type of life and death situation, not only if his own life is in danger but also in order to save family, dear friends or the literal damsel in distress. However these occurances should a) be rare and b) are still subject to GM decision/agreement. As there is no hard rule that the barbarian / player can call upon every single exception is dependant on the ability of GM and player to find a reasonable and justified solution for the given situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- Many consider that enemy has to be taken in a broad meaning, and that you can rage to climb a wall to save your sister.
Exactly one person in this thread said definitively that you can rage to climb a wall. The person who inserted the sister at the top of the wall in his example was less definitive in his declaration saying:
Climbing a wall to get to the person they know is threatening their little sister at the top, that might be able to qualify even though they don't see them right in front of them.
He went on to say:
Can it be gamed that way? Perhaps, but the GM can also then make it clear that if they game it too much, they can engage some potential dangers of relying on it too much.
The others who spoke to the wall climbing issue called it "a bit gamey" asked "what kind of barbarian are you" and said they would only allow it if there was a perceived enemy performing an attack at the top.
So, no, there is no consensus on that point, and "many" did not agree to the wall climbing point.
If you want to continue to hold your opinion in a thread, feel free, but it's a little disingenuous to invent consensus that shows many in the thread are agreeing to your point, when that turns out to not be the case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a side note, in PF1, barbarians were raging to climb walls and perform any task based on strength and people were not complaining about it being an issue. Rage is an ability you can control in that you can start it exactly whenever you want. I have personally more problem with the fact that it can drop immediately without notice than with the fact that you can activate it when you want even in non stressfull situations. After all, in case of a friendly wrestling fight, if the player wants his character to mutilate his opponent, you have nothing to say as a DM. The emotions and actions of the character are not yours to decide.
After my daughter dropped out of a Serpent's Skull campaign to move to Seattle, I took over her gnome barbarian character Muffin to join the campaign (my wife had a character Wealday Addams in the campaign and I like hanging around with my wife). Muffin was a wilderness-survival barbarian rather than a combat-orented barbarian, which was good for the Serpent's Skull adventure path set on isolated islands and deep jungle. She had Raging Swimmer, Raging Climber, and Raging Leaper rage powers for scouting. I later added Night Vision.
It would be a shame if no-one could build a character like Muffin in PF2.
My next raging character cannot be built in PF2 yet, because she was a bloodrager. Val Baine was a friendly unstatted NPC that the three PCs invited into their party at 1st level and she remained even after we recruited a 4th player. Bloodrager best fit her background (Iron Gods among Scientists, comment #8, Val's stats). Her bloodline was Air Elemental, so at 8th level she gained the ability to fly while raging. Imagine that under the PF2 rules: Val fights a foe up in the air, defeats the foe high up, stops raging before she can move again, cannot fly anymore, and falls. Okay, the PF2 developers did imagine that, because the barbarian feat 12 Dragon's Rage Wings has a line about the barbarian dropping unharmed to the ground as the wings slowly shrink away if the rage ends. Alas, Val flew by controlling air, so her flight would end instantly rather than slowly.
During the PF2 playtest my wife played a 4th-level human mountain-nomad barbarian with every feat related to climbing that she qualified for, including Raging Athlete. The timing of rage worked differently in the playtest, so she was able to rage and use her Climb speed to help her teammates climb up mountain cliffs.
I am the GM, so I can make houserules to fix the flaws with PF2 rage timing. I just need to decide which problems are bugs and which ones are features. It makes sense that a Raging Athlete barbarian could swim alongside teammates in a rushing river to guard them, raging from adrenaline in the tension of the situation. It also makes sense that the barbarian cannot rage during routine farm labor to more easily haul bales of hay. I am still on the fence about whether to allow rages to maintain Fast Movement while running to save friends a mile away. My houserule would probably look like: Replace "until there are no enemies you can perceive," with, "until you or your allies no longer face danger." Should I insert the word "immediate" or "nearby" before "danger"?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
<casts raise thread>
IMHO the key should not be enemies or combat or danger, but encounter mode---the same thing that limits stances.
Structure
An encounter is played out in a series of rounds, during which the player characters, adversaries, and other participants in the encounter act in sequence. You roll initiative to determine this order at the start of the encounter and then play through rounds until a conclusion is reached and the encounter ends. The rules in this section assume a combat encounter—a battle—but the general structure can apply to any kind of encounter.
With that limitation on Rage, you can't use it while Exploring---no climbing the whole mountain with Raging Athlete---but you can use it in a non-combat encounter to save your little sister from a burning building, including using Raging Athlete to get to her.
What problems would that change cause?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because this came up in my (admittedly PF1) group last night:
Our barbarian noticed that rage does not preclude profession checks.
Barbarian: "I can rage and perform my inn-keeping duties just fine."
Me: "HERE'S YOUR BEER!" *slam*
Just because this came up in my (admittedly PF1) group last night:
Our barbarian noticed that rage does not preclude profession checks.Barbarian: "I can rage and perform my inn-keeping duties just fine."
Me: "HERE'S YOUR BEER!" *slam*
So absolutely no (admittedly) relevance to the topic that was at hand in January discussing the PF2 Barbarian.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also in the "I hate that door; it's my enemy" camp. You just have to believe that it's your enemy, something you wish to destroy; if you try to metagame that then the game world reacts as it should and you may find yourself all raged out just when the villains are attacking...
It's also useful against scary gazebos. So long as you're using an axe.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless it's a cast/wrought iron gazebo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My take on RAI for rage:
Rage to kill/defeat enemies.
Rage to save your own life.
Rage to save/rescue/protect your friends and allies.
Rage to overcome obstacles when there is no immediate danger, no.
Rage to win competitions, maybe - depends on the circumstances and the Barbarian Instinct (Dragon and Giant come to mind).
Rage ends when the character considers things 'safe'. So may not be at the immediate end of a fight if there is reason to think that an enemy escaped or that there are more waiting.
Having smart enemies that have targeted tactics against the party and throw in decoy enemies to bait out rage seems like a very valid tactic. And is one of the reasons for Second Wind.
But that is just my interpretations of the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interestingly, Paizo did not include a definition of what an enemy is. You cannot find it in the core rulebook or the GMG (I might be mistaken but I did not find any reference to a specific definition). We would then have to deffer to a dictionnary to actually have a definition that would encapsulate the concept.
So what is an enemy? According to Cambridge dictionary, an enemy is :
B1 [ C ]
a person who hates or opposes another person and tries to harm them or stop them from doing something:
He's made a few enemies in this company.
Max stole Lee's girlfriend and they've been enemies ever since.
political enemies
B2 [ C usually singular ]
a country, or the armed forces of a country, that is at war with another country:
The enemy had succeeded in stopping our supplies from getting through.
an attack by enemy aircraft
enemy forces/territory
the enemy of sth literary
something that harms something else:
Familiarity is the enemy of desire.
So, according to the last definition, an enemy can be one of concept as well and not only a person per say. I would argue that a burning building burning my sister would indeed be something that would harm something else I care about. It is by no mean far fetched that someone completely loose it do go through the door to save his sister. This would both fit thematically as well as rules are applied. Just put yourself in the same situation and try to understand the emotional distress of such a situation. This as been seen IRL people charging into a flaming building to save someone. If the situation actually implicates something that is harming something you care about or yourself, this would work as RAW per the actual definition of what an enemy is. The key is that it must actually harm something to warrant an emotional response big enough.
Also, saying that you can simply be angry and not be in fury over this situation OVERLY reduce the actual emotional distress of the situation. Having my sister trapped in a burning building wouldn't simply make me "angry". I would probably loose it completely. If I was a raging barbarian, this could really lead to me raging, wanting to destroy anything in my path to save my sister.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having smart enemies that have targeted tactics against the party and throw in decoy enemies to bait out rage seems like a very valid tactic.
IDK, I feel like if I was playing a Barbarian, having a GM specifically designing encounters to try to prevent me from using my main combat mechanic would get old fast.