D&D 4E How does the 4E Barbarian Rage ability work?

[small pumpkin man]

Because then you have to put that in every single daily power. Collecting all that in one place, like what they did with Rage Strike, saves space and makes that information easier to find.

No they don't. They just need to make it part of the "Rage" keyword. That's what Keywords are for.

 

[Stogoe]

If you put all the information that Rage Strike has in the Rage Keyword description, you're just moving around a chunk of text. And if you decide to let barbarians just keep their current rage if they wish, then DracoSuave has it right - you're hosing them badly. I like Rage Strike. It makes sense to me, and I think the mechanics are sound. But apparently Wizards needs to rephrase it somehow because a lot of people are misunderstanding it.

 

[mattdm]

If you put all the information that Rage Strike has in the Rage Keyword description, you're just moving around a chunk of text.

Well, honestly, I think moving around a chunk of text fixes half the problem — Rage Strike looks more important than it is.

 

[mattdm]

Best suggestion I've seen!

I too agree that the whole Rage Strike thing is a bit silly and overly complicated. Why not simply allow the Daily Powers (rages) to have 2 possible effects: One effect if the character is not currently in a rage (or wishes to switch to the effects of the new rage), and 1 effect that occurs if the Barbarian is in another ongoing rage and doesn't wish to give it up? That seems much easier to understand IMHO...

Hope someone from WotC is reading this.

It's particularly nice because the at-wills are already worded this way, so adding it to the daily powers doesn't really add any new complication.

 

[Runestar]

Is it such a big deal that a barb must first be in a rage before he can use rage strike? I mean - what is the possible downside of letting him use rage strike at 1st lv instead of raging?

 

[Stogoe]

It is important. It's just not Sneak Attack. Most of what people are upset about is they were expecting Rage Strike to be the Barbarian's Sneak Attack.

 

[DracoSuave]

Yeah but Barbarians can still do Striker damage regardless. Given we have a controller class that relies on powers and only powers to be the controller, I don't see how it's a stretch to find a striker class that relies solely on powers.

 

[Bagpuss]

Hope someone from WotC is reading this.

It's particularly nice because the at-wills are already worded this way, so adding it to the daily powers doesn't really add any new complication.

Probably will increase page count however. Rather than Rage Strike written once you have an abridged version written for every daily.

 

[Larrin]

Is it such a big deal that a barb must first be in a rage before he can use rage strike? I mean - what is the possible downside of letting him use rage strike at 1st lv instead of raging?

What is the possible reason you'd want/need to use rage strike at level 1 instead of raging? Assuming all rages deal 3W (pretty solid guess so far) you get ZERO benefit, in fact you lose out on alot of benefits for not doing it. There is no downside to raging that would make you not want to get those benefits at 1st level. if you want to deal the 3W damage at 1st level, do it as part of the rage. You get the damage and the rage. Its a good thing.


As for burning up rages for rage strike while not raging at higher levels. Well, its called RAGE STRIKE, not "INSTEAD OF RAGING STRIKE". It only exists to make dailies useful while you're already raging. If you aren't already raging, you don't need to not go into a rage, and the designers are trying to tell you that.