Double Rage; Triple Rage by now

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Or are you both suggesting the Romans didn't knew THEIR language well enough to form the correct plural?

No, I'm saying that I've never come across "bonus" as meaning anything other than an adjective. I'm also saying that you're being unnecessarily insulting.

bonus : good (melior : better / optimus : best )

Again, only as an adjective.

Additionally:

bonus -a -um compar. melior -ius; superl. optimus -a -um; [good]; in gen. , [good of its kind]; 'nummi boni', [genuine coin]; 'bona aetas',[youth]; 'bona verba', [words of good omen]; 'bona pars', [a good (considerable) proportion]; in a particular respect of tools, workmen, etc. [useful, efficient]; morally, [good, virtuous, honest, kind]; polit., [patriotic, loyal]. N. as subst. bonum -i, [good]; in gen., [profit, advantage]; 'bonum publicum', [the common weal]; 'cui bono fuisset', [for whose advantage]; materially, usually pl., [goods, property]; morally, [the good]; 'summum bonum', [the supreme good].

Again, here, the usage is not the same as the English word "bonus."

 

[Henry]

Scharlata, there's no need to resort to insults, please. For that matter, there's no need for anyone to result to insults in the thread. And as long as people understand what you mean, there's no need to comment on how you are spelling a word, either.

All this over a spelling issue. Sheesh.

Thanks, all.

 

[glass]

The only thing I have to add is there's no such word as "boni." It's "bonuses."

Thank you. At last, someone has said it!

EDIT: I have always thought of raging as a condition. You can't be doubly raging any more than you can be doubly fatigued. You either are or you aren't. But I can't site any rule support for that.


glass.

 

[green slime]

Scharlata, there's no need to resort to insults, please. For that matter, there's no need for anyone to result to insults in the thread. And as long as people understand what you mean, there's no need to comment on how you are spelling a word, either.

All this over a spelling issue. Sheesh.

Thanks, all.

WHAT?!?! No kill? No banishing? Not even any blood drawn? I mean this is serious stuff! To boni or not to boni.... or was that bone? Its been a while since I saw a good arguments about the English or Latin languages, including little nitpicks about other poster's incorrect grandmas.

Khoda hafez

 

[kjenks]

I agree that you can't stack uses of the rage ability, even if you get them from different sources. But the Rage spell is a little different.

SRD
===
Rage
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Targets: One willing living creature per three levels, no two of which may be more than 30 ft. apart
Duration: Concentration + 1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes

Each affected creature gains a +2 morale bonus to Strength and Constitution, a +1 morale bonus on Will saves, and a –2 penalty to AC. The effect is otherwise identical with a barbarian’s rage except that the subjects aren’t fatigued at the end of the rage.
===

So a raging barbarian gets his +4 unnamed bonuses to Str and Con and a +2 morale bonus on Will saves, but he takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class. If you cast this spell on him, he also gets a +2 morale bonus to Strength and Constitution, a +1 morale bonus on Will saves, and a –2 penalty to AC.

The +2 morale bonuses to Str and Con from the Rage spell stack with the +4 unnamed bonuses from the rage ability for +6 Str and +6 Con total.

The +1 and +2 morale bonuses to Will saves will overlap, not stack, so he only gets the +2.

The penalties to AC stack, for -4 total.

This isn't really "double rage" since the Rage spell is not as big a bonus to Str and Con as the rage ability and they are clearly two different soruces.

 

[kjenks]

While we're on the subject, what if someone casts the Rage spell on someone with the Reckless Rage feat (Races of Stone)?

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20040807a&page=5

Reckless Rage (General)

You are considered extreme even among other barbaric warriors, and you enter a deeper state of rage than others. Goliath barbarians favor this feat.

Prerequisites: Con 13, rage ability.

Benefit: Whenever you activate your rage ability, you take an additional -2 penalty to your Armor Class, but you gain an additional +2 bonus to Strength and Constitution. These bonuses and penalties stack with the effects of rage, greater rage, and mighty rage.

How would this interact with the Rage spell (quoted above)?

It appears at first that they wouldn't interact at all, since the feat says it works "Whenever you activate your rage ability" and that doesn't apply if someone casts the Rage spell on you.

However, the spell has different bonuses and, "The effect is otherwise identical with a barbarian’s rage except that the subjects aren’t fatigued at the end of the rage."

So does that "otherwise identical" mean that if you cast the Rage spell on someone with the Reckless Rage feat, he gets a +4 morale bonus to Str and Con instead of the usual +2 bonus?

 

[Thanee]

It doesn't interact, since no Rage ability is activated.

Bye
Thanee

 

[FireLance]

It doesn't interact, since no Rage ability is activated.

Agreed, plus, someone casting a rage spell on you isn't you activating your rage ability.

In addition, it could be argued that a werebadger barbarian who raged because he got wounded in combat also wouldn't benefit from Reckless Rage because he didn't actually activate it - it's an automatic response.

As for the original question, I'd say that a badger's rage is different enough from a barbarian's rage (no bonus to will saves, rage cannot be ended voluntarily) that they count as two separate abilities, and so they should be allowed to stack. A wounded werebadger barbarian 1 would be a really nasty CR 2 opponent (assuming the same CR as a wererat since the base creatures have the same CR).

 

[Scharlata]

Scharlata, there's no need to resort to insults, please. For that matter, there's no need for anyone to result to insults in the thread. And as long as people understand what you mean, there's no need to comment on how you are spelling a word, either.

All this over a spelling issue. Sheesh.

Thanks, all.

Krelios, Patryn, I beg your pardon.
Sorry to all for the inconvenience.
Thanx, Henry!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Forgiven! It just seemed a little soon to be pulling out the big guns, given the subject of disagreement. I mean, I'd understand it if it were a Cleave-on-AoO thread, but Latin spelling?