When do you rage?

[ConcreteBuddha]

My concern is how the wording is for rage:

"At the end of the rage, the barbarian is fatigued ... for the duration of that encounter..."

My DM has stated that encounter does not always end at the end of combat. For instance, we could be in the middle of a fight, I rage, we are about to win and then the enemies surrenders.

At this point, the "encounter" is over. On page 100 of the DMG, it shows what a proper EL is for your party level (which is a bunch of CRs). After you "defeated" the original bad guys, that specific encounter is over.

Example: A L1 party fights 2 orcs (EL 1). One of them surrenders after the other one dies. Encounter over because PCs defeated the challenge.

Our party is still talking to the surrendering party up when my rage ends and I am fatigued. I am still fatigued when, during the middle of our talking with the surrendering party, we are ambushed. New iniatives are rolled and new combat takes place, but this is still the same encounter, according to my DM, so I am still fatigued.

It's not the same encounter, or else your DM would have to add up all of the CRs for both the original encounter and the new encounter, to reach a new EL for the combination encounter.

Example: If the DM in the previous example keeps the encounter in combat rounds, throws in 2 more orcs, and rules that there is not a new encounter, then the entire encounter is an EL 2 (4 CR 1/2s).

 

[Hawkeye]

In traffic.

Hawkeye

 

[Petrosian]

OK, but if the GM does decide to count it all as one encounter, he can. There is no rule limiting him from throwing any El he wants at the gang.

If there were, this could boil down to a "monsters stay in their nooks like in computer games" thing.

At this point, the "encounter" is over. On page 100 of the DMG, it shows what a proper EL is for your party level (which is a bunch of CRs). After you "defeated" the original bad guys, that specific encounter is over.

SNIP

It's not the same encounter, or else your DM would have to add up all of the CRs for both the original encounter and the new encounter, to reach a new EL for the combination encounter.

 

[Trainz]

I took the instant rage feat, and only rage when the following conditions occur:

1) need to burst open a very tough door

2) My hit points go below 0

3) I miss a Will or Fort save by 1 or 2

Thus I never rage to boost myself to inflict more damage. No way am I ready to sacrifice AC for Attack bonuses. For me, Rage is a life saver (kinda when Bruce Banner is in deep trouble and the surrounding conditions make the Hulk emerge), thus Instant Rage is a must.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

OK, but if the GM does decide to count it all as one encounter, he can. There is no rule limiting him from throwing any El he wants at the gang.

Sure. No problem. He can throw any EL he wants against the party. However, this does make the game less fun for the players, as they would feel that the DM is constantly jerking them around.

(I know I would get pissed at a DM who thrives on neutering a good ability constantly. Kinda like if I was playing a rogue and the DM the only threw undead against us constantly.)

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

Sure. No problem. He can throw any EL he wants against the party. However, this does make the game less fun for the players, as they would feel that the DM is constantly jerking them around.

Wow! i feel sorry for such players. My guys get all types of scenarios and Els and so on thrown at the all the time. They tend to just play the game and have fun, not spend time running numbers to see if their GM is jerking them around.

(I know I would get pissed at a DM who thrives on neutering a good ability constantly. Kinda like if I was playing a rogue and the DM the only threw undead against us constantly.)

Please note that somehow, from somewhere, you have invoked "CONSTANTLY" as well as 'THRIVES ON" into this discussion.

Even the original poster has not said that the Gm he is concerned about has done this CONSTANTLY or seems to THRIVE ON it.

Why the innate asumption that the GM is hostile to or out to get the players?

Maybe, just maybe, the Gm is intent on enforcing the DRAWBACK that comes with rage when appropriate... just the same as he enforces (by scenario design) the material components aspect of spellcasters, the obsucrement counter to sneak attacks for rogues and so on.

The player in question seems worried about the encounter thing, but has not said that he has experienced it frequently as a problem in play, much less CONSTANTLY.

you and i apparently have a very different style of play and gaming.

*******************

Rage was not intended to be solely a benefit. thats why the designers put the fatigue thing in. Sometimes rage should cause problems. (heck it even has a second problem with the int skills and stuff.)

There are two ways to bring the rage fatigue thing into play. one is to make the battle a long one, so that the rage will end with the primary scenario still unresolved. This tends to be more difficult to manage and happens to impact EVERYONE.

The second is a second combat beginning right soon after the first, thus enabling everyone some chance to address serious injuries. this way the main problem with the secondary stage of the fight is just the expendables... spell slots already used (tho many will still be running if their duration is at least minutes) and the barbarian's fatigue.

the followup or second stage combat seems a good way to enforce the barbarians designed weakness without unduly hitting everyone else in the process.

it seems to me to be a great solution.

Now, if somehow this becomes CONSTANTLY... then there might be an issue to be discussed with the GM.

 

[demon_jr]

Thanks for all the replies everyone.

My DM hasn't done anything that felt overly unfair. My DM is usually fair and runs a balanced game.

My concern over rage stemmed from my DM stating that he would inform me when the encounter was over and when I was no longer fatigue.

I felt this left a lot of power in my DMs hands regarding the drawbacks of the rage ability. This way, the duration of the fatigue would be determined by the DM, not by any rules within the core books.

I don't think he would go out of his way to make my character always suffer the drawbacks of rage, but in my opinion, I am wary of class abilities that are left up to DM whim.