Community

Besides

Reckless Attacks are usually more accurate in melee. You tend to connect (with something) more often when you throw caution to the wind and swing madly with heavy lunges and suicidal attacks...
It's just that most people have enough sense to NOT rush the bladed enemies like lunatics.

Ever see angry people who can't fight fight? They land a lot of blows and take just as many.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 2:39PM, Orzel wrote:

Besides

Reckless Attacks are usually more accurate in melee. You tend to connect (with something) more often when you throw caution to the wind and swing madly with heavy lunges and suicidal attacks...
It's just that most people have enough sense to NOT rush the bladed enemies like lunatics.

Ever see angry people who can't fight fight? They land a lot of blows and take just as many.

I have seen angry people who can't fight fight.  They don't land many blows, even when their opponents are laughing at their futile swings.  They frequently can't even gauge distance when they aren't thinking straight.  They are also susceptible to falling after only a few well placed blows to their person.  Glass jaw strikes and liver kicks come to mind as examples.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 10:40AM, blacksheepcannibal wrote:

You are trying to use the rules to do something those rules are not meant to do.

You should stop that.

People still do that to previous editions. Best to do it now while its in test

I think we are missing the main point. The real flaw in this scenario isnt str increasing accuracy. Many fighters are conditioned so their muscle offers coordination that can make them more accurate. The real issue is that a player can so arbitrarily turn rage on and off even in situations where there is nothing to rage about. What if the character doesn’t care about the maiden and simply wants to save her for small reward? Maybe an alternative rule that limits rage to DM fiat, physical threats and alignment based scenarios.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 6:15PM, Lord_Ventnor wrote:

Who says that it has to be a blind rage? My Barbarian would enter a state of calm fury; he doesn't scream and froth at the mouth, he glares at you, says nothing, and cuts you the frick in half.

I don't see how this kind of barbarian can give a feeling of being "barbaric". It isn't even funny for me. No offense intended saying this, I just think it's funnier playing a barbarian as a wild and beastly type.
Your idea of calm fury makes me think of something like an elven avenger, or a monk.
But that's just my thinking

Jan 31, 2013 -- 6:53PM, Haldrik wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 6:19PM, Rory wrote:

The real issue is that a player can so arbitrarily turn rage on and off even in situations where there is nothing to rage about.

Theres some truth to that. Theres an account of Norse Berserkar who bit on their shields to self-induce the rage-trance.

I remember the 2e viking handbook has a whole thing about what berzerkers did to get into the groove and such. I only have vague memories - I'll have to go read it again - but I'm pretty sure they had to spend a bit of time to work themselves into it.

@jonathan_sicari And I could see the barbarian's ability set easily being a berserker. It's certainly the first class I'd look to if I were to make one. If you wanted to do armour for the historical thing, all you have to do is make a fighter and take a berserker fighting style that grants rage - oh wait.