CORE Rules Question: Bardarian

[cmdisc]

In the end it comes down to what the rules say or don't say. As this is PFS, it doesn't matter what we think something "should" or "shouldn't" be. We can only go with what it is.

When Raging:
You cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride).
You cannot use any ability requiring patience or concentration.

Where in the rules does it say Inspire Courage requires a skill check?
Where in the rules does it say Inspire Courage requires patience?
Where in the rules does it say Inspire Courage requires concentration?

Remember, if a spell or effect or ability has/requires a certain thing, then that thing is mentioned. If it's not mentioned, then it doesn't have/require it.

For example, the Dazed condition is not listed as mind-effecting. The spell "Daze" IS said to be mind-effecting. So creatures like Undead and Oozes are immune to it. However, the Rulership Variant Channeling ability is not listed as mind-effecting. So the Dazed condition it puts onto targets can affect anything....including Undead and Oozes.

Inspire Courage does not contain anything in its legal description that violates the limits of Rage. So the two can be blended by RAW.

Does this make sense to everyone? No. But then I don't think a 40 pound gnome being able to grapple and pin a 60,000 pound dragon makes sense either. But the rules of Grappling do not give a size limit. So the gnome is certainly able to do that if he can roll high enough.

Maybe I've missed something somewhere. I don't know. But until anything new is presented, I can only go off of what is written. And according to the CRB, Inspire Courage isn't requiring anything that would violate Raging.

[bigboom]

Thanks everyone for all the feedback!!

I wouldn't go for Fascinate: "The distraction of a nearby combat or other dangers prevents this ability from working." I would definitely treat a raging barbarian as "other danger".

Other than that, I agree.

Oh yes, after I re-read fascinate, I see that you're absolutely right! I'll stick an update in my original post.

Seems like a situation where you can 'expect table variation' .. so I'd avoid it. Lingering Performance would probably be your best ticket here.

Oh right.. but that's not CORE.

Yup, if lingering performance were available in CORE, I'd work that into the build and this would be a non-issue.


cmdisc and Holognome, thank you both very much for putting so much thought into your responses! This will be one of those gray areas where different GMs will make different decisions and so the final ruling will be up to the GM running the table, which is totally fine.


Originally, I was going to give my bard either a 1 level splash of barbarian or 1 level splash of fighter, depending on the prevailing sentiment of bardic performance while raging. However, the more I think about it, the more I enjoy the character concept of a barbaric halfling bard...picturing it in my mind's eye makes me laugh, regardless of whether he can execute bardic performances while raging at any given table.

And mechanically, his primary role will be "bard stuff," not damage dealing so he won't be min/maxing bard buffs and rage buffs in some annoyingly controversial way. So if a GM rules that he can't maintain a performance while raging, that's fine since his primary contribution will come in other forms.

The take-away is (as all of you have said) the ruling will vary from table-to-table and it'll be best to let a GM know ahead of time so that he/she can make a decision beforehand to avoid using up time during a game to make a ruling.

Thanks again everyone for your thoughts! I'll soon have a bad-azz barbaric halfling bad-boy of bardendom coming to inspire you soon!!!
(And perhaps he'll even rage a little every now and then!!)

[HoloGnome]

It does matter, it's firmly in the gray, and the intent when barbarians rage is that they are very restricted as to what else they can do. In this case, because of what looks like a couple of missing RAW words, perhaps lost in translation, and the context of RAI, the gap can be used to min-max around typical restrictions (albeit with a poor DPS outcome in instances when the bardbarian can't start the song in advance)...so maybe more min than max.

All bardic performances are Charisma-based abilities and there are specific classes and rage powers that combine rage with other things, as mentioned, so RAW gap or not, trying to end-run around rage restrictions because of RAW vs. RAI sets up and perpetuates the debate.

Bardic performance would seem to require a presence of mind which is not accessible during rage, RAW or not. If you want to intimidate the target, great. If you want to be able to think clearly enough while raging to be able to inspire all allies around you with a cogent bardic performance, that is more uncertain to me as RAW vs. RAI.

So, expect table variation.

I would love to see a newly-minted Paizo Bardbarian FAQ. Other fixes might include feats or new rage powers (but that would make it non-CORE if the intent is to allow it). In my opinion, the barbarian text should say something like "...cannot use charisma-based abilities or skills, except..." which would close the loophole with 2 words and treat rage like any other condition that affects abilities and skills when applied.

Also, when it comes to using mind-affecting abilities on mindless creatures, the newer mesmerist class includes a possible precedent (perhaps retroactively) for how that should work (including a 50% failure chance, I think). Have a look. I'd be interested to know what you think.

[Blackfoot]

My one last comment about this is that anytime you force a GM to make a decision about something that is in a grey area of the rules, it's kinda rude. You are putting them on the spot and forcing them to potentially 'be wrong' which is a situation that GMs (and people) in general don't much like to be in. They have to make a decision about a nebulous rule, some make the decision and move on, others labor over it... but regardless.. something that isn't well defined in the rules is something to avoid.
Not just for this particular thing, but for anything that lives in this area.

[cmdisc]

The best way to avoid that is to talk with the GM BEFORE the game to get their take on it and to give them time to think it over. That way everyone avoids rule debates during the session and you know whether you want to bring that character or a different one.

This is especially true if you come up with an interesting style of play or corner case that may or may not just be skirting the edges of some of the rules. Best to just check with the GM on it before game day.

[bigboom]

My one last comment about this is that anytime you force a GM to make a decision about something that is in a grey area of the rules, it's kinda rude. You are putting them on the spot and forcing them to potentially 'be wrong' which is a situation that GMs (and people) in general don't much like to be in. They have to make a decision about a nebulous rule, some make the decision and move on, others labor over it... but regardless.. something that isn't well defined in the rules is something to avoid.
Not just for this particular thing, but for anything that lives in this area.

It was never my intent to be rude. I just wanted to verify beforehand how the GMs would treat this situation. If I've caused offense to anyone, I truly apologize.

[cmdisc]

...anytime you force a GM to make a decision about something that is in a grey area of the rules...

If a player knows he's bringing a grey area issue to the table and knows it's contested and is trying to sneak it past me, then that would be rude. But bringing it up to the community ahead of time, as bigboom is doing, doesn't go anywhere near rude. Here we have a chance to research it, discuss it, and decide where we stand on it. So going forward when he says he's bringing X to the table that has this mix, we can inform him what our take is and he can decide to bring it anyway or something else.

So no, bigboom, you're not being rude. I think BF's comment was more about when players hit GMs with known grey spots out of the blue during play. What you're doing here is EXACTLY what GMs want players doing.

That said, sometimes things creep up during play when a player might think X and Y mix just fine but a GM is suddenly not sure. It is what it is. No one is trying to be rude or sneaky. The GM can call a 5 minute break if he wants. Then he can make the call and we go with it. If he changes his mind on it later, then fine. If he trusts the player for the session and then later thinks the player was wrong....well, it's not exactly going to break the game.

[HoloGnome]

Hey bigboom. I think the discussion is great and I also agree that last-second GM ambush is sometimes an issue...but that wouldn't be directed at you. As a player, you are extremely considerate!

I wish your worthy question had the benefit of a concrete FAQ entry.

[Lord Kavos]

I know as a GM 'grey' doesnt work for me...my answer when this 'springs' up in a game is almost always no...

When a player is looking to explore the grey, i'm not about to risk ruining the game for the other players by an on-the-spot decision - one upset is better than 6 (the good of the many).

Though I will also say I can relax this position for roleplaying/story reasons...but they would almost have to be purely role (not roll).

having said that I agree this is the best way to deal with the grey - talk about it. Solid grey is better than whispy.

[Blackfoot]

I most certainly wasn't trying to imply that DISCUSSING a grey area character was rude.. I do kinda think that regardless.. bringing them to the table... even when you ask the GM ahead of time is probably a bad idea. Again, it puts him on the spot... in much the way that Lord Kavos describes... he's running a game.. he's not writing rules. His job is to keep things moving and fair for everyone. The game works best when everyone is trying to help him do that.

I've digressed a good bit from your bardarian question and gone off on a tirade against players with questionable builds... go figure.

Anyway.. I definitely don't think this thread is a bad idea at all.. and didn't in any way interpret it as rude... just please don't bring your bardarian to my table.