A Barbarian in our midst [Archive] - Wizards Community

A Barbarian in our midst [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
truncheon
01-04-05, 01:32 PM I'm a lucky DM. I'm running a campaign in which the players role-play their characters well. Thing is, I'm also running a campaign with subtle diplomatic overtones, and the players keep missing out on opportunities for intelligence gathering because of one PC: the barbarian. He'll rush head-long into battle and start raging and kill every enemy. The other PC's would like the option of parley and negotiation more often.

The players have come up with a plan. The barbarian player is fine with this plan...she recognizes the advantages of ramping down the gung-ho stuff, but she doesn't want to compromise her role-playing of the character.

The plan is for the wizard to use hypnosis to give the barbarian a post-hypnotic trigger word or phrase that will make the barbarian stop what he's doing and listen to the wizard's instructions.

Under most circumstances, this should work, no saving throw needed. But what about when the barbarian is raging?

Does the limitation on intelligence-based actions make this impossible, allowing the barbarian to ignore the post-hypnotic trigger phrase while raging? Does the barbarian get a saving throw vs. mind-affecting compulsion? Does he simply do as the spell says and comply with the compulsion, and if so, does he lose the rage? If the post-hypnotic suggestion causes him to pause and listen to the wizard calmly and intently in mid-rage, can the rage continue after the pause or must he lose it?

Another question relating to role-playing and rules: The barbarian PC doesn't believe in magic at all; he finds rationalizations for all weird magical effects. Given this, can the barbarian voluntarily give up a saving throw for a magical effect he doesn't believe in?

Example: In the last game, the wizard tried to cast Enlarge Person on the barbarian. This spell has a saving throw, and I had the barbarian roll a saving throw. In role-playing terms, the wizard said to the barbarian, "I'm going to cast this spell on you, OK?", and the barbarian said "What the **** are you talking about?". This exchange hardly seems to fit the criteria for willingly giving up a saving throw.

Should I have allowed the Enlarge Person spell to take effect without a saving throw? Can a PC voluntarily give up a saving throw that they couldn't possibly believe exists because they refuse to believe in magic at all? Or is this just a game mechanic, so that the player can give up the saving throw regardless of the PC’s design or actions?

Thanks, all.
Dash Branaghan
01-04-05, 01:41 PM A PC can voluntarily give up a saving throw. In this case, the barbarian would be something along the lines of, "What are you talking about? Oh, riiiiight...magic. Sure, you wave your hands around and say your gobbledeegook all you want." And voila, the PC willingly forgoes their saving throw.

Back to the barbarian/rage bit. Since a barbarian can drop the rage voluntarily, I don't see why there is a problem. Just explain to the barbarian they want to capture one of the guys for questioning. The barbarian may not be able to do complex mathematics while in a rage, but they aren't stupid...it's just battle lust/adrenaline rush, and they can stop it at any time (which suggests a modicum of intelligence/thought).

So, assuming the barbarian doesn't have an intelligence of 6, there is no reason why RPing a "Bad Thag, bad. We want one alive. No cookie for you this time." routine will not convince the barbarian that dropping the rage towards the end of combat when enemies are still alive is not necessarily a bad thing.

Another option is to make the barbarian rage with a sap. Non-lethal damage, but lots of it in the hands of a barbarian. :D

Dash
Talisman
01-04-05, 02:50 PM The plan is for the wizard to use hypnosis to give the barbarian a post-hypnotic trigger word or phrase that will make the barbarian stop what he's doing and listen to the wizard's instructions.

Under most circumstances, this should work, no saving throw needed. But what about when the barbarian is raging?

Does the limitation on intelligence-based actions make this impossible, allowing the barbarian to ignore the post-hypnotic trigger phrase while raging? Does the barbarian get a saving throw vs. mind-affecting compulsion? Does he simply do as the spell says and comply with the compulsion, and if so, does he lose the rage? If the post-hypnotic suggestion causes him to pause and listen to the wizard calmly and intently in mid-rage, can the rage continue after the pause or must he lose it?

Another question relating to role-playing and rules: The barbarian PC doesn't believe in magic at all; he finds rationalizations for all weird magical effects. Given this, can the barbarian voluntarily give up a saving throw for a magical effect he doesn't believe in?

Example: In the last game, the wizard tried to cast Enlarge Person on the barbarian. This spell has a saving throw, and I had the barbarian roll a saving throw. In role-playing terms, the wizard said to the barbarian, "I'm going to cast this spell on you, OK?", and the barbarian said "What the **** are you talking about?". This exchange hardly seems to fit the criteria for willingly giving up a saving throw.

Should I have allowed the Enlarge Person spell to take effect without a saving throw? Can a PC voluntarily give up a saving throw that they couldn't possibly believe exists because they refuse to believe in magic at all? Or is this just a game mechanic, so that the player can give up the saving throw regardless of the PC’s design or actions?

Regarding the first point, I would give the barbarian a Will save vs. mind-affecting effects. The exact effects depend on the wording of the suggestion; if it is at all possible to do what the wizard says in an angry, violent manner, I say the barbarian should continue to rage. Otherwise he drops out of rage.

As for voluntarily failing your save vs. magic you don't believe in, I agree with
Dash. Just because he doesn't believe in magic doesn't mean the barbnarian has to resist it; voluntarily failing your save basically means letting the spellcaster do what he wants to you. If you don't believe he can do anything...well, that's your lookout. The fact that the barbarian has to rationalize means that he knows something happens, and can therefore allow it to affect him.
clarkvalentine
01-04-05, 02:54 PM It sounds like the palyers are doign a great job roleplaying currently - how about just let them do this without applying rules mechanics to it? They should roleplay that well too, without abusing it, even if there aren't rules in place for it.

Sometimes all the GM just needs to do is stay out of the players' way.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
truncheon 01-04-05, 01:32 PM	I'm a lucky DM. I'm running a campaign in which the players role-play their characters well. Thing is, I'm also running a campaign with subtle diplomatic overtones, and the players keep missing out on opportunities for intelligence gathering because of one PC: the barbarian. He'll rush head-long into battle and start raging and kill every enemy. The other PC's would like the option of parley and negotiation more often. The players have come up with a plan. The barbarian player is fine with this plan...she recognizes the advantages of ramping down the gung-ho stuff, but she doesn't want to compromise her role-playing of the character. The plan is for the wizard to use hypnosis to give the barbarian a post-hypnotic trigger word or phrase that will make the barbarian stop what he's doing and listen to the wizard's instructions. Under most circumstances, this should work, no saving throw needed. But what about when the barbarian is raging? Does the limitation on intelligence-based actions make this impossible, allowing the barbarian to ignore the post-hypnotic trigger phrase while raging? Does the barbarian get a saving throw vs. mind-affecting compulsion? Does he simply do as the spell says and comply with the compulsion, and if so, does he lose the rage? If the post-hypnotic suggestion causes him to pause and listen to the wizard calmly and intently in mid-rage, can the rage continue after the pause or must he lose it? Another question relating to role-playing and rules: The barbarian PC doesn't believe in magic at all; he finds rationalizations for all weird magical effects. Given this, can the barbarian voluntarily give up a saving throw for a magical effect he doesn't believe in? Example: In the last game, the wizard tried to cast Enlarge Person on the barbarian. This spell has a saving throw, and I had the barbarian roll a saving throw. In role-playing terms, the wizard said to the barbarian, "I'm going to cast this spell on you, OK?", and the barbarian said "What the **** are you talking about?". This exchange hardly seems to fit the criteria for willingly giving up a saving throw. Should I have allowed the Enlarge Person spell to take effect without a saving throw? Can a PC voluntarily give up a saving throw that they couldn't possibly believe exists because they refuse to believe in magic at all? Or is this just a game mechanic, so that the player can give up the saving throw regardless of the PC’s design or actions? Thanks, all.
Dash Branaghan 01-04-05, 01:41 PM	A PC can voluntarily give up a saving throw. In this case, the barbarian would be something along the lines of, "What are you talking about? Oh, riiiiight...magic. Sure, you wave your hands around and say your gobbledeegook all you want." And voila, the PC willingly forgoes their saving throw. Back to the barbarian/rage bit. Since a barbarian can drop the rage voluntarily, I don't see why there is a problem. Just explain to the barbarian they want to capture one of the guys for questioning. The barbarian may not be able to do complex mathematics while in a rage, but they aren't stupid...it's just battle lust/adrenaline rush, and they can stop it at any time (which suggests a modicum of intelligence/thought). So, assuming the barbarian doesn't have an intelligence of 6, there is no reason why RPing a "Bad Thag, bad. We want one alive. No cookie for you this time." routine will not convince the barbarian that dropping the rage towards the end of combat when enemies are still alive is not necessarily a bad thing. Another option is to make the barbarian rage with a sap. Non-lethal damage, but lots of it in the hands of a barbarian. :D Dash
Talisman 01-04-05, 02:50 PM	The plan is for the wizard to use hypnosis to give the barbarian a post-hypnotic trigger word or phrase that will make the barbarian stop what he's doing and listen to the wizard's instructions. Under most circumstances, this should work, no saving throw needed. But what about when the barbarian is raging? Does the limitation on intelligence-based actions make this impossible, allowing the barbarian to ignore the post-hypnotic trigger phrase while raging? Does the barbarian get a saving throw vs. mind-affecting compulsion? Does he simply do as the spell says and comply with the compulsion, and if so, does he lose the rage? If the post-hypnotic suggestion causes him to pause and listen to the wizard calmly and intently in mid-rage, can the rage continue after the pause or must he lose it? Another question relating to role-playing and rules: The barbarian PC doesn't believe in magic at all; he finds rationalizations for all weird magical effects. Given this, can the barbarian voluntarily give up a saving throw for a magical effect he doesn't believe in? Example: In the last game, the wizard tried to cast Enlarge Person on the barbarian. This spell has a saving throw, and I had the barbarian roll a saving throw. In role-playing terms, the wizard said to the barbarian, "I'm going to cast this spell on you, OK?", and the barbarian said "What the **** are you talking about?". This exchange hardly seems to fit the criteria for willingly giving up a saving throw. Should I have allowed the Enlarge Person spell to take effect without a saving throw? Can a PC voluntarily give up a saving throw that they couldn't possibly believe exists because they refuse to believe in magic at all? Or is this just a game mechanic, so that the player can give up the saving throw regardless of the PC’s design or actions? Regarding the first point, I would give the barbarian a Will save vs. mind-affecting effects. The exact effects depend on the wording of the suggestion; if it is at all possible to do what the wizard says in an angry, violent manner, I say the barbarian should continue to rage. Otherwise he drops out of rage. As for voluntarily failing your save vs. magic you don't believe in, I agree with Dash. Just because he doesn't believe in magic doesn't mean the barbnarian has to resist it; voluntarily failing your save basically means letting the spellcaster do what he wants to you. If you don't believe he can do anything...well, that's your lookout. The fact that the barbarian has to rationalize means that he knows something happens, and can therefore allow it to affect him.
clarkvalentine 01-04-05, 02:54 PM	It sounds like the palyers are doign a great job roleplaying currently - how about just let them do this without applying rules mechanics to it? They should roleplay that well too, without abusing it, even if there aren't rules in place for it. Sometimes all the GM just needs to do is stay out of the players' way.