Anger

[Vhaidara]

My idea is: Characters get bonuses when something happens that really ticks them off. For example, my dad plays a good game, and one of the characters rushed into a room (almost Leroy Jenkins style) where a girl was about to be sacrificed to a death god. When the girl was killed, his character got really mad, and ended up through sheer luck finishing the cleric that killed her off in one sword swing to the head. I say that in roleplaying type anger situations like this, they should get a bonus. At each level, you choose hot or cold fury. Barbarians are automatically hot, and recieve double bonuses while raging, while rangers get double bonuses against their FE. Hot fury gives a +2 to damage against the target of the fury. Cold fury gives a +2 to hit. This is based off of the fact that when your mad, you give more, and barbarians are just a lot better at using that fury. The hot-cold difference is because sometimes you just want to cause the target as much pain as possible (like in the example), while others, you enter a sense of purpose, stop carrying about injury, and focus on seeing any mistake your opponent makes. In hot fury, you yell and scream, while in cold fury, you just become cold and calculating, with a single purpose in mind.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I really like tihs idea. However, there should be limitations. So you can't just say "I get really angry at the guy for being evil"

--Gwyn ap Nud

[Mordokai]

Roleplay it. It is called roleplaying after all, right?

And I like the idea too. Some limitations should exist, so players wont start abusing it, but I think it is a good idea.

[Closet_Skeleton]

You should make those morale bonuses.

[Magnor Criol]

Isn't this in the purview of the DM to do normally, though?
I thought that the DM can add modifiers to things as a situation calls for it. So, if a DM sees that a player is roleplaying a seething anger, then that DM can factor in a +2 (or whatever they deem appropriate) bonus to the player's roll when they're calculating the hit or damage.
I like your separation of cold and hot fury.

[Spiryt]

What about white hot anger?

[Vhaidara]

Gwyn ap Nud and Mordokai: It has to be extreme anger, like in my example.
Closet Skeleton: I never specified what kind of bonus, but most people could tell it was a morale effect. However, it does stack with all other types of morale bonus.
Spiryt: I said: Raging barbarians get double bonuses. That guy is talking about doing all that stuff to Belkar while raging.

[cferejohn]

Maybe tie it to an NPC or situation and balance it by limiting or penalizing their social options. I.e. the man that killed your father/wife/dog - you have a +2 to damage against him, but a -4 to diplomacy/bluff checks and/or you simply may not work with him and you must act against him on sight (not necessarily attack, since then).

Similarly, you could have extreme anger about (say) slavery and you could get a bonus against people affiliated with the slaving industry, but you could not work with them, or you would get a significant penalty trying to interact with them (this would make it difficult to infiltrate them or carry out other similarly subtle plans, but that makes sense since character may be too angry to suppress such feelings to the degree needed).

Personally, I find forcing players to "act really angry" and/or justify why their character "deserves" an anger bonus to be kind of annoying, but then I prefer to focus on puzzle solving and plot construction rather than lots of in-character role-playing, so that's just me. Your milage may vary...

[lacesmcawesome]

well, it depends. Yea, anger can help in some instances, but there are a lot of times when raw anger can lead you to becoming a worse fighter, y'know? You have to keep a clear head and all that. Though yea, being angry undoubtably gives you some boosts on strength and determination.

I think it's a circumstantial thing, really. It would also depend on the enemy, if they're smart enough to see opening that the anger gives.

Give the enemy a spot check or something to be able to see an opening, then give that enemy a +2 on their next attack, since the attacker left himself open in his blind rage.

I'd take the Jedi way, and attempt to clear my mind during battle, rather than letting anger and hate consume me.

Still, I like the idea. It reminds me of rage, a bit. Might be a good rule with a little more refining.

[Vhaidara]

The whole thing is losing your temper in battle, not before it. In my example, the character would have gotten the bonus on attack after the girl was killed.

[F.H. Zebedee]

I'd say change them up a little bit:
*Hot Anger: +2 to Damage, -1 to AC
*Cold Anger: +1 to Hit, No AC penalty.

Cold Anger is more likely to use the surge to up their normal abilities, while Hot Anger I see as hammering away with no regard for their own lives, and getting a steeper benefit with that cost.

[Vhaidara]

Zebedee: I was thinking either the current bonuses or those. I wasn't sure. I think for cold youl should be able to choose that way or +2 to hit -1 to anage, because your just aiming to hit them, not hit them in a painful area.

[F.H. Zebedee]

OOH! Idea! I guess, since I was thinking Cold Rage to be calculating, assassin style stuff, maybe somehow make it increase the crit range or something like that. Because, though not the booming power of hot rage, it's trying to kill them with a much more efficient method.

[Icewalker]

Make em roleplay it, and then give em +1 not +2, especially considering that it adds up each level. That'd be way too high a bonus at really high levels.

Casters should get it as well, +1 spell damage hot, +1 spell DC cold


Also, you want a good look at dnd anger bonuses? Read Goblins. Amazing webcomic.

here and here (I would also like to take this opportunity to note that Thaco is a total friggin awesome)

[Vhaidara]

Zebedee: I also considered that, but that is to good.
Icewalker: They choose if they gain hot or cold bonuses at each level. The bonus doesn't change. It isn't you get +2 at level 1 and +40 at level 20.

[Fredderf]

Oh, come in and roleplay it. When you're mad you don't always get better. Sometimes you screw things up really bad b/c you aren't thinking. If the DM wants you to hit said person, he can just give you an unnamed bonus for the sake of theatrics, but hardrules are unneeded and would make some power gamers have etenally angry characters. Besides, if you have anger bonuses then why not adrenaline bonuses? Feeling-good bonuses? Frustration bonuses?

I don't mean to sound harsh, but I don't see why crunch is needed when fluff is what you are looking for.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Now that I think of it Action Points are for this sort of thing.

[Matthew]

Isn't this in the purview of the DM to do normally, though?
I thought that the DM can add modifiers to things as a situation calls for it. So, if a DM sees that a player is roleplaying a seething anger, then that DM can factor in a +2 (or whatever they deem appropriate) bonus to the player's roll when they're calculating the hit or damage.
I like your separation of cold and hot fury.

Yes indeed, exactly. I often wonder about where this need to codify every single tiny aspect of the game comes from... probably the same place as the urge to Houserule and Homebrew, I suppose...