Interpreting Barbarian Rage in Non-combat Situations

Jester David said:

The rule states:
Your rage lasts for 1 minute. Lt ends early if you are knocked unconscious or if your turn ends and you haven't attacked a hostile creature since your last turn or taken damage since then. You can also end your rage on your turn as a bonus action.
It's easy to add:
"You rage also doesn't end if you are under sufficient stress that is equivalent to taking damage or your life is in imminent danger."
That's not a change, that's an addition. Which fits with 5e's exception based design.

If formally written like that, it is more a "house rule" than a "ruling". But terms of additive house rules, that's minor. I run my 5e game with several much more dramatic and impactful house rules.

If the player just chooses the rage in a non-combat situation and asks the DM if it will last, and the DM allows it, then that's a ruling, because it lasts for that single instance.

Click to expand...

Eh, as mentioned earlier in this thread, I feel the rage is only available if the character is in an initiative situation. But, if I were being lenient, I would change the first line of the official rules to include "hostile environment", since it seems a lot of DMs use initiative in those situations, like the one in the OP. So that raging river that is hostile to you could trigger it or that stubborn door that your normal strength just can't seek to break could trigger it or that obnoxious bard up on the stage using you as the butt of his jokes for an entire show could trigger it.

Enevhar Aldarion said:

Eh, as mentioned earlier in this thread, I feel the rage is only available if the character is in an initiative situation. But, if I were being lenient, I would change the first line of the official rules to include "hostile environment", since it seems a lot of DMs use initiative in those situations, like the one in the OP. So that raging river that is hostile to you could trigger it or that stubborn door that your normal strength just can't seek to break could trigger it or that obnoxious bard up on the stage using you as the butt of his jokes for an entire show could trigger it.

Click to expand...

I wouldn’t get too hung up on the first line. The first line of the majority of powers and features is flavor.

Jester David said:

Sure, but what the rules covered was much more comprehensive. Especially in 3e where you had an entire column of modifiers for tracking based on variant conditions and DCs were set and established by very firm rules.

Click to expand...

I don't find 5th edition less comprehensive, but that seems beside the point. We agree here that right from the start, the designers acknowledged that the rules couldn't cover everything, and urged DMs to make rulings.

Jester David said:

If you mean amount of rules, when compared to 3e and 4e, absolutely. When compared to OD&D and Basic, far more so. When compared to 1e… probably pretty comparable.

Click to expand...

I meant that the 5th edition rules are constitutive of 5th edition D&D. I felt you were quibbling with a general point, so locked it down to one edition. Without the 5th edition rules, one can't be said to be playing 5th edition D&D. As you noted, it follows that without D&D rules from any edition, one can't be said to be playing D&D at all.

Jester David said:

...fits with 5e's exception based design.

If formally written like that, it is more a "house rule" than a "ruling". But terms of additive house rules, that's minor. I run my 5e game with several much more dramatic and impactful house rules.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that it can fit with the design of other mechanics, and that it's pretty minor. My point is more that the D&D designers urge DMs to shape the game according to the needs of their group, and DMs who act accordingly don't need the shield of "rulings". It's as fine for them to add, change or remove a rule, as it is for them to make a ruling on how a standing rule plays out in their game.

I think there's some needless conflation of the two activities. A ruling entails deciding on an interpretation or interaction among rules as they stand. DMs aren't limited to rulings. They can revise, remove and add rules. This too is permitted

Jester David said:

I wouldn’t get too hung up on the first line. The first line of the majority of powers and features is flavor.

Click to expand...

If it is just flavor, then why did you originally write: "The rule states:"