Does Barbarian rage end if Barb goes unconscious?

[Bastoche]

I will never ever ever ever ever... ever understand why, while house ruling the barb rage to end while unconscious people don't take the step in the proper direction and house rule that the hit point gain are lost first instead of temporary (I don't remember the exact name of such hit points... those the vampiric touch spell gives).

If you rule that the rage end at -1, a wise barbarian will drop the rage at -5ish + 2*levels hit points. In other words, no effective gain of hit points (unless you gamble getting a cure before reaching -1). In such case, the only effective gain is +2 Fort save (which isn't that good since barb already have a good fort save) and a gambling possibility to get a few more hit points. At this point, you're better off house ruling that the rage only gives +4 str and no con bonus (since they are irrelevant).

Where the players got the real shaft with such a system is not when the players plays a barb. It's when the DM does. Since the barb NPC is disposable, the DM's barb will get the extra hit points and not the player!

That's why the rage still go on while unconscious.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Although I'll agree that if the barbarian is unconcious and someone casts Calm Emotions on him he won't get a will save. The unconcious are always considered willing.

There's a difference between 'willing creature' and 'voluntarily giving up a will save'.

You can automatically cast Levitate on someone who's unconscious, since the spell requires a willing creature. But they'll still get a Will save against Inflict Light Wounds.

-Hyp.

 

[ARandomGod]

There's a difference between 'willing creature' and 'voluntarily giving up a will save'.

You can automatically cast Levitate on someone who's unconscious, since the spell requires a willing creature. But they'll still get a Will save against Inflict Light Wounds.

-Hyp.

Oh yea, I remember that debate...

Of course in specific now we're getting into territory where it would be fun (read: evil) to point out that Cure Light Wounds also gets a will save unless you voluntarily give it up...

 

[Infiniti2000]

Of course in specific now we're getting into territory where it would be fun (read: evil) to point out that Cure Light Wounds also gets a will save unless you voluntarily give it up...

No, because it's harmless you don't get a will save unless you voluntarily choose to make one. It's the reverse and therefore works like you would expect.

To answer Caliban's question: the point is, Barbarians gain 2 * level = hit points during rage.... At high levels, even more. Without the rage, they would already have been dead from the punishment they recieved, before they even fall unconscious. How is this then punishing them? The glass can be seen to be either half full or half empty. But coming from your position, then yes, my "intepretation" of this aspect of the rules may seem "harsh". That similar risks comment is...not really called for. We were discussing Barbarians, and their rage.

Actually, the similar risks comment is not only called for, it should be responded to. You try to respond to it, but you're essentially and unknowingly proving Caliban's point. When you say "Without the rage, they would already have been dead ..." you are removing the rage ability. It is the barbarian's primary class ability. Don't remove the rage and then use your comparison to try to explain that you're not punishing them when you are by removing the rage.

When raging (using his class ability), the barbarian gains X hit points. That's the benefit. When the barbarian and, say, the fighter both hit -1 hit points, why in your system does the barbarian automatically die when the fighter doesn't? That directly and specifically punishes the barbarian for using his class ability.

 

[green slime]

Actually, the similar risks comment is not only called for, it should be responded to. You try to respond to it, but you're essentially and unknowingly proving Caliban's point. When you say "Without the rage, they would already have been dead ..." you are removing the rage ability. It is the barbarian's primary class ability. Don't remove the rage and then use your comparison to try to explain that you're not punishing them when you are by removing the rage.

When raging (using his class ability), the barbarian gains X hit points. That's the benefit. When the barbarian and, say, the fighter both hit -1 hit points, why in your system does the barbarian automatically die when the fighter doesn't? That directly and specifically punishes the barbarian for using his class ability.

No, because the Barbarian was still fighting beyond his normal amount of hit points to start with, well beyond the point where he would have fallen unconscious.

Level 10 barbarian has maybe 95 hit points, without raging (Fighter with same Con has perhaps 84 hp). If he rages he gains a further 20 hit points. 115 hit points. After losing 105 hit points, maybe, just maybe, he should start to consider the consequences, and look for the cleric or a potion. He can choose to continue fighting. Without the Rage, he would already be dead. Yet instead, he is still up and fighting fit, only a Heal away from continued mayhem. It is not punishing him for using his ability. Any Fighter sticking around the frontline while seriously injured at that level is often "punished" for doing just that.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

When raging (using his class ability), the barbarian gains X hit points. That's the benefit. When the barbarian and, say, the fighter both hit -1 hit points, why in your system does the barbarian automatically die when the fighter doesn't? That directly and specifically punishes the barbarian for using his class ability.

Green Slime's interpretation doesn't exactly punish the barbarian, but it does weaken the Rage ability. Instead of providing a temporarily higher hit point total, it works instead like a form of the Diehard feat. It allows the barbarian to act when he should be unconscious, but doesn't provide him with a signficant advantage in hit points.

I rule that Rage doesn't end until the requisite number of rounds have passed. The adrenaline is still pumping through his body, whether he's awake to take advantage of it or no. Darn it, I really should have saved my post the last time this topic came up.

 

[Jhulae]

Exactly! His body makes that decision for him.

And that's so not by the RAW!

 

[green slime]

And that's so not by the RAW!

There are many things not stated by the RAW, that assume a certain level of "common sense". Where we draw the line on that "common sense" is a matter of personal taste (and perhaps not always so "common" either .

 

[Jhulae]

There are many things not stated by the RAW, that assume a certain level of "common sense". Where we draw the line on that "common sense" is a matter of personal taste (and perhaps not always so "common" either .

Well, when you make a class's special ability a detrement to the class, the game becomes "not fun". Whether it may or may not be common sense is irrelevant at that point.

I've played barbarians in the past. I like the class, and I like the characters I've had with the class. However, I can say that if you were GMing, I would *never* play one in your game, because it wouldn't be fun.

If a barbarian is raging, she should be in the front chopping <wsclark> up, not running around looking for the cleric.

 

[green slime]

Well, when you make a class's special ability a detrement to the class, the game becomes "not fun". Whether it may or may not be common sense is irrelevant at that point.

I've played barbarians in the past. I like the class, and I like the characters I've had with the class. However, I can say that if you were GMing, I would *never* play one in your game, because it wouldn't be fun.

If a barbarian is raging, she should be in the front chopping <wsclark> up, not running around looking for the cleric.

It has been pointed out, that it is not detrimental to the class, rather, slightly more limiting than your intrepretation. You are under no obligation to play one in my campaign.... People have and do, however. It was a group decision. You and everyone else can state you would never play one at my table, but you are unlikely to change our group decision. Perhaps you and the group I play with, have different ideas about fun? You are making a lot of assumptions about my game....

Perhaps the cleric should be staying aware of developments on the battlefield? It really all depends on playing style. If your PC's start running around looking for the cleric, or if they stand their ground and request the cleric's assistance before becoming monster hamburger, is really a player choice.