Interpreting Barbarian Rage in Non-combat Situations

Paul Farquhar said:

RAW rage doesn't require damage, it requires you be in battle. You can rage in a battle even if the barbarian, the party, and the enemy have taken no damage.

Really I have no problem allowing a player to use rage any time they like: it has a cost in uses per day, and really, Barbarians aint that great anyway.

Click to expand...

Not sure I agree that the rage rules require the barbarian to be in battle. It is implied in the flavor text but I don't recall reading anything that explicitly requires the Barbarian to be in battle. Per the RAW, the barbarian can rage at any time for any reason, but must attack a creature or take damage (any damage, not just attack damage) to keep the rage going.

Ristamar said:

The barbarian's Rage is mostly limited to the confines of combat by RAW. RAI, I can only speculate since Crawford flip-flopped on his own advice:

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/09/27/can-a-barbarian-hit-himself-to-keep-his-rage-going/
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/05/27/could-a-barbarian-hurt-himself-to-maintain-rage/​

As a DM, I'd allow a use of Rage outside of combat given a clearly stated "rage appropriate" goal (e.g. bash in a door, lift heavy rubble to save an ally, etc). Once one minute has passed or the effort stops (the goal is achieved or the barbarian stops), the Rage would end. If there is a good reason to continue the Rage immediately after the goal is achieved (e.g. enemies ambush the party as the barbarian frees the last of his allies from the rubble), I'd likely allow the barbarian to transition the Rage to a new goal or combat, but the clock would still be ticking on one minute duration.

FWIW, Crawford encouraged/endorsed a similar ruling:

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/05/08/barbarian-rage-2/​

Click to expand...

Funny. I guess Crawford doesn't cross-reference his earlier advice. I agree with his newer ruling: "The Rage feature refers to the barbarian taking damage. The feature doesn't care how you take the damage: from someone else or yourself."

But I'm not sure that Crawford's tweeted rulings are binding on Adventurer's League.

Enevhar Aldarion said:

Eh, I do not allow cheap cheese like that in my games, and since this was also about AL play, I do not think they do either. Anyway, if a party member is trying to pull something like that, he better expect to get hit back hard enough to be injured.

Click to expand...

Good, that will help keep the rage going.

clearstream said:

C1 - breadth of strategies - Other things that can enhance Strength checks and saving throws include Guidance (1 ability check, at will), Resistance (1 saving throw, at will), Bardic Inspiration (long rest), Bless (level 1+ spell slot) and Enhance Ability (level 2+ spell slot). I don't think any of those are marginalised by 10 versus 1 turn of Rage. EDIT - I missed something here - what is Rage like in combat if it auto-sustains for one minute? The issue here is that it then cannot be turned off by either fleeing for awhile, staying at range, or temporarily halting the barbarian. That does reduce breadth of strategies (for opponents of the raging creature) and therefore is bad balance.

Click to expand...

A barbarian can end his or her rage as a bonus action. It be turned off as easily as a player saying "my character stops raging."

EDIT: sorry Clearstream, I misread and, so, misunderstood your point. The issue is allowing the player to auto-sustain without having to attack or take damage. Not sure that I would allow this. Not so much because of concerns about balance, but because I like the flavor of it. I might, however, homebrew a change so that instead of attacking a "hostile creature" I would also allow attacking inanimate objects (a/k/a Dude Perfect rage monster) or friendly creatures (the "Hulk is a dangerous ally" rule).

iserith said:

[MENTION=6796661]MNblockhead[/MENTION]: How many Strength ability checks or saving throws did you end up making in this challenge?

Click to expand...

1. Without Rage when the flash flood first hit. I succeeded and grabbed a tree on some higher ground.

2-4 With rage, I saved three characters from drowning and being swept off a cliff. Basically swimming to each throwing them to safety, and letting other players get to them and stabilize/heal them.

Not sure if the DM fudged with the distances, but it would be easy to rule that a drowning character was pinned underwater against a rock, or that I'm swimming faster than the water is dragging them (in a flash flood though? hmm....) But it was theater of the mind and not grid play, which made it a lot easier for the DM to handwave some of this in favor of cool narrative.

epithet said:

Wow, people surely do enjoy getting wrapped up in nit-picking the rules, don't they?

Click to expand...

Yep. Some of us enjoy the game rules. Otherwise, we'd just play pretend with our action figures because even improv theater groups have rules.

Also, I think most of us would agree that rules can be handwaved to a certain degree, that DMs can make rulings and move on, and that the rule of cool applies. What I'm engaging here is not at-table rules lawyering and nit picking. I'm engaging in a form of Monday night quarterbacking. Thinking about a past enjoyable game and continuing the enjoyment by discussing it and that includes the fun of second-guessing the referee. The game would have been fun, regardless of how the GM ruled--I didn't have money on it. But it is fun for some of us to discuss the rules and their application.

Also, it was an AL game, so the latitude of the how much the DM can bend and ignore rules is more constrained than in a home game. As someone who is interested in running the occasional AL game, it is helpful for me to discuss situations like this so I don't smack head-first into different player expectations.

D&D isn't WoW, and you don't have to worry about "in combat" vs. "out of combat." People get all worked up over initiative, but remember that initiative order is something you use whenever you need to know "who goes first" as opposed to everyone acting at the same time. It isn't limited to situations where you're fighting, nor does every situation where you're fighting necessarily need to use initiative order. It is typical, but not required. There is nothing in D&D that can only be done while in initiative order. Nothing.

Click to expand...

Not sure how World of Warcraft is relevant here. Never played it. But I in DnD 5e, per the RAW, initiative is tied to combat: "Initiative determines the order of turns during combat." (PHB) In both the PHB and DMG, initiative is only discussed in the context of combat. That said, I agree that this doesn't mean that initiative can only be used in combat. It is common in official adventure material to have initiative used in non-combat challenges, such as in the flash-flood example from this thread. I'm not sure if it is true that, per the RAW, that initiative is not required for combat. The DMG provides rules for initiative variants, but none of them provide for combat without any initiative order. For your home game, so what. You can run combat however you want. But I'm not sure that running combat without initiative would fly in AL games.

When your class feature gives your character an ability, and there isn't a specific limitation on that ability clearly stated in the ability description or the general rules, then you can use that ability whenever you want to. There's no profit in making up more restrictions to get in the way. The barbarian can rage a certain number of times every day, so just let him. If he wants to waste a rage, let him. If he wants to use rage to gain advantage on a strength (intimidation) check and terrify an NPC, let him. If the NPC is a gnome, give him inspiration. The rage is limited by uses per day, and expires on its own if the barbarian just sits there being mad for 6 seconds. The balancing limitations are built in to the ability, don't go looking for more.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Coming to this conclusion, however, does require a bit a nitpicking. Which I'm fine with.

Satyrn said:

Maybe Mike is also a barbarian, and now he's raging too.

Click to expand...

They could be brother barbarians, provoking rage in each other with insults and arm wrestling: https://youtu.be/AdsxcA1-KnE?t=130

[MENTION=6796661]MNblockhead[/MENTION]

"Tell me more about how this would work in your games. First, the RAW does not seem to support this, beyond the DM determining how NPCs and creatures react to someone who is raging. In your example, would you, as the DM, decide that the player attacks the table? That's not really my style. I want the player to play their character and they decide how their character acts. Also, intimiation is a CHA check, so it would be waste to burn a rage to intimidate as it gives no mechanical advantage. "

That is depending on the roleplaying of the player. The whole situation is a bit constructed and hypothetic but let us say it goes like this:

Conan the thirsty roleplays his character being in absolute need for a drink.

DM : The waiter seems to ignore you

Player : I get really upset and clench my fist

DM ruling you: get enraged and you want to hit something

Player either playing along or DM ruling: Make a wis save to see if you control your rage if it fails you hit the table.

See, this is just a funny RP situation to eventually bring the players into trouble or some other hook. Since it is no actual combat situation and besides a table no one gets harmed it is ok to burn one of the barbarians resources, since he probably gets it back. If for some reason I as the DM decided a tough fight ensures somehow shortly after that, and the barb would be treated unfairly because he is missing one of his resources I would DM rule:

The city guard arrives weapon drawn and out to kill, you will not leave without getting your drink, you grab a mug and down it, and it resets your daily uses of rage.

MNblockhead said:

Only on a failed check. Since I was making my checks, I wasn't taking damage. This is where I would have done it differently.

The module rules stated that failing your check meant being buffeted against rocks and trees and being brought closer to a cliff edge with a perilous drop. If you make a save, you pull yourself to safety and avoid damage.

But since I was using my check to reach someone else and pull THEM to safety, I would rule that I still take the damage or at least partial damage. That would make my actions more self-sacrificing and heroic AND be true to the RAW.

I think the DM was holding punches because it was a table of five 1st-level characters and my 3rd-level character, many of the players were new, and he may have been worried about a TPK in a "throw-away" environmental challenge. My character might not have survived multiple attempts to save the other characters. If it were me, I would nerf the amount of damage rather than having me take no damage. And, as a player, I would have been okay dying in the attempt to save the others. But I've found character death to be very uncommon in AL games.

Click to expand...

I was thinking along similar lines to you. As DM, I would have allowed you to Rage, but then dealt HP damage from rocks and such striking you as you swam. Possibly a d8 each way (1 out, 1 in), for 6-48 damage to a Barbarian who at level 3 likely has 35 HP. In ruling relatively severe damage, I would be thinking of the heightened tension that might help create. The feat would pose deadly danger that would be palpable on that last swim out, for the third party unconscious member.

Coroc said:

[MENTION=6796661]MNblockhead[/MENTION]

"Tell me more about how this would work in your games. First, the RAW does not seem to support this, beyond the DM determining how NPCs and creatures react to someone who is raging. In your example, would you, as the DM, decide that the player attacks the table? That's not really my style. I want the player to play their character and they decide how their character acts. Also, intimiation is a CHA check, so it would be waste to burn a rage to intimidate as it gives no mechanical advantage. "

That is depending on the roleplaying of the player. The whole situation is a bit constructed and hypothetic but let us say it goes like this:

Conan the thirsty roleplays his character being in absolute need for a drink.

DM : The waiter seems to ignore you

Player : I get really upset and clench my fist

DM ruling you: get enraged and you want to hit something

Player either playing along or DM ruling: Make a wis save to see if you control your rage if it fails you hit the table.

See, this is just a funny RP situation to eventually bring the players into trouble or some other hook. Since it is no actual combat situation and besides a table no one gets harmed it is ok to burn one of the barbarians resources, since he probably gets it back. If for some reason I as the DM decided a tough fight ensures somehow shortly after that, and the barb would be treated unfairly because he is missing one of his resources I would DM rule:

The city guard arrives weapon drawn and out to kill, you will not leave without getting your drink, you grab a mug and down it, and it resets your daily uses of rage.

Click to expand...

I always wonder when Strength is suggested for social skills, does anyone ever allow Charisma to break down doors?

Narratively - the Barbarian Rages and attempts to Intimidate through Strength, and winds up in a cell to cool off for the night, given her Charisma 8 and lack of proficiency.