D&D 5E High Level Zealot Barbarians Immortal?

[Mephista]

This is a grey area with me. Yes they have the ability to do these things but do they know that doing so will kill them?

Its not a question of "hey, this will kill the raging maniac" but more along the lines of "this freak has a tough body, so I should use some other tactic than just stabbing or fireballs." And its not like its a huge secret that certain tactics tend to work well on the more physical beings than magic-oriented ones. It just so happens that the Zealot happens to fit the generalization. Really, it should be common sense - there's a reason why the enemy has these abilities in the first place, and they're not too dumb to realize how to best use them.

So, when the enemy in question uses these tactics, it just so happens to be the answer to the problem without realizing exactly how everything interacts together

 

[jaelis]

Even an ability like reactive rage would not be quick enough to allow such a thing.

Remind me about reactive rage?

If you had an ability that let you rage as a reaction upon taking damage, then you could on you turn drink a healing potion and then end your rage. The next time you took damage you could rage again, keeping you alive even if you drop to 0 hp. That way you would only be limited by your number of rages.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I may be confusing rules from other editions. There used to be a way to rage in response to taking damage in past editions. I think I confused that with the Feral Instinct ability.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Aw yes, now I know for sure, my next character will be a Half-Elf Zealot.
Party face barbarian and manic street preacher.

"Hail and well met, new friends! Let us drink ale together and revel in the name of Ishtar. Oh, you haven't heard the good word of Our Lady of Love and War? That's no problem at all, here's some literature about her majestic strength and beauty. No? What did you just say? Oh, dear, that's too bad. If your ears aren't willing to receive Ishtar's blessing, then instead they'll get MY WAR AXE!!!"

Consider that idea officially stolen. Thank you very much.

 

[Arial Black]

Immortal as long as the healing potions hold out? And you don't run out of rages?

But more likely, if you're hovering around 0 hp, you're going to have trouble surviving the round between rages. Remember you can't stop and start raging on the same turn.

But you can use a bonus action to enter a Rage, and there is nothing preventing you from doing that even if you are already Raging.

 

[Fanaelialae]

But you can use a bonus action to enter a Rage, and there is nothing preventing you from doing that even if you are already Raging.

Unless you're the target of something like Sleep or Banishment, and therefore incapacitated and incapable of taking actions. Heck, even a spell like Dominate would work since, even though you aren't incapacitated, the caster can choose to dictate your actions.

 

[jaelis]

But you can use a bonus action to enter a Rage, and there is nothing preventing you from doing that even if you are already Raging.

Myself, I would not let you enter a rage while you are already raging. But it is a point.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Myself, I would not let you enter a rage while you are already raging. But it is a point.

I'm not certain whether the RAI allows it or not, but by a certain reading of the rules you can't.

The rage rules state "on your turn, you can enter rage as a bonus action". It can be argued that you can't enter rage if you are already in that state (since you can't enter a state you are already in). The rules say nothing about using a second rage to extend the first (or allowing the new rage to overlap the first).

 

[Arial Black]

I'm not certain whether the RAI allows it or not, but by a certain reading of the rules you can't.

The rage rules state "on your turn, you can enter rage as a bonus action". It can be argued that you can't enter rage if you are already in that state (since you can't enter a state you are already in). The rules say nothing about using a second rage to extend the first (or allowing the new rage to overlap the first).

It could be argued that way, but not convincingly.

Rules already exist for the same effect stacking/not stacking. The new duration replaces the old. This is why we can't claim to be immune to incoming long duration debuffs if we are on the last round of a current debuff.

The effect of using your bonus action to Rage while you are already Raging is that it lasts longer at the cost of another use of the Rage ability, and you don't get many. It makes sense (so, I'm Raging longer! What of it? I paid the price!), and can hardly be seen as an immoral act or a cheezy meta-game exploit.

The rules let you do what they say they let you do. It would take a line forbidding you to use a bonus action to Rage while already Raging to prevent it. It already has permission simply by saying what you can do and how you do it.

Sure, a DM could houserule a nerf, but why? He's not getting anything for free. He's probably losing out on some rounds of duration over the whole day. Let him do as the rules say; it makes sense in-world, he's paying the cost, nothing has gone wrong here that needs the nerfbat.

 

[jgsugden]

Let's call the rules ambiguous enough. The question for the DM as rule arbiter is, "Which ruling tells the best stories?" These are heroes! Let them do amazing heroic things.