Interpreting Barbarian Rage in Non-combat Situations

[MNblockhead]

Is it ever appropriate per RAW for a Barbarian to rage outside of combat?

In my home campaign, the rule of cool would dictate hell yes. But in AL games, one must be more of a stickler for the rules.

In a recent AL game I joined a Tier 1 table playing a one-off (DDAL07-04 A Walk in the Park, if you are interested) with my 3rd-level Barbarian tortle (make whatever snide comments you want, he's awesome).

During the adventure, there was an environmental challenge -- a flash flood, involving strength saving throws. The party was rolling terribly and we soon had several members floating away making death saving throws. I asked the DM if I could rage and make athletic checks with advantage to attempt to swim out and grab someone and take them to safety. He made a comment that it wasn't combat but in this instance, he would allow it. With my high athletics modifier, advantage on strength checks from rage, my racial hold-breath ability, and Tymora blessing my dice, I managed to drag three unconscious, drowning party members to shore, where other players stabilized them.

It was one of the most fun non-combat moments I've had in a game. Several of the other players were first-time players and most had 1st level characters. So there was a lot of tension built up in what was probably meant to be a throwaway environmental encounter. There were high fives and it felt like we got through it by the skin of our teeth. So, I am very happy that the DM made the call he did. But the rules lawyer in me wonders if the DM was ignoring the rule in favor of the rule of cool. By RAW, is the above scenario possible. I *think* so.

The rule for "Rage" in the Barbarian section of the PHB states (highlighting mine):

In battle, you fight with primal ferocity. On your turn, you can enter a rage as a bonus action.


While raging, you gain the following benefits if you aren’t wearing heavy armor:

• You have advantage on Strength checks and Strength saving throws.
• When you make a melee weapon attack using Strength, you gain a bonus to the damage roll that increases as you gain levels as a barbarian, as shown in the Rage Damage column of the Barbarian table.
• You have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage.

If you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or concentrate on them while raging.


Your rage lasts for 1 minute. It 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.


Once you have raged the number of times shown for your barbarian level in the Rages column of the Barbarian table, you must finish a long rest before you can rage again.

I read the RAW as saying that I can rage for any reason and can continue the rage for up to one minute so long as I take damage. This makes sense to me. If my party and I have rubble fall on us, hurting us and pinning us to the ground, the pain of that, and the concern for my comrades, should allow me to "hulk out" -- to burn a rage and get advantage on my athletics check to push the boulder off of me or a party member. It also makes the barbarian more interesting out of combat. Out of combat, the rage may end sooner if I'm not taking ongoing damage, but that is fine.

Now the rage section does begin with the phrase: "In battle, you fight with primal ferocity." But I argue that this is obiter dicta. It is a remark about the typical scenario but not a necessary part of the rules. It is flavor, not crunch. The rule does not specifically state that you must be in a battle to rage. I can see why a DM may argue that rage is only discussed in the PHB in the context of battle, but it doesn't specifically spell out a requirement that you have to be in combat to rage.

If you accept that, then the next question is whether you can continue a non-combat rage beyond one turn. To continue my rage, I need to attack a hostile creature OR I need to take damage since my last turn. The rule does not state that damage must be dealt by a hostile creature. It simply states that if I have taken damage, my rage continues. I would argue then, that if I'm in a flash flood that is buffeting me against rocks and trees and I'm taking damage every time I swim out, my rage should be allowed to continue. I would also argue that a party member could make an unarmed attack against me, e.g., punch me and deliver a small amount of damage, to allow me to continue my rage.

I see nothing unbalancing about this. It is unlikely that a barbarian is going to use rage outside of combat. But when life-and-death non-combat strength checks are required, it just seems right to allow a barbarian to hulk out and burn a resource to help a party continue forward.

 

[Dioltach]

To be something of a rules lawyer (which I suppose is what you're asking for), the text says "in battle", not "in combat". I'd say that "combat" is the term usually described for fights in D&D, meaning that "battle" is open to a freer interpretation: a battle against the elements, for example, or even a battle of wits (although that doesn't really apply here).

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

My ruling would simply be: if you are not in an initiative situation, you cannot rage. Further, while this is probably a more grey area for many people, I tend to take the "rage" part more literally, in that you cannot think rationally and plan complex stuff while raging. I would not let you rage in the situation you described, but I may let you rage if, say, there is a door you cannot seem to budge, so you lose your cool and rage and "Hulk smash" it. Because that is what a raging barbarian has always been to me: Hulk smash.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I can't think of any reason why someone getting frustrated and raging against their inability to succeed against the tide, or help their allies, should be any less effective than raging in combat.

I would, in fact, allow "Must make an Athletics check or other action intended to work toward success" to replace "must attack" in order to keep the rage going.

I admit it's not RAW, but I see zero reason--either for balance or flavor--not to permit it.

(If we're going with "Hulk smash!" as a baseline, I would point out the end of the first Avengers movie, where Hulk is the one to leap up and save Stark as he's plummeting, and then roars him awake, well after the battle is over. Rage has all manner of causes, and doesn't have to indicate a total loss of control.)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

As DM, I allow barbarian rage at any point a character might "hulk out". E.g. a party member is trapped under a fallen roof. There are features of rage that support that - advantage on strength checks.


But as for AL, don't play it, and never would.

 

[Coroc]

Of course, but it has to come with both advantages and disadvantages.
E.g. Think about the barbarian in the tavern getting enraged, because his beer does not arrive in time. So the waiter might be intimidated into bringing it faster, otoh the table might have to survive a crushing blow (saving throw DC 10+ the barbarians strength) while the barbarian is hitting it.

 

[Imaculata]

Rule of cool always comes first in my opinion. I would definitely let the barbarian rage to save his friends from a flash flood.

 

[ccs]

My ruling would simply be: if you are not in an initiative situation, you cannot rage.

Oh I'd argue that trying to save my friends from washing away & drowning would absolutely be an initiative situation. There's a very clear clock on this.
Afterall, I have to act & succeed before A) the river moves them beyond my reach, B) it cycles back around to their turn & they finish drowning.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

My ruling would simply be: if you are not in an initiative situation, you cannot rage.

"I punch Mike" (Mike being a party member if no one else is available). The Barbarian is now in combat, rolls initiative, and can rescue his party from the flood.

 

[corwyn77]

"I punch Mike" (Mike being a party member if no one else is available). The Barbarian is now in combat, rolls initiative, and can rescue his party from the flood.

Well, he would still have to make an attack or take damage every round. Mike might not be too happy with that.