Interpreting Barbarian Rage in Non-combat Situations

[iserith]

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

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

"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.

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.

 

[epithet]

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

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.

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.

 

[Satyrn]

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

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

 

[Eis]

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

its a fairly commonly shown thing where someone needs their brute of a friend to get angry and so they slap him, insult his mom, whatever to get him riled up enough to accomplish whatever they're trying to do

 

[MNblockhead]

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.

I don't see anything in the RAW that require an "initative situation" -- but in this instance, we DID have to roll initiative and take turns, those making their athletic checks having to make decisions on whether and how to save those who did not.

 

[MNblockhead]

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.

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.

Again, I'm discussing the RAW. Obviously, we can all run our home games however we want and even in AL games the DMs have a lot of latitude in how they run their games.

 

[guachi]

Would Bruce Banner get angry and turn into the Hulk? That's my go-to on whether you can rage and stay raging.

Or just the idea of needing to attack. Remember Hulk punching Thor in the Avengers?

 

[MNblockhead]

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

I think that the more likely scenario would be that the party members slap the barbarian into action. I could see many DMs not allowing this, but I would. I would also allow the Barbarian to hit himself to keep a rage going.He'll have to take unarmed attack damage on himself, but that may be worth it in some situations. Also, I'd make him use frenzy, even though as this would be an attack and a non-attack action. So, it would be two actions and against the RAW, but I would allow it in my home game. For AL, or to stick to RAW, I think you would need another character to deal the damage.

Cornyn the Barbarian: I go into a rage and pull a rock of the cleric.

(makes Athletics check with advantage)

DM: with heroic effort you lift the boulder off the cleric. The relief of seeing the cleric alive, concsious, and freed from the boulder causes your rage to begin to wane.

Mickey the Cleric: There are others trapped! [unarmed attack on the barbarian] GET BACK OUT THERE AND SAVE THE OTHERS!

 

[MNblockhead]

Did the DM have the flood deal HP damage to your character?

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.